Brexit

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!
User avatar
submonsterz
Posts: 968
Joined: 07 Feb 2015

Post 30 Jun 2016

Lowlifebware wrote: You seem hell bent on denying that England has some of the worst racism problems in Europe. Granted there are 1 or 2 nations which are worse than England, but that's hardly absolution. Even better than that you reckon that more xenophobic behaviour is in some way a solution to this?
Wow and just to put the ball in the field here the worst place I have ever experienced Xenophobia any where in the world is Scotland my friend .
Especially the highland region and growing stronger further north from Inverness.

User avatar
Gorgon
Posts: 1233
Joined: 11 Mar 2016

Post 30 Jun 2016

submonsterz wrote:
Lowlifebware wrote: You seem hell bent on denying that England has some of the worst racism problems in Europe. Granted there are 1 or 2 nations which are worse than England, but that's hardly absolution. Even better than that you reckon that more xenophobic behaviour is in some way a solution to this?
Wow and just to put the ball in the field here the worst place I have ever experienced Xenophobia any where in the world is Scotland my friend .
Especially the highland region and growing stronger further north from Inverness.
LOL, you've obviously never heard of Eastern European countries. :D
"This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit."

User avatar
orthodox
Posts: 511
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 30 Jun 2016

avasopht wrote:
Ostermilk wrote: Also precisely why I actively voted against having a referendum in the first place.

You either have to vote one way or the other based on your best shot at reasoning or stick your head in the sand on an issue that has many complex pro's and con's.

Despite your allusion solely to an upper elite that is even capable of equipping itself to make a 'correct' decision you still have to decide. For example if you are a trawlerman on the south coast the wisdom expounded by say Sir Richard Branson isn't going to be what you base your decision on, nor should it.

Given those circumstances the decision has been made, good, bad or indifferent. Nobody is equipped to predict the future either way of course and only time will tell whether the decision was a good or a bad one.

The outcome is democractic not meritocratic.
No need to stick one's head in the sand, .. simply employ rational inquiry. And no, was never suggesting an upper elite. What I mean is, there are economic experts who will know far more than the average citizen about the economy, so that expertise needs consideration.

My problem is that the modus operandi is to use one's best uninformed opinion without employing intelligent inquiry. Even simply asking, how can I best know and investigate the ramifications. What are the most likely outcomes based on the best expert understanding we have. Basing one's decision on ignorance alone is insane. Experts aren't elite, they are simply expressing what we would have expressed had we spent the thousands of hours studying the subject, so it would be foolish to ignore.

Ignorant democracy is bad democracy. Willfully ignorant democracy is just plain absurd and ridiculous and offers no actual benefits of democracy. It would even be fair to say that it is feined democracy, which is why it so greatly undermines it in the first place.
Experts are human just like us plain people. They may have different opinions, be lobbied, form elite clans, block their colleagues, and they can be fools, too. Quality of prognoses in economics is worse than that in meteorology.

Democracy is not the rule of experts, liberals, democrats, or any other group. Fools have the same rights to be represented. And who knows, maybe their ignorant opinion based on some inner feelings rather than expertise turns out to be more correct.
Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise. -- L.Carroll

User avatar
platzangst
Posts: 529
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 30 Jun 2016

I won't make a judgement on the accuracy of this excerpt from an essay on the subject, but I did find it a somewhat thought-provoking angle on the situation:

Slavoj Žižek wrote:The intensity of the emotional investment into the referendum should not deceive us, the choice offered obfuscated the true questions: how to fight “agreements” like TTIP which present a real threat to popular sovereignty, how to confront ecological catastrophes and economic imbalances which breed new poverty and migrations, etc. The choice of Brexit means a serious setback for these true struggles – suffice it to bear in mind what an important argument for Brexit was the “refugee threat.” The Brexit referendum is the ultimate proof that ideology (in the good old Marxist sense of “false consciousness”) is well and alive in our societies. For example, the case of Brexit exemplifies perfectly the falsity of the calls to restore national sovereignty (the “British people themselves, not some anonymous and non-elected Brussels bureaucrats, should decide the fate of the UK” motif):

“At the heart of the Brexit is a paradox worth articulating! England wants to withdraw from the bureaucratic, administrative control of Brussels, control seen as compromising its sovereignty, in order to be better able to organize the dismantling of its sovereignty (by way of more radical submission to the logic of global capital) on its own. Does this not have the markings of the death drive? The organism wants to die in its own way, on its own terms. This is the paradox at the heart of American Republican thinking: we want to ‘take back our country’ in order to be better able to submit it and pretty much all of life to the logic of the market.”(Eric Santner, personal communication)

Is this paradox not confirmed by a quick look at the conflicts between the UK and the EU in the past decades? When they concerned workers’ rights, it was the EU which demanded limiting the weekly work hours, etc., and the UK government complained that such a measure will affect the competitiveness of the British industry… In short, the so much vilified “Brussels bureaucracy” was also a protector of minimal workers’ rights – in exactly the same way as it is today the protector of the rights of the refugees against many “sovereign” nation-states which are not ready to receive them.

When Stalin was asked in the late 1920s which deviation is worse, the Right one or the Leftist one, he snapped back: “They are both worse!” Was it not the same with the choice British voters were confronting? Remain was “worse” since it meant persisting in the inertia that keeps Europe mired down. Exit was “worse” since it made changing nothing look desirable. In the days before the referendum, there was a pseudo-deep thought circulating in our media: “whatever the result, EU will never be the same, it will be irreparably damaged.” However, it’s the opposite which is true: nothing really changed, just the inertia of Europe became impossible to ignore. Europe will again lose time in long negotiations among the EU members which will continue to make any large-scale political project unfeasible. This is what those who oppose Brexit didn’t see: shocked, they now complain about the “irrationality” of the Brexit voters, ignoring the desperate need for change that the vote made palpable.

For this reason, one should fully support the EU stance that the UK withdrawal should be enacted as fast as possible, without any long preliminary consultations. Understandably, the Brexit partisans in the UK now want have a cake and eat it (or, as a commentator viciously remarked, they want a divorce which will still allow them to share the marital bed). They desperately want to strike a middle road (Boris Johnson’s proposal that the UK should maintain free access to the common market was quite appropriately dismissed as a pipe dream).

User avatar
Carly(Poohbear)
Posts: 2244
Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Location: UK

Post 30 Jun 2016

platzangst wrote:I won't make a judgement on the accuracy of this excerpt from an essay on the subject, but I did find it a somewhat thought-provoking angle on the situation:

Slavoj Žižek wrote:The intensity of the emotional investment into the referendum should not deceive us, the choice offered obfuscated the true questions: how to fight “agreements” like TTIP which present a real threat to popular sovereignty, how to confront ecological catastrophes and economic imbalances which breed new poverty and migrations, etc. The choice of Brexit means a serious setback for these true struggles – suffice it to bear in mind what an important argument for Brexit was the “refugee threat.” The Brexit referendum is the ultimate proof that ideology (in the good old Marxist sense of “false consciousness”) is well and alive in our societies. For example, the case of Brexit exemplifies perfectly the falsity of the calls to restore national sovereignty (the “British people themselves, not some anonymous and non-elected Brussels bureaucrats, should decide the fate of the UK” motif):

“At the heart of the Brexit is a paradox worth articulating! England wants to withdraw from the bureaucratic, administrative control of Brussels, control seen as compromising its sovereignty, in order to be better able to organize the dismantling of its sovereignty (by way of more radical submission to the logic of global capital) on its own. Does this not have the markings of the death drive? The organism wants to die in its own way, on its own terms. This is the paradox at the heart of American Republican thinking: we want to ‘take back our country’ in order to be better able to submit it and pretty much all of life to the logic of the market.”(Eric Santner, personal communication)

Is this paradox not confirmed by a quick look at the conflicts between the UK and the EU in the past decades? When they concerned workers’ rights, it was the EU which demanded limiting the weekly work hours, etc., and the UK government complained that such a measure will affect the competitiveness of the British industry… In short, the so much vilified “Brussels bureaucracy” was also a protector of minimal workers’ rights – in exactly the same way as it is today the protector of the rights of the refugees against many “sovereign” nation-states which are not ready to receive them.

When Stalin was asked in the late 1920s which deviation is worse, the Right one or the Leftist one, he snapped back: “They are both worse!” Was it not the same with the choice British voters were confronting? Remain was “worse” since it meant persisting in the inertia that keeps Europe mired down. Exit was “worse” since it made changing nothing look desirable. In the days before the referendum, there was a pseudo-deep thought circulating in our media: “whatever the result, EU will never be the same, it will be irreparably damaged.” However, it’s the opposite which is true: nothing really changed, just the inertia of Europe became impossible to ignore. Europe will again lose time in long negotiations among the EU members which will continue to make any large-scale political project unfeasible. This is what those who oppose Brexit didn’t see: shocked, they now complain about the “irrationality” of the Brexit voters, ignoring the desperate need for change that the vote made palpable.

For this reason, one should fully support the EU stance that the UK withdrawal should be enacted as fast as possible, without any long preliminary consultations. Understandably, the Brexit partisans in the UK now want have a cake and eat it (or, as a commentator viciously remarked, they want a divorce which will still allow them to share the marital bed). They desperately want to strike a middle road (Boris Johnson’s proposal that the UK should maintain free access to the common market was quite appropriately dismissed as a pipe dream).
From start to end it's complete rubbish (and no I don't want to waste time explaining why as you can read why)..

Ostermilk
Posts: 1462
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 30 Jun 2016

platzangst wrote:I won't make a judgement on the accuracy of this excerpt from an essay on the subject, but I did find it a somewhat thought-provoking angle on the situation:
Funnily you chose to omit the paragraph that is the kicker and pretty much outines the exact rationale that prompted my decision to vote leave so I'll include that here.

Slavoj Žižek wrote:Recall Mao Ze Dong’s old motto: “Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.” A crisis is to be taken seriously, without illusions, but also as a chance to be fully exploited.

Although crises are painful and dangerous, they are the terrain on which battles have to be waged and won. Is there not a struggle also in heaven, is the heaven also not divided – and does the ongoing confusion not offer a unique chance to react to the need for a radical change in a more appropriate way, with a project that will break the vicious cycle of EU technocracy and nationalist populism?

The true division of our heaven is not between anemic technocracy and nationalist passions, but between their vicious cycle and a new pan-European project which will addresses the true challenges that humanity confronts today.
I somehow feel some renewed hope that was absent last week.

User avatar
platzangst
Posts: 529
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 01 Jul 2016

Ostermilk wrote: Funnily you chose to omit the paragraph that is the kicker
*large shrug*

Different eyes see different things. I only saw it because a writer who I follow posted a link to it, and that link was to a Wired article that quoted a portion of it, and I was intrigued enough to click through Wired's link and thus read the whole thing - as, it appears, you were too.

Carly(Poohbear) wrote:From start to end it's complete rubbish (and no I don't want to waste time explaining why as you can read why)..
Well, hell, dude, if you don't want to waste time explaining, then I won't waste time taking your useless reply seriously.

User avatar
orthodox
Posts: 511
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 10 Jul 2016

Image
Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise. -- L.Carroll

User avatar
Gaja
Posts: 998
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Germany

Post 11 Jul 2016

Hillarious!
Cheers!
Fredhoven

User avatar
gak
Posts: 2840
Joined: 05 Feb 2015

Post 11 Jul 2016

Kitteh ALWAYS knows!

User avatar
orthodox
Posts: 511
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 11 Jul 2016

Need ID of this air: David Cameron Hums A Tune After Resigning

Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise. -- L.Carroll

User avatar
jappe
Posts: 2015
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 12 Jul 2016

orthodox wrote:Need ID of this air: David Cameron Hums A Tune After Resigning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bprjHYY90lo

User avatar
O1B
Posts: 1214
Joined: 26 Jan 2015

Post 15 Jul 2016

Four(4) pages of 'intellectually' beating around the Brexit-Bush.... gawd..., :roll:
My beloved Poles must really be rubbing some Brits the wrong way.

I read some 'USA doesn't understand' tripe. I can assure you, Americans understand 'union.'
It's just... a union with whom??? - that's the whole problem.
On another note, this has probably been the longest stretch of peace in 1st World Europe.
... Relatively speaking, of course.

I thought it was great when I heard about the EU concept.
I can't believe the UK - a parent partner - would jump ship - basically giving up.
CAN any talk of hopping in and out ..... It Just sounds like today's man... All part of the Problem.

and now, RTalk members believe Trump can save the USA/UK....
The only other place I read that nonsense is on SFront. True believers, those folks.
A so things stay, I guess....
Antic604 "Well, he's been doing it - mentioning Eurorack hardware - in majority of his posts, so I'm not surprised anymore :? Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:19 pm

User avatar
Zac
Posts: 1104
Joined: 19 May 2016

Post 14 Nov 2018

I can't tell you how sick i am of hearing about this.

I'm not an economist, politician or seer.

Neither are most of the 60 million dwellers.

Make an agreement or don't. Have another referendum or don't.

Just fucking get on with it and move forward.

User avatar
plaamook
Posts: 706
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: probably underwater

Post 03 Dec 2018

Slavoj Žižek wrote:Recall Mao Ze Dong’s old motto: “Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.” A crisis is to be taken seriously, without illusions, but also as a chance to be fully exploited.

Although crises are painful and dangerous, they are the terrain on which battles have to be waged and won. Is there not a struggle also in heaven, is the heaven also not divided – and does the ongoing confusion not offer a unique chance to react to the need for a radical change in a more appropriate way, with a project that will break the vicious cycle of EU technocracy and nationalist populism?

The true division of our heaven is not between anemic technocracy and nationalist passions, but between their vicious cycle and a new pan-European project which will addresses the true challenges that humanity confronts today.
Too right.
If I thought the people that will lead this great nation into th future had such vision I'd feel really upbeat but I think they will compromise vast vision for personal gain. And the UK has enough American garbage as it is. IMHO. I fear the worst I'm afraid.

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 848
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 04 Dec 2018

Top EU legal official says UK can unilaterally cancel Brexit

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/ ... 54994.html


Razgriz_101
Posts: 6
Joined: 11 Dec 2018

Post 13 Dec 2018

Eh, the main issue of Brexit is that it's pretty much a choice between on one hand, national pride and self-determination, and on the other hand, economical growth and performance. Some people are willing to take a hit in the economy for a couple years if it's the price to pay to get rid of EU regulations, while some people don't really want to pay such a heavy price for national pride.
I mean, on one hand, no more paying for the development of Romania and Bulgaria, no more EU integration or agricultural policy, and all of that, but on the other hand, it means that the GBP suffers and that foreign investments are sinking (or at least, the nationality of the investors will change; Brexit or not, nothing changes for the Chinese who invest in businesses or real estate in the UK : https://tranio.com/articles/continuous- ... -property/)

Even the EU is quite divided on the topic, because it doesn't want such a rich and powerful member to leave, but at least the main opponent to EU integration is leaving and Paris and Berlin can do what they want... Well, if the Yellow Vests lets them, that is.

User avatar
Creativemind
Posts: 2444
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Stoke-On-Trent, England, UK

Post 13 Dec 2018

Ostermilk wrote:
25 Jun 2016
plaamook wrote:Hmm... I just had a look over there. Think I'll stay out of it actually.
Yep, just like the EU itself, it started out alright and then took off on it's own agenda... :lol:
Exactly, I interpret "took off on it's own agenda" in a different way. :lol:
:reason:

Reason 10.2

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests