@Brwned I actually get where you are coming from and that's why I'm against referendums, that's why we use representative democracies and not direct democracies. A direct democracy would demand way too much knowledge from everyone on subjects that touch way too many fields, at Uni I didn't like EU law, so I can totally see why the average man wouldn't want to spend time on it after work.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Mostly - life's complicated! Apologies for being on the defensive. It's difficult to deal with so many questions on a delicate issue, some of which are embedded in deep criticism, without feeling like you're under attack from all angles!
Again I don't really know enough but I have listened to some senior (ex-)politicians and political analysts that put forward a convincing case for why such a complicated issue should never have been put to the public, and it made sense to me. There are some questions which do require expertise - we've designed lots of societal structures around that belief. It does seem to be a general consensus that the reason it was put the public was for the wrong reasons, in any case. I understood that much at the time and it was another thing that made me despair about the politics of this country. Despair isn't a reason not to vote, but it is a contributory factor.
Agreed, for the most part! I do get why people take a different view, in that they don't trust politicians to make decisions in the best interests of the country (or the member states), and they're wary of handing over so much control to entities they don't trust. Unfortunately we haven't found the perfect way to organise societies and different parts of the population will have different views on how to fix the problems that do exist. It's generally a good thing to disagree and fiercely debate things, and on particularly important things it seems entirely natural to pick sides. What I think is really dangerous is deciding that the other side's view is not legitimate. There's a a big difference between thinking someone is wrong and thinking their view is illegitimate, but in particularly toxic political environments, it seems to me they often get conflated, and that only makes the issues worse.
Last edited:
I'm trying to work out its evolutionary purpose because by its very nature it's extremely harmful and damaging. Longing for times that are never coming back and viewing them through rose tinted spectacles as well. It's sadness inducing but without the capability to be a catalyst for change towards something better, like normal sadness.
How did humans even evolve to be nostalgic?
Thats the point. You're precisely who the tweet was directed that.
my word, there’s 40,000 sneering posts in this here thread.I’d be happy for the UK to bring back the penalty if it would be used on the 48% who voted for pounds and ounces ffs.
Although there may some partial truth in it, I don't think the accusation of nostalgia is entirely correct. The view that a country or society has chosen the wrong future is not the same thing as being nostalgic for the past.
lots of products things already have both metric and imperial measurements, it's like, be more ambitious for fecks sake
3 years watching the HoC seeing how they don't have any clue about anything, even that GB is an Island, completely destroys your argument about knowledge on the representative democracies. I can guarantee that I would a much better job than any of the Spanish PM during the whole democracy and I am not specially gifted
Referendums in my opinion are the epitome of Democracy, though they have to be well informed and well presented with the correct questions and options. Then, make them mandatory to avoid the excuse "the results explains because the low turn-out" and basically because the people that wants to change the status quote, will always have a biggest % of turn-out than the ones that don't want the things to be changed
Surely in this case it makes sense to vote remain? What you know, where we were once a pretty respected country with a strong currency, or the unknown that is already an incredible mess, ran entirely by the same people that made it such a massive mess?
It’s not solely nostalgia, you’re correct about that.
But why does the majority of pro-Brexit vote come from age groups of 50+? I mean 25-45yo people are mature enough to judge a right or wrong path and they voted majority pro remain. And why is there a strong correlation between higher levels of education and voting remain? Or higher incomes and remain?
A judgement on the path of the country has to be based on logic and rationale. So why do the indicators show that this was largely an emotional vote by people who were either nostalgic of the past or angry with the establishment or overly patriotic or gullible or xenophobic?
And how can someone strongly affected by such emotional drives make a right assessment on the path of the country?
I'm not attempting to advocate for the Leave vote here but there's a couple of general points I'd flag up about the correlation between the Remain vote and higher levels of education (which I assume relates to university/college education) and higher incomes. In respect of the former, it's a mistake to assume the possession of that equates to greater wisdom, and with the latter I'd say that many people on lower incomes felt left behind and forgotten about. In the aftermath of all of this I think it has become increasingly clear that the EU became a kind of proxy for a deep sense of discontent and detachment that many people feel towards the political system/class and with the status quo in general.
I didn't have the breakdown of the vote by age groups to hand and just found the following from a BBC article published the day after the referendum, so it may not be exactly accurate -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36619342
What that shows is that broad statements can only be made about the over 65s and the under 34s. The in-between is mostly Leave.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Should’ve just saved money and waited for the dark blue one without “Northern Ireland” on it.
Edit: and (ironically enough) the unicorn I guess.
Edit: and (ironically enough) the unicorn I guess.
You do notice that JRM is one of the most popular politicians residing in the most popular party in the UK don't you? He is currently supporting Boris who is equally filth and whose among the favourites to become the UK next prime minister
Why should we risk giving these guys a veto on European matters? We did not voted brexit so why can't we be allowed to move on from the chaos created and sustained by the UK in the first place?
If you have a European Army you will also need an Airforce. And Germany wants an aircraft carrier. All sounds pretty expensive to me but I am sure that you will be delighted to pay the taxes necessary.
Incidentally you are completely wrong. As soon as Europe opts to defend itself just watched Russia push west.
You can... That said there is around 49 million EU citizens who did not vote for brexit being taken out of the EU against our will in the UK... If EU citizenship means anything one would hope that it means that the EU will do it's best to somewhat protect our interests?
Why would that happen? Russia hasn't pushed forward even when they had an aggressive NATO busy planting missiles defense systems around its borders, why on earth would it strike the moment we take control over our defence? Unlike the US who won't be impacted by a war in Europe unless they want to, both Russia and Europe would get hurt by such a war. Both parties would therefore be careful not to step on each other toes.
Well they should address their complaints towards their government and their media who first demonised the EU, then allowed a Tory cat fight to spiral out of control through a referendum only to lose such referendum. The people could have stopped this madness at various stages but they chose not to. They could have voted Miliband who was against the referendum in the first place, they could have voted remain and they could have voted the Lib Dem during the last GE. They are as guilty as the Brexiteers whom they voted in.
Now if Malta voted a cretin as PM then I don't expect you to suffer because of him. Why are you expecting us to be dragged into Westminster's chaos?
As said I don't mind if the EU give unrestricted access to the single market to the UK as long as they obey the rules. However god forbid if we allow such unreliable and treacherous government whose political elite clearly hate the EU to keep its VETO. That would be madness.
Last edited:
If you look at the graphic @Silva posted above, how else could you interpret a sizable chunk of leave voters wishing for changes such as return to empirial units?
Second bolded part: Not sure anyone has argued that equivalence.
I didn’t correlate education and higher earnings with wisdom. Higher education correlates with higher earnings. Lower earnings correlates with what you mentioned about people feeling left behind. The anger and mistrust towards the establishment.I'm not attempting to advocate for the Leave vote here but there's a couple of general points I'd flag up about the correlation between the Remain vote and higher levels of education (which I assume relates to university/college education) and higher incomes. In respect of the former, it's a mistake to assume the possession of that equates to greater wisdom, and with the latter I'd say that many people on lower incomes felt left behind and forgotten about. In the aftermath of all of this I think it has become increasingly clear that the EU became a kind of proxy for a deep sense of discontent and detachment that many people feel towards the political system/class and with the status quo in general.
I didn't have the breakdown of the vote by age groups to hand and just found the following from a BBC article published the day after the referendum, so it may not be exactly accurate -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36619342
What that shows is that broad statements can only be made about the over 65s and the under 34s. The in-between is mostly Leave.
However making that a protest a vote against the EU, which has little control over how we spread our wealth, is an irrational, emotional vote. Same as voting for nostalgic reasons is an emotional, irrational vote. And I was at pains to explain that nostalgia wasn’t the only emotional reason that some people leaned towards Brexit.
But to get back at the nostalgia thing and that age group graph. You say broad statements can be made about only 3 age groups. But all age groups conform to a trend. Which is that the older you get the more likely you are to vote for Brexit. Every age group is more Brexit-leaning than the previous. That, along with the statements we see in all the interviews from people of older age groups, indicates a strong impact of nostalgia in their decision making process.
Indeed no one has argued equivalence. It’s a strawman. We are arguing for a strong presence of the effect, among many other effects.
Yeah, unless you are an ultra or stand to profit from the chaos, the trouble with Brexit is that there are no good arguments for it other than emotional ones. People try to post-rationalise, but sooner or later the rationalisations run into trouble for pure lack of logic or supporting facts.
I voted leave.
Very simple reason why.
Projected UK population growth & long term sustainability of resources.
The remain argument seems to involve the here & now and the constant need for economic growth. I’m saying no. So, anything that doesn’t encourage population growth I’m in favour of.
So, controlled immigration (EU and non-EU) it is then.
My hometown is planning another 20,000 homes over the next 20 years. 7-8,000 of which will be on the green belt. Also lots more of that green belt planned for huge warehouses & extra employment required as a result.
No thanks. I’d honestly rather take the hit on the GDP.
In addition to that main reason, some other observations:
I don’t like the fact the UK hasn’t held any referendums on EU treaties or anything passed since 1975. Other countries did.
Also, have to question the EU’s motives for expansion into the poorer countries in Eastern Europe, thus promoting movement en masse. Would point out Germany blocked access to their employment market for 7 years initially. We didn’t. And we the people didn’t get a say in that one either.
Was the expansion into Eastern Europe more about kerbing Russian influence?
Buttering up the old Eastern Bloc countries to keep them onside?
Very simple reason why.
Projected UK population growth & long term sustainability of resources.
The remain argument seems to involve the here & now and the constant need for economic growth. I’m saying no. So, anything that doesn’t encourage population growth I’m in favour of.
So, controlled immigration (EU and non-EU) it is then.
My hometown is planning another 20,000 homes over the next 20 years. 7-8,000 of which will be on the green belt. Also lots more of that green belt planned for huge warehouses & extra employment required as a result.
No thanks. I’d honestly rather take the hit on the GDP.
In addition to that main reason, some other observations:
I don’t like the fact the UK hasn’t held any referendums on EU treaties or anything passed since 1975. Other countries did.
Also, have to question the EU’s motives for expansion into the poorer countries in Eastern Europe, thus promoting movement en masse. Would point out Germany blocked access to their employment market for 7 years initially. We didn’t. And we the people didn’t get a say in that one either.
Was the expansion into Eastern Europe more about kerbing Russian influence?
Buttering up the old Eastern Bloc countries to keep them onside?
Last edited:
What you describe isn't epistemic humility. It's decision paralysis. The opposite of responsible action basically.
I didn't describe it as epistemic humility, nor did I describe the inner workings of my decision-making process, nor did I describe it as responsible. So yes you've successfully created a clever description of a reality you've invented. I'm glad that helps you feel superior.
Your problem is your ageing population. Immigration is the solution, not the problem.
You already have control of immigration, both EU and non-EU. Now the non-EU immigration is skyrocketing and the EU immigration has dropped considerably since 2016.
If you stop immigration altogether the population will shrink and the economy will decline progressively and eventually die.
Given my limited experience of malteasers that seems within the bounds of probability
By the way when are you going to give us the third hairdryer instalment?
Not saying stop it all together. As my post says. Controlled. Not sure how we control EU immigration at the moment, as you are saying?
Anyway, ultimately: Environment, resources & sustainability > economic growth.
It looks like the UK's structural response is to cover any reduction in EU immigration with immigration from elsewhere, especially South Asia. This suggests two things. One is that leaving the EU will not resolve the problem (as you see it) of immigration-led population growth. The other is that, perhaps, immigrants are more important to the UK than it seems. One important contribution is that immigrants are typically younger, and so offset the impacts of a largely ageing native UK population. Whilst I sympathise with the view that we should not always aim for economic growth, if you curbed immigration significantly, I am afraid you would get more adverse effects than just a hit on GDP. For starters, you would reverse population growth whilst having to support an increasingly ageing population. That is not sustainable. Sustainability isn't just about resources, it is also about supporting societies.
Including contraception? As that's probably the real reason for resource sustainability than any other argument a politician would make you believe.
Because anyone who is a burden on the state can be removed, the UK government simply doesn't implement it. Also in general you are not flooded with OAPs but people wanting to work.
Well, you could also say we are keeping people alive for too long too couldn’t you? More than one factor at play here clearly.
I guess the only way to grow the population without immigration would be to encourage the indigenous population to have more children. For that you would need much higher levels of social security, namely free nursery places, more and better social housing and bigger tax breaks for parents etc. Zero chance of anything like that happening under a Tory government.
What does that to do with Brexit
Christ you are painful to listen to. How anyone can come across so smug and condescending while discussing their own ignorance and irresponsibility is beyond me.
This brand of pseudo intellectual, passive aggressive debating is definitely the most annoying result of the internet.
Absolutely, which means some control at the front end is required. It's a much wider threat an immigration from a pure numbers perspective, net migration level against the UK population is at 0.39% (crude fag packet calculation) vs 0-4 year olds equating for around 6% of the population. The argument is that the latter takes more out from a services perspective than others - if the assumption for most leave votes is that all immigration doesn't actually put anything back into the services.
We are flooded with OAPs. The indigenous ones for a start.
My mother spent the last 6 years of her life in a nursing home, with end stage dementia, basically a living doll. As were the rest of the residents. This scenario repeated in homes up & down the country.
Why the feck are we doing this?
Just one of a few things I’d be looking at, before shovelling immigrant care workers in as a sticking plaster solution.
Earlier you said Germany underfunding their military was a reason we should all be worried about an EU army. Now we should all be worried about paying more taxes for military equipment?
Also, and I'm concerned that this still needs saying, Germany is not the EU.