1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Discussion in 'Serious' started by TheBlackSwordsMan, 22 Feb 2016.

  1. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,739
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    It's a necessary prerequisite.
     
  2. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,284
    Likes Received:
    183
    I'm pretty sure neither naivety nor wanting it are prerequisites to being conned.
     
  3. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,739
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    37% of the voting public proves otherwise. :p
     
  4. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    Maths was never my strong point but isn't it less than that, 17,410,742 voted to leave but wasn't the total eligible to vote 46,499,537

    Like i said i suck at maths so I'll leave someone else to work out what percentage that is. :D
     
  5. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,284
    Likes Received:
    183
    Just because naivety isn't required doesn't mean it is never a component in a con.
     
    Last edited: 8 Sep 2016
  6. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,284
    Likes Received:
    183

    Those that didn't vote might as well not exist when it comes to the referendum (or any vote) so 51% is an accurate representation from that perspective.
     
  7. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    Told you my maths was awful, i just worked out that the exact percentage was %37.4428287318 of the total eligible vote, democracy, don't you just love it. :)

    It could be said those who didn't vote were happy with the status quo.
     
  8. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,284
    Likes Received:
    183
    If they were happy with the status quo they should have voted to remain. It would be fair to say that most of those that didn't vote probably didn't care, some even didn't vote because they felt they didn't know enough on the matter
     
    Disequilibria likes this.
  9. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,739
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Or perhaps they felt that they didn't know and wanted the government to decide --who after all are elected to make such complex decisions. That's the whole idea of a representative democracy.
     
  10. walle

    walle Modder

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,896
    Likes Received:
    119
    It's both, altruism can be applied in context of your own group, not just extended groups.

    You now moved from altruism to prejudice to hate to racism....and....You just said right there that you don't make any distinction between race and culture. Therefore, for you, everything comes down to racism, making racism subjective therefore malleable.

    On National Socialism
    Their policy of eugenics included their own race and their own ethnicity too. They divided their own group into various subcategories of Germans, some was deemed pure, others less pure, and others were up for termination. I alluded to this this at page 192 post #3836.

    Some things are also objective.

    For you racism is subjective, for me it is objective, same thing in society, you either have laws and policies that are racist, or you do not. If you can't show me a law that is racist in intent, if you can't show me a party that has a racist ideology and policy, then it is not racist.

    You and I are not going to see eye to eye on this Nexxo, perhaps it is best we call it a day and move on.
     
    Disequilibria likes this.
  11. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,739
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Er, no, you did? You brought up altruism in the context of a discussion about prejudice and racism.

    And not making a distinction between hating someone for their culture and hating someone for their race is not the same as making no distinction between culture and race. It is making no distinction between hate based one attribute and hate based on another.

    That is an interesting and accurate observation, but does not dispute what I said: that the Germans redefined their own nationality and another group's religion as a "race".

    Racism is by its definition subjective because it involves value judgements. That is why racists rarely admit that they are racist: they like to think that their prejudice is an objective truth.

    But let's agree to disagree.
     
  12. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,284
    Likes Received:
    183
    You mean the government that was elected by a system you criticised but a handful of posts ago? You know the one that it isn't actually representative of the people? Yeah Nexxo, perhaps that is the case and perhaps it was the case that the flying spaghetti monster guided the hand of the people who voted, because it hates the EU. :rolleyes:

    Whilst you might think your fellow countrymen are bunch of dribbling imbeciles, there is nothing wrong in having the vote and putting the question to the people. That's how democracies work after all. The problem was the utter ham fisted manner in which it was done. An exit could never be properly scrutinised because an exit strategy wasn't developed before the vote. It still hasn't been developed. You were just left with a handful of promises that couldn't be scrutinised because when someone said that promise was wrong, the retorted is simply, "no the promise is right and you are wrong".

    Since there was nothing to scrutinised and examine, if you wanted out, you just had to take your chances. Whilst it seems you would like the Nexxo dictatorship of: I know better than everyone because you are all dribbling morons, the reality is the blame for your perceived future financial jeopardy is in the hands of Cameron and the government you are so willing to hand over the every decision that faces the country. It is certainly not the people who were presented with an incomplete choice and voted in a manner you disagree with.

    Cameron had a full six years to have someone develop an exit strategy over which the public could take or leave, but instead chose to just fling a mickey to the pigs and just go for it as is, no plan, no nothing. Given he resigned, its clear he was overly confident that he would win.
     
  13. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    That's certainly a possibility, although i suspect Nexxo got closer to the truth of the matter, I'd say the ones who were happy with the status quo and more importantly knew why they were voted to remain, then there's those who voted that way without understanding why, but more importantly there were those who didn't understand what they were voting on and decided just not to vote.

    Maybe my assumption is wrong that when people are asked to decide on an important topic they don't understand they'll choose not to make a decision rather than risking the possibility of making the wrong one, i seem to remember reading something along those lines although maybe I'm talking out my rear end. :)
     
  14. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,739
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Or perhaps people thought: "This is too complicated a decision for me to make. I'll let the government decide --that's what they are there for, after all". And in a representative democracy, that is what they are there for.

    I am hypothesising about their thinking on the matter, not mine. ;)

    Democracy is the least bad of all systems (as they say) if the electorate is informed and engaged and uses its common sense. But in this case the electorate, rather than saying to themselves: "Someone who promises unicorns is obviously either a bit crazy or trying to con us", went: "Oooh! Unicorns!".

    No, you can't have it both ways. You cannot argue that democracy and the will of the electorate is supreme, and then lay all the responsibility for this cluster**** with the government. With absolute power comes absolute responsibility. If the electorate cannot be held responsible for their decision, they should not have any decision making power. If they should have the ultimate decision making power, then they have ultimate responsibility.

    Cameron was an arrogant idiot (elected by the people, so there's an endorsement). He certainly carries part of the blame. But if you argue that democracy is supreme, then with that power comes responsibility and a huge chunk of the blame lies with the electorate also. It's funny how I am supposed to be anti-democratic for recognising the democratic power and responsibility of the electorate, while people who supposedly support democracy absolve the electorate of any power and responsibility for their vote.
     
    Last edited: 8 Sep 2016
  15. GreatPretender

    GreatPretender What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    26 Jun 2016
    Posts:
    41
    Likes Received:
    1
    I nearly spat my coffee out reading that little pearler!! I did laugh and heartily so!!

    I'm not raging or full of rage, I just dislike you and your pompous, self righteous and condescending posts. Let's be clear there. When I dislike someone or something, I express that so there is no doubt. Being right is what you are all about Nexxo, you crave it and it's obvious!
     
  16. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,284
    Likes Received:
    183
    How on earth can you think "I'll let the government decide" when you are being asked directly? You aren't hypothesising on their thoughts, you're projecting your own perceptions of these people on to this hypothetical electorate.

    Its the least bad, yet you seem to lean towards totalitarianism for some reason.

    What I've said is not having it both ways. In this case being responsible (in your opinion) was to vote in. However, it would be quite straight forward to constantly present the "safe" option (aka the organiser's preferred option) and a half arsed, hair brained scheme in referendums. In the case of a sensible electorate, that does their due diligence and who won't vote for the hair brained scheme, you always get the result you want and democracy fails.

    No, a properly functioning government presents a full choice to the people. The government and the people must both do some work. If you aren't given a fully fleshed out proposal, what do you do then? Vote out it seems.

    Yes its clear the electorate weren't fully informed. But it was impossible to be fully informed. The government prevented a fully informed decision from being made by not laying out a plan to leave for the people to decide on. The result was speculation on what would happen on a leave, which could quite easily be dismissed as scare-mongering. The people were not given the option, of "go back and think about it some more and give us a proper plan and then we'll have a proper referendum". They had to seize the opportunity as it was presented to them or lose it entirely.

    Your point would only really be valid if there was a full plan put together, that plan had universally bad repercussions and the people still voted to go ahead with it. Even then you point would only hold so much weight because believe it or not, in spite of those repercussions the people might still think that the plan was still worth it.
     
  17. rainbowbridge

    rainbowbridge Minimodder

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    69
    Last edited: 9 Sep 2016
  18. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,739
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    I think that is your projection. I think that democracy is not inherently sacred. I do not think that an opinion is right, moral, fair, wise or valid just because it's held by a majority. I think that with democratic power comes responsibility. Else it is not democracy at all but mob rule, and tyranny by the majority is still tyranny.

    And why so I think people may think like that? Because I see patients think like that all the time. The doctor asks them: "These are the options for treating your cancer. These are their pros and cons. What would you like us to do?". And many patients respond: "You know best, doctor. You're the expert, you decide". And for most people, who barely know where their stomach is located that is actually not a bad strategy.

    Patients who are not happy to hand that power to the doctor hit the internet and become expert patients on their condition, and have wise and informed discussions with their consultant about how to treat their illness.

    I disagree. If the electorate has ultimate decision making power, then it has ultimate responsibility to make an informed decision. It was quite possible to do some reading on the internet and at least get a overview of the issues. I did (In fact, judging by some of the statements by the likes of John Redwood and David Davis, I seem to be better informed than they are, and that is not reassuring). Many other people did. And it certainly doesn't take a genius to recognise when you are being promised unicorns. Feel the referendum was poorly set up? Feel conned? Vote for another government in 2020 and demand a better one.

    And if Cameron is responsible for not informing people properly, isn't UKIP and Vote Leave at least equally responsible? They were the ones that wanted to leave, after all. They campaigned for this question to be put to the people. They had two decades to get their arguments and plans together and inform the electorate so they could make a valid democratic decision. Instead they dangled unicorns in front of people, and fears of foreign criminals, rapist and terrorists. The day after the referendum the unicorns disappeared. So who has damaged public trust and the democratic process more: a PM who asked a stupid question without being prepared for the answer, or a group of politicians who forced the question in the first place without having an answer, and who made promises that they recanted the very day after winning the vote?

    We will see when they find out what these repercussions actually are. You are basically arguing that people would only be unwise to vote for a course of action that they knew to be bad. I argue that people are unwise to vote for a course of action without knowing whether it is any good.

    EDIT: meanwhile it looks like Brexit is going to require a cut in public spending to finance its process (are we saving money and giving to the NHS yet?), the First Minister of Wales states that he will not consent to a Brexit that loses access to the single market, and is talking about the UK becoming a federation, and a newly appointed EU negotiator states that Scotland can retain EU membership if it decided to go independent. This is on top of the headache of how to keep an open border in N. Ireland and preserve the Good Friday agreement (then again, N. Ireland may rejoin Ireland), and a possibly new French government in 2017 tearing up the Touquet agreement. I wonder how many people had all that in mind when they ticked the "Leave" box.
     
    Last edited: 9 Sep 2016
  19. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    I'm not sure anyone is saying the electorate should be fully informed, it seemed some of the politicians weren't so expecting the electorate to be is stretching it, however you'd expect the electorate to be well informed, and judging by polling data they clearly weren't.

    Only 33% of the electorate claimed to be well informed one week from polling day, compared to 59% five months before polling day in the Scottish referendum, and a shocking 28% said they were poorly informed or very poorly informed 8 days before the EU referendum.

    It's really not about being fully informed it's about being informed enough to make an educated decision, about being given information on a particular subject, something it seems 28% of voters weren't given,
     
  20. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,739
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    BTW it is gratifying to know that I have acquired my own tag in this thread. :D

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page