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. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    420
    That happens regardless of the EU existing or not, look at how America tries to police the world for example.

    You could make the very same argument about the pound and various parts of the UK.

    Standards should have been strictly enforced and every country should have had its affairs fully audited prior to entry negotiations even being allowed to begin.

    Hindsight is 20/20 and all that...

    It is a work in progress, digital single market for example is currently being worked on.

    Given the size difference between some of the different countries you need safeguards against the big countries like Germany, France or the UK abusing their power, is qualified majority voting the perfect solution? Perhaps not, but certainly vastly superior to no such safeguards.

    If the EU allowed the UK (or other members) to make their own trade rules with outside countries it would cause massive issues with the then necessary safeguards against that trade affecting the rest of the EU.

    Tariffs like any other source of money is extremely addictive for Governments, having more freedom to determine them would lead to higher tariffs overall, not lower ones.

    Like the House of Lords getting to shoot down cuts to its own Champagne budget?

    Connect the dots between the financial crisis and the lack of defence spending.
    Also the Nato is an entirely different organisation than the EU.

    The EU army is nothing but a brain fart that won't happen for practical reasons.

    You could also blame that one on the Eurosceptics who refuse to give the EU the necessary bite when it comes to enforcement of the rules.

    Two wrongs don't make one right.


    You want rules to be applied equally yet somehow think it was a bad thing to partially give up an unfair advantage?
    If we go for same rules for everyone then we should have never been given a single penny worth of rebates in the first place.
     
  2. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    44
    It was actually a topic brought up by my history teacher way back when and we got talking (which was interesting because it was not part of the curriculum anymore than white slavery was) as a matter of fact, you can include the slaves in the South. Though most of them did not riot they preferred to stay with their former masters for the very same reasons, that you can attribute as an example of autodidactism if you will. Not that you really teach yourself history as much as you discover and extract meaning from it. :)
     
  3. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,407
    Likes Received:
    334
    People are only being patronised and dismissed because they've chosen to willfully ignore the facts, because they prefer to listen to populist politicians who uses simplistic language, because instead of listening to people who've spent years becoming experts in their field they prefer zingy one liners.

    So while you may feel you've been patronised and dismissed, that you've not been listened to, that the likes of Mr Farage have done the opposite that's not what's happened.

    People have spent inordinate amounts of time painstakingly trying to explain complex problems to other people, however they've been told people have had enough of experts, they get told how they're being patronising and dismissive, they get accused of calling people 'uninformed and unthinking' and all because what they're being told doesn't chime with what the populist politicians and billion dollar media magnet have been telling them.

    But here's the thing that's only 5% of the UK population, if a country can't cope with a 5% increase in population is that really the fault of those 5 in every 100 people, or could it be down to a government that's perused an ideological austerity program that's widely believed to be counter productive, i mean if a country can't cope with a 5% increase in population I'd say you have a lot more to worry about.

    Quelle surprise that a Minister would blame someone else rather than admit how they've run public services so far into the ground that they can no longer cope with current demand let alone a 5% increase in population.

    And they'd be right because they can see how what she said is nothing more than our governments attempt to cover their own ass, because if she actually told the truth the electorate of the UK would be baying for the governments blood.

    I've not double checked this assertion so can't be sure it's 100% correct but IIRC there was a direct correlation between the amount of austerity an area had been subjected to and the percentage of people who voted to leave, and if IIRC Mr Osbourne even said austerity was the main driving force behind the vote to leave the EU.

    Basically all the noise around Brexit boils down to how our governments failed austerity program has effected peoples lives, because "living within our means" and "cutting our cloth to fit" is easier for the electorate to understand than the counter intuitive theory that during times of reduced private sector spending that a government should actually increase public spending, not reduce it as our government decided to do.
     
    Last edited: 6 Dec 2016
  4. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Member

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    How convenient it is that the very reason people voted for something you didn't like was as a result of some other policy you didn't like.

    I'm sure the weight you put on a simple correlation is the result of the study's rigorous statistical methods and its deep look into all possible explanations and not just simply a data manipulation that fits a social science researcher's own political beliefs and that sits well with hard core remainer's narratives.
     
  5. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,657
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Well, hasn't it been abundantly stated from all sides, Leave and Remain, that Leave voters worried about queues at the NHS, housing shortages, lack of school places and poor wages? And aren't those all the result of severe government cuts under the austerity programme?
     
  6. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    government has lost the appeal

    why?

     
  7. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,164
    Likes Received:
    145
    So does this mean the Brexit has to go through a debate and vote in parliament?
     
  8. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Member

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    1) Those effects are not necessarily all the result of government cuts. Housing issues is more likely a regulatory issue in the main, poor wages are a result of complex factors, NHS queues are not necessarily the result of austerity but a result of other issues again more complex.

    2) Lack of control over immigration will factor into all of those issues, some of them more than austerity and some less, just because such issues may have multiple driving factors doesn't mean that one of those causes is unimportant. Some issues will be positively affected by lack of funds i.e. it removed the ability of certain bodies to engage in counter intuitive policies.

    3) I'd like to see their methodology was in investigating this. The reality is when a so called social scientist finds a correlation between two factors and makes the implication of causality there is often a lack of desire to actually prove the alternate hypothesis wrong even though there are often innumerable reasons why it is not likely to be right.

    Also moreover is the point that they can choose what kind of measure of austerity fits the narrative and ignore all the measures that don't fit and only publish the positive findings in the end. Again another common social science and economics practice
     
    Last edited: 6 Dec 2016
  9. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    11,701
    Likes Received:
    1,486
  10. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,657
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    1) If just because such issues may have multiple factors doesn't mean that one of those causes is unimportant, couldn't that be argued for austerity cuts just as much as for lack of control over immigration? Else how are you any different from a social scientist arbitrarily choosing which factor to give weight to and which not based on a priori bias?

    2) In the end it doesn't matter what those effects are caused by*; in the end what mattered is what people perceived them to be caused by. And that is austerity and immigration.


    * People have had enough of experts, Mr economist.
     
    Last edited: 6 Dec 2016
  11. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,657
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Well, the government can always take it to the European Court. :p

    Am I the only one who thinks that this is all one huge displacement activity? It's almost as if the government doesn't want to Brexit... :worried:
     
  12. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    420
  13. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    11,701
    Likes Received:
    1,486
    Given the supreme court were arguing the meaning of the word 'Normally', arguing the meaning of 'plan' isn't that far-fetched...
     
  14. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,657
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    I think I know just the expert for that:

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Member

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    I am merely stating that problems caused by austerity but wrongly attributed to immigration is not definitely the only factor or even a factor in people's vote to leave. Most of the examples given are not definitely caused by government cuts or driven more by cuts than immigration or even by either. There are simply obvious and more than reasonable doubts to the supposition of austerity= brexit vote.

    The housing example is likely 1) regulation (partly europe btw), 2) population growth (migration) 3) demographic changes (more single people) 4) cuts Than 1) cuts 2)population growth. Or as the guardian would have 1) cuts 2) cuts 3) cuts.

    In other words these arguments are actually a lot more open than so called studies and their proponents would like people to believe.

    I

    Maybe so but that goes both ways but the issue is that only one side, by an large, that is pretending that their side is correct based on studies they have never read and fold under true critical examination.

    * I'm quite glad people might question us and hopefully many others with such qualifications in the cargo cult sciences are questioned too.

    I've got a much better expert:

     
    Last edited: 6 Dec 2016
  16. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,407
    Likes Received:
    334
    Once again you seem to be misrepresenting what i said, in case it's wasn't abundantly clear let me highlight the relevant parts for you as you always seem to miss the important caveats.

    Now you can continue to construct your usual strawman if you like however it maybe worth reading some of these Google results as like i said it's just a theory, a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, that I've not double checked. :rolleyes:

    Whatever the cause and effect it seems we're in agreement that it's past governments who are responsible, no?
     
    Last edited: 6 Dec 2016
  17. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,657
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    I think you are conflating two things in that statement: what caused the circumstances that motivated people to vote Leave (multiple factors interacting in a complex pattern), and what those people perceived to be the cause of their circumstances (austerity and immigration). In their minds: "My **** life = austerity + immigration".

    There is no doubt whatsoever that people were not interested in explanations involving multiple, complex interacting factors. They "had enough of experts" (they still do). There is also absolutely no doubt whatsoever on any side that the issue of immigration swung the vote. There is also little doubt that most of the Leave votes came from the poverty-stricken areas of Britain that perceive themselves to have suffered most under austerity and wanted to give Cameron et al a good kicking. Why else was Theresa May's main trust of her Tory conference: 1. We're going to control immigration and 2. We're going to build an economy that works for everyone?
     
  18. John_T

    John_T Member

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    528
    Likes Received:
    20
    OK, firstly, I did go off on one a bit last night - so I apologise if I upset you, (or anyone else). That's genuinely not my intention.

    I just find it really, really frustrating that when I tell you I mean one thing, you repeatedly tell me that I don't mean what I said and that I actually mean something else.

    How you perceive what I said is not true, 'ad hominem' attacks don't even come into it.

    If I repeatedly say I mean *this thing*, and you repeatedly tell me that you know I said *this thing* but what I actually meant was *that thing* - that's just mad.

    I meant what I said. If I didn't mean it, I wouldn't have said it! Over and over again.

    I said both sides lied. I said they both lied repeatedly. I said it was shameful of both sides. I made all the other comments that I made, and then re-quoted. This isn't even about who's right or wrong on the issues, this is about me telling you I believe one thing, and you telling me "no you don't".

    If you're not going to believe I even mean what I say, when I say it a multitude of different ways, I don't really know how else to proceed.

    OK, in addition to the above:

    I tell you I understand how Europe works, (in as far as anyone does who isn't a full-time politician or lawyer) - you tell me that I don't.

    I tell you that I understand what most of the issues are - you tell me that I don't.

    I tell you I understand there are good reasons for staying in, but I have reasons for wanting to come out - you tell me there are no valid reasons for wanting out.

    I tell you my opinions are my own - you tell me they are not my own, that I am parroting them from people who have 'tricked' me.

    I say there was no real right or wrong answer on this, that it just comes down to what people want - you say that's not true, there was a right answer. Which just happens to be your answer.

    Bare in mind, I'm not actually asking you to agree with me here, but you won't even acknowledge that my mind is my own, or that there even is an alternative argument. Not that 'on balance and in your opinion' it's a bad argument, but just that there's not a valid alternative argument at all.

    You think that's a two way conversation?

    Bare in mind that at no point have I called (or insinuated) that anyone is simple for wanting to stay in. I've not called anyone brainwashed or tricked, beyond saying both sides of the campaign lied disgracefully. I've not told you your opinions are not your own.

    I was sarcastic and hostile to you in my opening paragraphs, again, I apologise for that, but you are repeatedly insinuating that I, (and just about everyone who sees this issue differently to you) is simple and that I don't understand things - essentially because I refuse to agree with you. That is also a form of attack, which, after a while, I have enough of.

    Look I'm not going to go through all your other points, partly because you skipped past so many of mine, partly because this is getting insanely long now (I spent way too long on it last night, and I've got other stuff to do tonight), and partly because we seem to be having a hard time coming to a point of even simple mutual respect and just 'agreeing to disagree'. I'll (try to quickly) pick up some of them though:
     
  19. John_T

    John_T Member

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    528
    Likes Received:
    20
    This is just the point, I don't dislike Europe at all. Truth be told, I love Europe. This is why I am against the EU so much. It is the political entity of the European Union which I dislike. The countries of Europe, the people, I like very much.

    I see the EU acting like straight-jacket, damaging real peoples lives by it's lumbering attitude, it's almost pathological inflexibility, and it's seemingly hazy concept of actually caring for its citizens.

    I was talking about all of our business, domestic and foreign. The majority of our trade is internal, and out of the the foreign trade, the majority of it is outside of the EU. The last numbers I remember seeing when I looked at it were that the EU was 47% of our foreign trade - but I did add the caveat that I hadn't checked before writing this - if you're saying they've now gone down to 44%, I'll take your word for it.

    If a car maker in Sunderland sells a car to someone is Swansea, that's subject to EU regulations. If a Scottish fisherman sells langoustine or Lobster to a London restaurant, that's subject to rules, regulations and quotas of the EU. If I get a new boiler installed, buy groceries, or a kettle, or a vacuum cleaner, all internal, domestic trade. All subject to the EU.

    That doesn't happen in most other trading blocks, as the deals concern trade between the various foreign nations, not what a nation does domestically. The only reason to do that is to harmonise all laws across Europe, and the only reason to do that is to, gradually, prepare for a federal superstate.

    No, it's not lost on me at all. But neither is the fact that, aside from being wildly complicated to negotiate and ratify when you have 28 member states, you are also going to have 28 different interests as to what that treaty should contain - what will be taxed highly and what will be taxed low, what can move and what can't, etc, etc. That's 28 often directly competing interests trying to find common ground.

    Again with my previous examples: We want cheap food, France wants to block that. France wants to block access of financial services, that's the thing that we really want. Etc, etc, multiple by 28 times. They end up insanely complicated, and no-one's really happy with it anyway.

    OK, well I partly answered that above, but let me give you a different angle as well.

    Firstly, we are not a small country, we are the fifth largest economy in the world. While true that the USA, China, Japan and Germany look down on us in terms of size, (and France is more or less level) the rest of the world is looking up. We are a large market people want to deal with, (and we were fifth going into what has become the EU in 1972 and we're fifth coming out, so our size hasn't been bestowed upon us by the EU either).

    Secondly, trade deals don't have to cover everything, they cover what both parties want it to cover. If we want to do a deal with China on issues A, B and C, and China want to do a deal with us on issues C, D and E, then the stuff that neither party can agree on doesn't get included, and we end up with a deal on issue C where we both agree. That happens all the time.

    Also, let's not forget, many countries have already expressed an interest in doing deals with us, from the USA and Canada, and Australia & NZ, to countries like Chile, India, Ivory Coast, Japan. Some countries have been louder and more vocal than others, but if, as and when we are able to strike our own deals, we won't be a 'billy no-mates'.

    Also, most of those countries looking to deal with us are already in their own regional deals, but are looking to negotiate with us on an individual basis because their blocks don't prevent that.

    As opposed to the rest of the world, where everything is complicated now and we could gradually streamline that. Swings and roundabouts.

    Respectfully disagree.

    So the entire outcome of someone's life: Their marriage, their home and neighbourhood, their career, that's all less important than maybe a change in import duties on cars, export duties on cheese, and whether or not there are restrictions of trade on insurance policies?

    I politely beg to differ.

    People make life changing decisions all the time, since childhood, with considerably less certainty than this.

    I repeatedly said I saw validity in your arguments, you repeatedly said there were none in mine.

    That's the second time I've re-quoted and highlighted that.

    Yes, they should. Many. Not all, not every one, not 'here is a complete and fully comprehensive list', just 'many'. ie, I've spoken of many, now here are four examples.

    Maybe I should have put an 'etc' on there, but I thought it was obvious.

    Again, you're not really having a discussion, you're just telling people that they're too stupid to understand your point of view, when actually, for many people, they do understand your point of view, they just disagree with it. Many people see the facts just fine, it's just that they interpret how best to deal with them differently. But you just won't accept that.

    Again, it's not about you not agreeing with their view, but you simply won't accept that there even is one.

    Look, I've got to skip the rest, I've again spent too long on this. I don't mean to fall out with you or be unpleasant to you, I'm not even trying to convert you to my opinion, I just can't understand how you won't even see that there is a different opinion.

    I just don't get that.
     
  20. John_T

    John_T Member

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    528
    Likes Received:
    20
    To everyone else kind enough to reply to me, apologies that I haven't been able to get around to replying back to you - I did read what you wrote.

    Apologies also if I upset anyone, again, that genuinely not my intention.

    I don't think I'll be able to reply tomorrow, Thursday I'm not sure but I'll try.

    Cheers for now. :)
     

Share This Page