E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

I won't deal with all of your points, but in terms of taking more out or putting more in. It's largely about giving other countries a boost financially. The financial aid allows them to develop faster than they can on their own. Once they become better off they can start to contribute to the other countries.

I believe Ireland is close to parity in terms of fees paid and money received. If growth continues it will eventually be a net contributor and help other countries with the sort of aid that was provided by the EU to Ireland.

Allowing all of the EU to develop faster by redistributing a portion of a countries income is beneficial to all countries, not just the country that receives the aid.

 

That list gets really eye-rolly when you replace "Europe" with "Britain", and "Britain" with "Northern Ireland".

 

Late reply, been away.

I know and understand what racism is Nexxo, the issue here is that it's being thrown around to left right and center without much thought going in to it, in-group-outgroup bias – be that racial, ethnical or cultural – brings us back to altruistic survival strategy, which is hardwired. That in and of itself doesn't automatically mean you hate or fear foreigners or strangers, or turn racist then move onto become say genocidal. There are nuances here that most people ignore.

It is clear that we can't agree on what makes a political party racist. I said; A political party that is a racist party base their politics and policies on racial superiority. Then – if they can - implement those as state policy. National Socialism would be an example of this. There has to be an ideology behind it.

As for Brexit, well, it wasn't about racism but about culture.


Ninja edit.

All pirate ships are boats but all boats are not pirate ships, that's the problem with UKIP, some racists like them, but that doesn't mean the party is racist.

 

First:

altruism ˈaltrʊɪz(ə)m/

noun

disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

So we're not talking about altruism; quite the opposite in fact.

Second: Instinctual survival strategies are basically heuristic experiential behaviour patterns designed for a simple natural environment. It is not a logical, rational analytical approach to complex human situations and does not necessarily lead to an optimal outcome. A lot of my clinical psychology clients end up in a huge mess because of where their survival strategies took them. Hence in-group out-group bias do lead to prejudice, can lead to racism and even to genocide. Doesn't mean it will, but that's where it fundamentally comes from. Don't romanticise basic natural instinct. We evolved frontal lobes for a reason.

I don't see how that makes any difference. Germany's National Socialism saw Germans as a "race", and saw Jews as a "race", while both were clearly cultural groups and the latter even strictly speaking a religion. Turns out racists don't make such fine distinctions. Other is other is bad.

Moreover I don't see how prejudice based on culture is somehow "better" than prejudice based on race or ethnicity. Defending racism with: "Well, technically it's not racism..." is hardly a strong defence. But if you want to cast it in more general terms: UKIP is a party of dicks, who advocate dickish attitude and behaviour towards human beings who are regarded by them as Not Like Us. Vote Leave aligned its campaign with a dickish campaign ran by dicks. They basically put on the "I'm with dick" T-shirt. So now the referendum is perceived to have been won on a fundamentally dickish platform, and rightly or wrongly Leavers are regarded as dicks. And the UK is regarded as a country of dicks.

There, does that resolve the whole debate about what label to stick on it?

Its leader is racist*; many of its party officials are racist*; many people who vote for it are racist*. I think that UKIP has a bit of an identity problem here.

* Feel free to replace with "a dick" and "dicks" where appropriate.

 

Only its changed far more and quicker in the short 40+ years its been in existence than the entire 300 years of the UK parliament.

Due to size the UK government cannot care about individuals and paints in giant brush strokes, one size doesn't fit all.

The bitter irony is that a majority of people didn't vote for Brexit (29m) yet according to a minority (17.5m) of people they were wrong.

Not sure how leave the EU is going to change any of that, politicians will still be out of touch, they'll still blame others and there will still be no accountability.

When comparing the group we have more control over against the group we less control over the latter brings more benefits to the country than the former.

Could it be you misheard the politicians as we don't only trade with Europe, to do that would mean not selling anything to Asia, America, Russia, Africa and the like, what they probably meant was that Europe negotiates trade deals on the behalf of all countries as a bloc.

The EU and presently by extension the UK has 29 trade agreements already in place that cover most of the world, for obvious reasons we now need to negotiate our own trade deals.

If Europe sinks they'll be no escaping the consequences.

That's the thing about living in a community, if one of you is doing badly it has a knock on effect, it's a laudable goal paying for yourself but if you can't earn any money because no one can afford what you're selling your going to find that increasingly difficult.

 

In fact we are talking about altruism, those within our own group, again, it's hardwired.

Which I have recognized, and those things tend to happen when you mix groups to have them share the same space and compete for the same resources, hence I mentioned balance at page 190 post #3790 to which you replied:Yeah, things work when they work, while they work, as long as they work. Balance was in context of the amount of immigrants allowed into any given country, this brings us back to the cultural aspect and why I keep saying Brexit was not about racism but about culture.

If that's the case you're not making the distinction between culture and race. Thus you do not see nuances, you see everything in black and white which means that for you everything comes down to racism.

And yes Nexxo, some cultures are "better" than others, if not people wouldn't be escaping their mediocre existence created by their own culture. It's all in context.

And I refer you back to what constitutes a racist party, and it's clear that we can't agree on what makes a party racist.

 

That's not correct, the correct transposition would be pirates are drawn to pirate ships, doesn't that prove pirate ships have pirates on-board.

That's an easy one, a racist party is a party that has the highest percentage of racists.

 

No, you are conflating looking after your own with altruism. You're thinking about inclusive fitness. Although some wonky theories suggest that inclusive fitness leads to altruistic behaviour, the former is predicated upon tribal/genetic relationships, whereas the latter does not consider relationships at all.

No, I am saying that: 1. they aren't, and 2. I don't see a difference between hating on people because of their race and hating on people because of their culture. Unless you are saying that the latter is more valid because...

It is a small step from prejudice of culture, and the rationalisation thereof, to racism and the rationalisation thereof. Again, Nazi Germany had no problem re-casting themselves and the Jews as a "race", thus bolstering their eugenic argument. Basically whenever you start thinking of your own group as inherently "better", you are on the rocky road of fascism and racism.

What makes for a "better" culture is subjective. Whereas some people try to escape a certain culture, others flock to it. See ISIS for instance. And of course some people just try to escape an oppressive government, civil war or economic poverty, and bring their culture with them, because it is valued.

 

Sorry for being late to the discussion.

1. Every Uk government department has its own negotiating team that tries to ensure that UK views are well represented within EU law. Additionally Foreign Office And the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (as it was) did a lot of coordination on EU measures. All of it was designed to make sure that uk interests were represented at the policy stages before laws were considered. We got our way on many things and often what had originally been part of UK legislation was later adopted across the EU.

2. You're right that one size doesn't fit all. Mostly though, it suited the UK to adopt EU legislation without any modifications. One piece of legislation in my area springs to mind - tobacco warnings. We have been leading the push across Europe and they have been slow to follow but with the Tobacco Products Directive they are taking our direction. Even so we are pushing ahead of the game and demonstrated that we will not be restricted to the one size fits all approach. And the latest legislation was passed before the referendum.

So this argument doesn't apply. We only follow the rest of Europe when it benefits us.

3. Yes, politicians are often out of touch. However they may use this as a tactic to divert attention away from themselves. Generally they will be looking for an angle to make things better for themselves. What you have to ask yourself is how do they benefit from any decision?

4. We already have the power to instigate tight controls but we choose not to use them. Our politicians hide behind Europe as a way of distracting from their own decisions. France recently demonstrated the true level of power by denying entry to a UK aid convoy, in the midst of the terrorist attacks.

5. We trade with Europe. What I think they meant was that, as a part of Europe, it is easier for us to go along with the deals that Europe negotiates with other countries than for us to negotiate them ourselves. As Nexxo says, together we are a larger economic power and hence a better bet for getting good deals. Alone, we are only the 8th largest economy in the world (overtaken by France as a result of Brexit) and as the USA said, we'll be at the end of the queue.

6. We are a part of the global economy. When we voted for Brexit, the economy of the whole world dipped because of the uncertainty it brought. We dipped more than most and France overtook us as the 7th largest economy. Any change anywhere has knock on effects for everything. So if the EU fails, it will affect us, just as it affects India, China, and every other globally trading nation.

7. We pay into Europe and get less out than we pay in. That's the nature of socialism - the rich should always do more for the poor. But actually we benefitted more than the £350m per week in contributions through stability for our economy. Since Brexit the economy has tanked and though it may be months before the full impact is known, early reports were that we lost $10bn in just one day.

 

From what I understand France was allowed to close its borders like that because it was in a state of national emergency. Under every day conditions it would be difficult to selectively stop people entering the country

 

If anyone cares parliament debated the petition for a 2nd referendum today.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/cb2f33f6-f9fe-463e-a6d5-40eca4b614c0

You may want to skip the first 17m as an SNP MP rambled on talking about everything other than a 2nd referendum.

 

Well, it's estimated that Brexit will cost £15 billion in public finances over the next two years. That's about two years of EU membership. Are we saving money yet?

 

I love the way The Telegraph spins it as one in the eye for pre-brexit predictions from the treasury, look, look it's only half as bad as the treasury predicted...

 

Indeed. And this is just the beginning, because nothing has happened yet. The UK is still running on last years' contracts, business decisions and investments. Wait until next April...

https://www.ft.com/content/41ea5914-74f5-11e6-b60a-de4532d5ea35

 

Never mind, only another 15-30 year to go...

 

By which time we probably will have hit the Jackpot and the whole world will come crashing down anyway.

It is obvious that Brexit is going to be the biggest damage limitation exercise in history. Cameron asked the question that should never have been asked, and the government's problem is now how to give the electorate the illusion of what they wanted while trying to preserve the country's entire economy.

I know that there are Leavers who feel that they made an informed, rational choice, but if you read the comments section in The Express you really see what a bunch of crazy whack jobs many Leavers are.

 

That's YOUR opinion Nexxo, not one shared by the many who wanted a referendum and wanted a say on whether we should continue our membership or not. The question had to be asked as far as I and many others were concerned. EU sentiment in the UK has waned to a level where people here simply didn't see the value or merit of continued membership, it wasn't trusted and still isn't. You can apportion blame all you want for those simple facts and I'm sure you'll relish blaming the "inane, stupid or whatever term you choose to ridicule" electorate as you usually do, but it did mean a referendum was the right thing to do for the many like me. Let's remember too that the promise of a referendum was in the Conservative manifesto in the 2015 general elections, you know the one where the Tories gained a majority rule in the commons, albeit a very slight one.

I'd say you want Brexit to fail, in fact I'd say you want it to fail spectacularly, just so you can bathe in your own self righteousness. That would be regardless of whether it actually brought any benefits to the UK and it's populace or not. Every single post you've made here demonstrates that.

Edit:
In fact, if you want to blame anyone, blame the remain campaign and their campaigners! We heard nothing but doomsday scenarios from them, they have learned that British folk don't react well to veiled threats or scaremongering! They could have spent much more of their time sharing with us the benefits of EU membership and why we should remain, but they chose to put negativity to the forefront. You are as guilty as them too.

I wanted to hear plans on how we could positively address issues that exist within the EU and in the UK as a result of EU membership. I also wanted honest acknowledgement that the issues existed. All I got was "we can work better from the inside rather than leaving". No plans for achieving that though, no real acknowledgement of the issues other than a whimsy "we know there are problems and we can work on them as members". Sod that, if the vote had been to remain, we all know damned well it would have been a case of carry on regardless with piecemeal soundbites to appease the masses as usual. Why the hell would I vote for that????

 

I thought we weren't talking?

Referendum results seem to suggest that 37% doesn't trust the EU, 34% very much does and 29% is pretty much "meh" about it either way. But, you know, some people don't trust doctors or modern medicine. Some people don't trust flying. Some people don't trust cats (shifty looking creatures). Doesn't mean they are right.

It was the wrong question to ask because most people didn't understand the question, and the government doesn't really understand the answer either, as witnessed by a painful analysis of what the electorate actually wants and what it is prepared to sacrifice for it.

IIRC 34% of the country voted for the Tories. Gotta love FPTP. So democratic!

Actually I just want the NHS to survive long enough for me to retire (and that looks decidedly dodgy from where I'm sitting), upon which I will hopefully leave the UK, and my pension, paid in GBP will still be worth something in Euros. So I very much want Brexit to succeed. Unlike you, it seems (since here you are talking to me again) I value being happy more than I value being right. But hope, unfortunately, is not a strategy. So I would like very much for this government to have a Brexit plan, please, that will not ruin the British economy that my economic future unfortunately is tied up with.

So it's not the fault of Vote Leave lying to the electorate and making a lot of promises of unicorns for everybody that they disavowed the day after the vote, it's the fault of Remain for not being able to come up with promises that were more compelling than unicorns. Yeah, sod those Remainers with their facts and reasons! Unicorns are so much better!

Perhaps the British electorate should not have voted almost exclusively UKIP MEPs into European Parliament then; you know, the political party that would like to see the UK out of it rather than working with it (the only MEP with a worse attendance record than Farage is a severely disabled gentleman in a wheelchair). Perhaps it should have informed itself on what the EU is. By mainland European standards, the British electorate's ignorance about the EU is staggering. But what do you expect from people who read the Sun, the Daily Mail and The Express?

That was the problem for Remain. "Well yes, the EU is not perfect, but there are a lot of benefits to being a member, and a lot of complicated reasons why coming out won't be as easy as that and will have economic--" "Never mind those experts! We're had enough of experts. Vote Leave and we'll all have unicorns!". And the crowd goes "OOOOooh!"

Sorry, but to naive minds unicorns beat boring facts and reasons every time.

So why vote for staying in? Never mind that, what is your plan for coming out? UKIP and assorted Brexiteers have campaigned for over two decades, finally got what they wanted, and they still haven't got a plan. Does Farage have a plan? No. He has been queueing up at the German embassy to make sure his daughters retain EU citizenship. He has a property in France (probably right next to the home of that Eurosceptic Nigel Lawson). That's his plan. Does Boris Johnson have a plan? David Davis? Liam Fox? The referendum was promised in 2015 and it's been two months since. They can't even decide amongst themselves what Brexit means.

And we already know, neither do you.

You got what you wanted and you're still a little ball of rage, and that ought to tell you something. Me, I like to be happy more than I like to be right. So if you don't mind, I won't reply to your posts again.

 

Lol. There's no way you won't reply to his posts again.

Naivety != wanting to be conned

 

Not wanting to step on any toes but that's simply not true, a minority of people wanted a referendum, something like a 20%, and now a similarly small percentage (30%) of the population are forcing their opinion on the majority.

The only reason the question had to be asked is because Conservatives couldn't stop banging on about Europe and it was threatening to tear them apart, Mr Cameron gambled with the future of both his party and the country on something he himself admitted shouldn't been done.

Personally i don't blame the electorate, that would be like blaming immigrants for the lack of public services (see what is did there ) ultimately the politicians are to blame, their the ones who failed to educate the public, their the ones who offered the referendum that with previously unreleased polling showed how far too many people felt they were ill-informed about the issues, and as has been said before democracy requires an educated and well informed electorate, something the politicians failed to do on a biblical scale, ultimately they let voters down.

I guess it's a good job the likes of Nexxo and myself aren't influencing global markets then isn't it, fact is if Brexit fails it will have nothing to do with the intentions or irreverence of people that wanted to remain, if Brexit fails it will be down to the politicians, the global markets, the supernationals, and the very same elites this Brexit was meant to show two fingers too.

Oh please, do you seriously think veiled threats, scaremongering, and doomsday scenarios have anything to do with international markets and governments, they'll do what they do and no amount of negative or positive vibes are going to change the cold hard facts.

Haven't we been over this already?

Wasn't it explained how the EU has changed more in its short 40 odd year existence than the 300 years UK parliament has existed, to say you wanted honest acknowledgement that issues existed, and that you wanted a plan for how changes would be achieved shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the democratic process, even more so when you say we'd get piecemeal soundbites to appease the masses.

Is it any wonder you think people are blaming the "inane, stupid or choosing to ridicule when it seems on the surface that most people who voted to leave don't understand some of the most fundamental issues involved, such as what a trade deal is.