• European dismay at UK 'chaos and confusion' over Brexit
    114 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Killuah;52918787] So your concentration on one side alone is a quote dishonest especially since you are concentrating on the side that initially wanted to stay. The issue with both sides having plans is that they may have plans, but there is no mechanism for the ruling government to accept them, especially if itself was leaning towards Remain I doubt this and there is literally no way for you to prove this, especially since search results show that this is not what is happening [URL]https://www.google.de/search?q=financial+times+brexit&oq=financial+times+brexit&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3303j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8[/URL][/QUOTE] As I said in my edit, [QUOTE]The biggest issue we face is that we have no idea what the trade deal will come out to be like, and until then we can't actually get a clear view of what has been gained/lost in Brexit.[/QUOTE] Going off you google link, the first article about flying rights, which can be resolved, which until we know, so being honest, everything will be one-sided. [QUOTE=Killuah;52918787] Actually we can. So far you lost 2 EU agencies 10.000 very high paying jobs in banking [url]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-jobs-exclusive/exclusive-10000-uk-finance-jobs-affected-in-brexits-first-wave-reuters-survey-idUSKCN1BT1EU[/url] More than 100 000 people [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-british-citizens-leaving-migration-impact-irish-passports-latest-eu-referendum-fears-racism-a7914606.html[/url] Shitloads of investments [url]https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/840917/European-Investment-Fund-halts-UK-venture-capital-funding-Brexit[/url][/QUOTE] The EU agencies are automatic and should expect that, the banking was at risk and we easily knew the risks before hand, people leaving actually may be good for reducing the labour market, and the European fund, well, explains itself, European.
What does "it's automatic" have to do with the point I am making [editline]24th November 2017[/editline] "hey don't touch the oven you're gonna burn yoursef" "well that's what HAPPENS when you touch a hot oven! :downs:"
[QUOTE=Killuah;52918799]What does "it's automatic" have to do with the point I am making [editline]24th November 2017[/editline] "hey don't touch the oven you're gonna burn yoursef" "well that's what HAPPENS when you touch a hot oven! :downs:"[/QUOTE] Still no clear view of Brexit, short term economic problems were going to happen, like burning yourself. But hey, you got a time machine?
Your argument is that there is no clear view and when I present you examples of implications where view is very cery clear you counter that with "well it was going to happen" and "short term problems" Dude that is exactly why it is a very clear view. You are denying reality. "you got a time machine" This is literally kindergarden level of arguing. "you can't know that you are not from the future!!! :eng101s:"
[QUOTE=Killuah;52918838]Your argument is that there is no clear view and when I present you examples of implications where view is very cery clear you counter that with "well it was going to happen" and "short term problems" Dude that is exactly why it is a very clear view. You are denying reality. "you got a time machine" This is literally kindergarden level of arguing. "you can't know that you are not from the future!!! :eng101s:"[/QUOTE] The angle I see this from is we are unsure of the situation beyond Brexit and into the future, that if a trade deal is struck, then what. The current plan being lining up trade deals with the overall agenda of 'free' trade, with the emphasis on free to speed them along and avoid restrictions. So you are saying, here's the implications, and I'm saying we won't know the full scale of the entire ordeal and there is a possibility that the UK may end up in a better position outside the EU especially in terms of global influence and trade. So when I say, "got a time machine", I mean it is actually close to impossible to see the long term effects of Brexit, which is what I am focusing on as that is where you need to try to ideally look for the future prosperity of a country. The reality is, jobs will be lost, but those jobs may return in forms of other jobs, relationship with Europe might suffer, but relationships outside of Europe may grow etc, that is the reality we are dealing with, the UK isn't on a slippery slope.
just a quarterly reminder that a traditional leave strategy that was employed throughout the referendum (and appears to continue in this thread) is to claim that "nobody knows what's going to happen" in an attempt to discredit economic forecasts this strategy has been employed every single time that a forecast, or an NGO, predicted that brexit would have a severe, long-lasting negative impact because the leave campaign had absolutely no credible argument against those forecasts, probably because the people asking for brexit sure as shit weren't economists it was inevitable ever since the treasury white-paper that was put out in April 2016, and every single time i've posted it in a thread, suddenly all the leavers have gone silent, so I'm going to post it again [URL]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-long-term-economic-impact-of-eu-membership-and-the-alternatives[/URL] [editline]24th November 2017[/editline] Oh just going to throw in the choice quote that none of the leavers like "The conclusions of this document are clear: none of the alternatives support trade and provide influence on the world stage in the same way as continued membership of a reformed EU; and all of them come with serious economic costs that would affect businesses, jobs, living standards and our public finances for decades to come. To put it simply, families would be substantially worse off if Britain leaves the EU." [editline]24th November 2017[/editline] in summary: leave lost the economic argument the moment the economic argument started - if the whole point of leave was "we're going to be much worse off but the freedom from the EU is worth it" then that might have had a shred of honesty and dignity, but instead we have this farcical process whereby leavers proclaim that forecasts are all just unrealiable because they don't like them every bit of positive economic news is greeted with "wow not so bad is it remoaners??" and all the extremely negative economic news is greeted with "scaremongering, unreliable nobody knows what's going to happen!!" it is so incredibly predictable and tiresome to see this same shit every single time. TL;DR leave has absolutely no credible economic argument, please stop
:snip:
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52918898]just a quarterly reminder that a traditional leave strategy that was employed throughout the referendum (and appears to continue in this thread) is to claim that "nobody knows what's going to happen" in an attempt to discredit economic forecasts this strategy has been employed every single time that a forecast, or an NGO, predicted that brexit would have a severe, long-lasting negative impact because the leave campaign had absolutely no credible argument against those forecasts, probably because the people asking for brexit sure as shit weren't economists it was inevitable ever since the treasury white-paper that was put out in April 2016, and every single time i've posted it in a thread, suddenly all the leavers have gone silent, so I'm going to post it again [URL]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-long-term-economic-impact-of-eu-membership-and-the-alternatives[/URL] [editline]24th November 2017[/editline] Oh just going to throw in the choice quote that none of the leavers like "The conclusions of this document are clear: none of the alternatives support trade and provide influence on the world stage in the same way as continued membership of a reformed EU; and all of them come with serious economic costs that would affect businesses, jobs, living standards and our public finances for decades to come. To put it simply, families would be substantially worse off if Britain leaves the EU." [editline]24th November 2017[/editline] in summary: leave lost the economic argument the moment the economic argument started - if the whole point of leave was "we're going to be much worse off but the freedom from the EU is worth it" then that might have had a shred of honesty and dignity, but instead we have this farcical process whereby leavers proclaim that forecasts are all just unrealiable because they don't like them every bit of positive economic news is greeted with "wow not so bad is it remoaners??" and all the extremely negative economic news is greeted with "scaremongering, unreliable nobody knows what's going to happen!!" it is so incredibly predictable and tiresome to see this same shit every single time. TL;DR leave has absolutely no credible economic argument, please stop[/QUOTE] Hey I remember that report, wasn't that the report that got slammed for being bias and served as a prime example of why the OBR is independent as it considered everything a cost, made assumptions about a reformed EU on top of being written by Osborne among other things, pretty sure there are questions still being asked about why the treasury allowed it to be released in the first place.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52918898][URL]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-long-term-economic-impact-of-eu-membership-and-the-alternatives[/URL][/QUOTE] The comment section is incredibly painful to read.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52918949]Hey I remember that report, wasn't that the report that got slammed for being bias and served as a prime example of why the OBR is independent as it considered everything a cost, made assumptions about a reformed EU on top of being written by Osborne among other things, pretty sure there are questions still being asked about why the treasury allowed it to be released in the first place.[/QUOTE] Is that...is that the 'fake news' defence? First of all, please provide sources for your claims of this white-paper being incorrect. Otherwise it is just an empty try to discredit this. Second, a bias almost existent, just the mere existence of a bias to not grounds for immediate dismissal of credible calculations, predictions and forecasts. I remember a certain first paragraph of an [URL=http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit04.pdf]analysis[/URL] of the paper: [QUOTE]We explain and analyse the Report and conclude it is a serious contribution to the Brexit debate. Our major criticism is that the Treasury have been overly cautious in their assumptions for their central case (a negotiated bilateral agreement, like the Canadian trade deal) and the true long-run costs of Brexit are likely to be higher than they estimate. [/QUOTE] (Which paints an even worse picture) So unless you are able to present anything to the contrary, their outcome is more closer to the truth then your propositions. Imaginative trade agreements are hard to quantify, [i]who would have thought.[/i]
[QUOTE=Coolboy;52919022]Is that...is that the 'fake news' defence? First of all, please provide sources for your claims of this white-paper being incorrect. Otherwise it is just an empty try to discredit this. Second, a bias almost existent, just the mere existence of a bias to not grounds for immediate dismissal of credible calculations, predictions and forecasts. I remember a certain first paragraph of an [URL="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit04.pdf"]analysis[/URL] of the paper: (Which paints an even worse picture) So unless you are able to present anything to the contrary, their outcome is more closer to the truth then your propositions. Imaginative trade agreements are hard to quantify, [I]who would have thought.[/I][/QUOTE] Actually, that right there basically provided what I've read elsewhere on page 7. Ignoring EU issues, future issues, future trade deals, GDP rise from regulation removal etc which they water down quite a lot tbh.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52919043]Actually, that right there basically provided what I've read elsewhere on page 7. Ignoring EU issues, future issues, future trade deals, GDP rise from regulation removal etc.[/QUOTE] Actually page 7 tackles your former posts [quote][B]Many ‘Leave’ commentators have attacked the Report by saying it is impossible to forecast events so far in the future.[/B] Although the Report is pitched as what will be GDP in 15 years’ time, it is important to realise that this is an analysis rather than a forecast. [/quote] Like [QUOTE=Boilrig;52918806]Still no clear view of Brexit, short term economic problems were going to happen, like burning yourself. But hey, you got a time machine?[/QUOTE] If you meant this paragraph: [quote] The UK actively promote trade with these countries now, but it cannot strike trade deals with them alone. When negotiating post-Brexit trade deals, the UK would not need to compromise with other EU countries. On the other hand, the UK would have to take on the cost of hiring civil servants to rebuild its capacity to undertake trade negotiations which can take decades. [/quote] Cool. But maybe you read a bit further than page 7 : [quote] since the UK is under a fifth of the economic size of the EU Single Market it would have less bargaining power in trade negotiations than the EU does. And being outside the EU would mean it no longer automatically accessed the benefits from the EU’s trade deals, such as the current ones being negotiated with the US and Japan worth around 0.6% of GDP. It beggars belief that these putative trade deals would be on so much better terms than the existing and future deals that the EU has negotiated, that they would outweigh the larger loss of trade and investment identified in the Report. [/quote] (page 8)
[QUOTE=Killuah;52919056]Actually page 7 tackles your former posts Like If you meant this paragraph: Cool. Except as apposed to the white paper that cites all kinds of courses., this paragraph has the following source for an accurate prediction of future trade deal possbilities: - :ass:[/QUOTE] As I said, watered down, they've made it clear that trade deals are to be aimed at free as possible to speed along the process and why some of them are aimed for signing upon Brexit to which many countries agree to, I mean, we even handed over our negotiation team to the UK to help out. Edit: As I said, aimed as free as possible and they know at this point of having a weaker hand in bargaining power. This is all resting on the idea that the UK must somehow get a worse trade deal than the EU, sure, the biggest difference between the UK and the EU is time, the UK will always outpace the EU on trade deals after Brexit we are already being pressured by the EU on a UK trade deal, I can see it already, signing a trade deal with the UK and then get put to the bottom of the list by the EU.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52919043]Actually, that right there basically provided what I've read elsewhere on page 7. Ignoring EU issues, future issues, future trade deals, GDP rise from regulation removal etc which they water down quite a lot tbh.[/QUOTE] Having to tackle own issues and trade deals out of own strength instead of relying on the power of the EU economic block, replacing the regulations and institutions that relied [URL=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-07/brexit-may-mean-50-new-u-k-regulators-to-replace-eu-bodies]on the EU[/URL] and the fall of the GDP resulting from all of this. Surely the outcome all wanted.
it's interesting how boilrig demonstrates a firm, unyielding desire for exactitude and truth when pouring over the litany of literature showing economic decline as a result of brexit, but when it comes to pro-leave narratives like "possible future trade deals with certain countries??", the sky's the fucking limit, anything is possible, with not a single source posted [editline]24th November 2017[/editline] though if you start posting sources of the same quality you've posted in the past i wouldn't even bother
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52919059]the biggest difference between the UK and the EU is time, the UK will always outpace the EU on trade deals after Brexit we are already being pressured by the EU on a UK trade deal, I can see it already, signing a trade deal with the UK and then get put to the bottom of the list by the EU.[/QUOTE] Except it will take decades for the UK to renegotiate trade deals that you already had through the EU with non EU countries so I really don't see your time argument coming in her which you of course also pulled because you couldn't argue the one at hand [editline]24th November 2017[/editline] Not to mention that behind all of your argument is still this nationalistic "without you we will be stronger better and faster" mentality that has worked exactly 0 times in geopolitic history
[QUOTE=David29;52918753]Ok, so yes you are.[/QUOTE] Ignoring a collective shrug isn't denying the will of the British people their right to self determination. They don't even know what they want. The referendum was a tie. A coin flip is as accurate a read of British will as the poll was. [I]A coin flip.[/I] You can't straightfacedly argue 'Well ignoring Brexit referendum = denying right to self-determination' when there's no self-determination to ignore. You'd have a point if Leave won by a majority. But it didn't. It was effectively a tie. Half wanted to leave, half wanted to stay. The people didn't even know what they wanted in this instance! And if the referendum was re-run today it'd probably be a landslide 'Remain' vote, now that people have had a chance to see the implications, the lack-of-a-plan, the way the Leave campaign lied to them. The correct thing for Parliament to do is cancel A50 and remain. They are there to do what's right by the British public, not cater to the whimsy of a misled and misinformed public that can't make its mind up. It's no different than a parent denying their kid a mega pack of hershey's kisses at the grocery store. Kid wants the chocolate, parent knows chocolate isn't the best thing to get them, parent overrides their will. Just swap 'Parliament' for 'Parent', 'Brexit' for chocolates, and 'Public' for 'Kid' in the analogy.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52919993]Nah dude ignoring referendum results is easy just look at the Netherlands, we ignored the last 2 and will probably ignore the next one as well.[/QUOTE] Like...this is the entire function on non-binding referenda. You ask the nation a question in an official capacity, you get a response and you either start talks from there or just ignore it if the result isn't particularly strong. You don't take it as fucking gospel and initiate a breakup with a union that has been almost entirely beneficial to your country without discussing it properly. It took the other political parties here going to the House of Lords to actually get the Commons to debate the fucking thing if I recall, if that hadn't happened we'd have just started the A50 process with absolutely zero planning (not that we actually have a plan right now anyway).
I'm surprised countries have non-binding referenda. We only have referendums when it comes to changing the Constitution. They are binding and ran by a neutral Referendum Commission. There's no point in doing referenda any other way. Its suicidal.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52919770]Ignoring a collective shrug isn't denying the will of the British people their right to self determination. They don't even know what they want. The referendum was a tie. A coin flip is as accurate a read of British will as the poll was. [I]A coin flip.[/I] You can't straightfacedly argue 'Well ignoring Brexit referendum = denying right to self-determination' when there's no self-determination to ignore. You'd have a point if Leave won by a majority. But it didn't. It was effectively a tie. Half wanted to leave, half wanted to stay. The people didn't even know what they wanted in this instance! And if the referendum was re-run today it'd probably be a landslide 'Remain' vote, now that people have had a chance to see the implications, the lack-of-a-plan, the way the Leave campaign lied to them. The correct thing for Parliament to do is cancel A50 and remain. They are there to do what's right by the British public, not cater to the whimsy of a misled and misinformed public that can't make its mind up. It's no different than a parent denying their kid a mega pack of hershey's kisses at the grocery store. Kid wants the chocolate, parent knows chocolate isn't the best thing to get them, parent overrides their will. Just swap 'Parliament' for 'Parent', 'Brexit' for chocolates, and 'Public' for 'Kid' in the analogy.[/QUOTE] First, throwing around a self-coined term ("collective shrug") doesn't validate your argument. Second, I find myself experiencing a tinge of annoyance at an outsider telling us that "[we] don't even know what [we] want". Third, the referendum was not a tie. Its categorically incorrect to say that. Fourth, a coin flip has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the referendum. You mean to say that something whereby the outcome is largely decided by chance is the same as a mass referendum that is decided by varying views and opinions of the country's population? I think you are right - I cannot straightfacedly argue with you when you are making such ridiculous remarks, since they are so laughable. Leave did win by a majority. It was [b]not[/b] a tie. Even if Leave won by one vote, it would still hold the majority. I think you need to go read up on the definitions of 'majority', 'minority', and 'tie'. So many arguments I have seen so far have been so hypocritical it is both laughable and painful at the same time. I have seen people who supported the Scottish Referendum arguing vehemently that the Brexit referendum result should be ignored. I have seen arguments put forward that would, when held up against other independence referendums, be nonsensical and abhorrent. Scotland is of course one example, but what about Catalonia? What about Kurdistan? What about all the former colonial countries which elected for independence (such as Saint Vincent and The Grenadines)? What if Argentina and Spain ignored The Falkland Islands and Gibraltar's choice on self-determination, deciding that they 'knew best'? And the 'parent knowing best' is a terrible analogy, and quite dangerous. Our government is there to represent the people and it's will. It exists to manage the minute-to-minute running of the country because the public cannot make decisions on every little thing. The moment the government - or it's leader - starts making its own decisions and using the justification of it being for 'the good of the people', we start heading down a very slippery slope (see: net neutrality). I shall end by recommending as well that you read up on Gordon Brown and how he faired after failing to deliver on a promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
[QUOTE=David29;52921355]First, throwing around a self-coined term ("collective shrug") doesn't validate your argument.[/quote] 1: IT's not 'self coined'. It's something I've heard used in similar contexts my whole life 2: I don't really care if you think it validates my argument, because quite frankly, I'm getting the whole 'BLABLA I CAN'T HEAR YOU' vibe from every reply you post. It's as if you don't care about anything except blindly following the rest of the Leave lemmings right off the Cliffs of Dover and head-long into the Channel. [quote] Second, I find myself experiencing a tinge of annoyance at an outsider telling us that "[we] don't even know what [we] want". [/quote] My 'give-a-damn' gauge didn't even twitch, sorry to say. You being annoyed at voices of reason from outside Britian is going to become a distant memory of concerns past when the British negotiators finally figure out which end of the shotgun makes the loud noises, buries the muzzle in your economy, and unloads both barrels. Which is going to be the result of Brexit. Nobody except the fanatical thinks Brexit is genuinely going to improve the economy, in fact, the shockwaves will be so big that we'll even feel them clean on the other side of the ocean. [quote]Third, the referendum was not a tie. Its categorically incorrect to say that.[/quote] So you're going to play pedantics? You're going to say [I]every single Brit wants to leave the EU because just 51 percent of them voted in favor of it[/I]? I get the feeling you're one of the ones that did vote for Leave. I can't think of a single reason someone who voted for Remain would so vehemently defend the sanctity of a worthless referendum that came back inconclusive and is being used to further the position they voted against. I imagine everyone who voted Remain would be positively delighted if the PM came on the BBC and announced they're cancelling Article 50, along with a significant chunk of Leave voters who were misled by the Leave campaign and left under-informed by the Remain campaign and who are having regrets about said vote. [quote]Fourth, a coin flip has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the referendum.[/quote] A coin flip and the Brexit referendum have an equal chance of representing the British public's will here. [quote] You mean to say that something whereby the outcome is largely decided by chance is the same as a mass referendum that is decided by varying views and opinions of the country's population?[/quote] I mean to say half of Britian wants to leave, half of Britian wants to stay, and by flipping a coin you get a result just as satisfactory as the referendum gave. Basically, I'm saying Britian would have been no better off leaving it up to pure chance than they were holding the referendum because the referendum result is one-out-of-two Brits wants to leave and one-out-of-two Brits wants to stay. [quote]Leave did win by a majority.[/quote] A majority is a victory that is unquestionable. Like, say, 60% in favor of leave. 51% is barely beyond margin of error. All a 51% result says is that Britian can't make its mind up, that Britian doesn't know if it wants to stay or wants to go. 51% is a majority only if you want to be pedantic. 51% is only a majority if you're in favor of committing economic suicide on a massive scale. To anyone with an ounce of common sense, 51% is a tie. Or, fine, if you want to be pedantic about it, we'll say it's 'inconclusive'. That a better turn of phrase? Or are you gonna find a reason to bitch about that term as well? [quote]And the 'parent knowing best' is a terrible analogy, and quite dangerous.[/quote] Wanna know what else is quite dangerous?[I] Committing economic suicide on an national scale based off an inconclusive result that was known to be influences by misinformation and laziness.[/I] [quote]Our government is there to represent the people and it's will.[/quote] Governments exist to serve the people, but they are not slaves to the people. [quote] It exists to manage the minute-to-minute running of the country because the public cannot make decisions on every little thing. [/quote] Sometimes that's because the little things are too numerous, and sometimes [B]it's because the public is too undecided or too stupid to make a decision on the matter.[/B] What's really laughable is that, if the British public were better informed, Remain would have most likely won by a landslide. Leave won in part because the Remain campaign sat on their arses sipping tea instead of, y'know, [I]campaigning[/I], while Leave spread lies, misinformation, and sweet nothings as politicians so often do. Funnily enough, that's also how we ended up with Donald Trump. The less rancid of the two turds just sat around thinking it was in the bag, didn't campaign, while the more rancid one spewed lie after lie after lie after lie campaigning all over the place and managed to squeak through the election on questionable terms. It's eerily similar. Both of our countries have voted ourselves into a horrible position by narrow margins that shouldn't even constitute a victory. Only one of them has an out: Yours. We're stuck with Trump for at least another year and a half, and that's assuming Mueller has a silver bullet sitting in his desk somewhere. If he can't succeed with impeachement we have to put up with this shit until 2020. You guys could get out of your elected stupidity in a day, with a single representative uttering a single declaration in Brussels. ...just for sake of argument, if the state I lived in decided to secede a second time, held a referendum, passed it with 51%, then presented it to congress only for Congress to laugh, throw it back in their face, and tell them to fuck off? I'd be overjoyed. Because that's what Congress [I]should[/I] do if Tennessee votes to secede from the union a second time on such questionable margins. It would be monumentally stupid to go through with it no matter the margin, but by your logic, a 51% result on a state wide referendum would mean every single Tennessean was in favor of secession and that the state government would be obliged to proceed anyway. After all, you're saying 51% of Britian = All of Britian by saying the Brexit referendum represents the will of the British public. I'm no mathematician but I'm pretty sure 51 is NOT equal to 100. [quote]The moment the government - or it's leader - starts making its own decisions and using the justification of it being for 'the good of the people', we start heading down a very slippery slope. [/quote] So you say it would have been a good idea for the US to glass the middle east in 2001? Because there was quite a vocal portion of the American public calling for us to nuke the everloving hell out of Iraq shortly after the towers fell, in fact, I bet if you had held a referendum on the matter in November of 2001 you would have gotten a landslide supermajority in favor of basking the entire fucking region in Atom's radiance. Hell, even today, over a decade later, there's still a vocal minority in favor of glassing them, and the minority calling for glassing North Korea over Kim's nuclear program is getting bigger and bigger with each bout of sabre rattling. Yet you agree with me that doing so would have been a HORRIBLE idea, right? And you would agree with me that ignoring the public's will on that front was the correct response, right? But by your logic, if we held a referendum and 51% of the American public answered 'Yes, nuke them', the White House would be obliged to order a strike and Congress would be obliged to approve it. Will of the American People is sacred, right? The public can not be trusted to make decisions like this. They're too dumb, too misinformed, too ignorant, and too self-focused to even attempt to make major decisions affecting global politics and economics. Hell, most of them are barely capable of handling the politics and economics of their own household, as divorce and bankruptcy rates on both sides of the pond attest to. This is why they elect leaders. The general public is unable to make these sorts of decisions, but elected leaders are supposed to be able to do so. Your government, as does every government on this planet, exists to protect its people from their own stupidity as much as it does to enact their whims. The parent analogy is spot fucking on. We don't elect officials to handle the daily tasks of government simply because we, the people, don't have the time to do so. We elect them because they are experts in dealing with such matters, that they are more well informed than we are about the issues and details attached to those matters. And sometimes there's things we, the public, don't know that drastically change what the correct decision should be. You want to throw the dictionary at me? Hold that thought. Open it yourself. Look up 'slave', then look up 'Representative'. You're painting politicians as slaves to the people. The are not. They are representatives of the people. Huge difference, and it's one you're either blind to or willfully ignorant of. Part of their job is to give us what we want, but part of their job is to give us what we [B]need[/B]. And sometimes what we need is polar opposite of what we want, yet what we need takes precedence. You want a good case-in-point for why disregarding the public will is sometimes in the best interest of the public? Just take one good hard look at the train wreck of a healthcare system we put up with over here. What we need, what politicians should give us, what it's their job to give us, is a single player system like the rest of the developed world has. Disregarding the will of the public and giving the public what it truly needs would give AN IMMEASURABLY MASSIVE NET BENEFIT TO EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN RICH, POOR, YOUNG, OLD, WHITE, BLACK, MALE, FEMALE, WHATEVER! WE WOULD ALL BENEFIT TREMENDOUSLY! But instead they kowtow to the [I]~'will of the public'~[/I] and continue to force us to languish in what's effectively a debt generator designed to profit off our (literally in some cases) broken backs. And of course the GOP and its benefactors are where this profit goes, so they're more than happy to continually lie to us, right to our faces, try to convince us that we want to remain in this shitty situation. Scarily good at it, too. The people don't always know what's right for them, they don't always want what's right for them. It is objective fact proven by just a casual glance at the American right and the voters that continually prop it up in DC. [quote] I shall end by recommending as well that you read up on Gordon Brown and how he faired after failing to deliver on a promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.[/QUOTE] I shall end with saying I will do no such thing(And if you think I'm somehow a stranger to having politicians break promises, remember I live in America, a country that has been lied to by politicians so heavily that it has assumed them to be lying until proven otherwise for over 50 years), and by saying that if more pedantry and mockery is the response you give me I'm just going to disregard every word you have to say and go back to playing Fallout 4. I may be obligated to put effort into my posts and not directly insult/flame you, but I'm definitely [I]not[/I] obligated to continue to listen to/respond to your posts if I find it a waste of my time to do so.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52921408]1: IT's not 'self coined'. It's something I've heard used in similar contexts my whole life 2: I don't really care if you think it validates my argument, because quite frankly, I'm getting the whole 'BLABLA I CAN'T HEAR YOU' vibe from every reply you post. It's as if you don't care about anything except blindly following the rest of the Leave lemmings right off the Cliffs of Dover and head-long into the Channel. My 'give-a-damn' gauge didn't even twitch, sorry to say. You being annoyed at voices of reason from outside Britian is going to become a distant memory of concerns past when the British negotiators finally figure out which end of the shotgun makes the loud noises, buries the muzzle in your economy, and unloads both barrels. Which is going to be the result of Brexit. Nobody except the fanatical thinks Brexit is genuinely going to improve the economy, in fact, the shockwaves will be so big that we'll even feel them clean on the other side of the ocean. So you're going to play pedantics? You're going to say [I]every single Brit wants to leave the EU because just 51 percent of them voted in favor of it[/I]? I get the feeling you're one of the ones that did vote for Leave. I can't think of a single reason someone who voted for Remain would so vehemently defend the sanctity of a worthless referendum that came back inconclusive and is being used to further the position they voted against. I imagine everyone who voted Remain would be positively delighted if the PM came on the BBC and announced they're cancelling Article 50, along with a significant chunk of Leave voters who were misled by the Leave campaign and left under-informed by the Remain campaign and who are having regrets about said vote. A coin flip and the Brexit referendum have an equal chance of representing the British public's will here. I mean to say half of Britian wants to leave, half of Britian wants to stay, and by flipping a coin you get a result just as satisfactory as the referendum gave. Basically, I'm saying Britian would have been no better off leaving it up to pure chance than they were holding the referendum because the referendum result is one-out-of-two Brits wants to leave and one-out-of-two Brits wants to stay. A majority is a victory that is unquestionable. Like, say, 60% in favor of leave. 51% is barely beyond margin of error. All a 51% result says is that Britian can't make its mind up, that Britian doesn't know if it wants to stay or wants to go. 51% is a majority only if you want to be pedantic. 51% is only a majority if you're in favor of committing economic suicide on a massive scale. To anyone with an ounce of common sense, 51% is a tie. Or, fine, if you want to be pedantic about it, we'll say it's 'inconclusive'. That a better turn of phrase? Or are you gonna find a reason to bitch about that term as well? Wanna know what else is quite dangerous?[I] Committing economic suicide on an national scale based off an inconclusive result that was known to be influences by misinformation and laziness.[/I] Governments exist to serve the people, but they are not slaves to the people. Sometimes that's because the little things are too numerous, and sometimes [B]it's because the public is too undecided or too stupid to make a decision on the matter.[/B] What's really laughable is that, if the British public were better informed, Remain would have most likely won by a landslide. Leave won in part because the Remain campaign sat on their arses sipping tea instead of, y'know, [I]campaigning[/I], while Leave spread lies, misinformation, and sweet nothings as politicians so often do. Funnily enough, that's also how we ended up with Donald Trump. The less rancid of the two turds just sat around thinking it was in the bag, didn't campaign, while the more rancid one spewed lie after lie after lie after lie campaigning all over the place and managed to squeak through the election on questionable terms. It's eerily similar. Both of our countries have voted ourselves into a horrible position by narrow margins that shouldn't even constitute a victory. Only one of them has an out: Yours. We're stuck with Trump for at least another year and a half, and that's assuming Mueller has a silver bullet sitting in his desk somewhere. If he can't succeed with impeachement we have to put up with this shit until 2020. You guys could get out of your elected stupidity in a day, with a single representative uttering a single declaration in Brussels. ...just for sake of argument, if the state I lived in decided to secede a second time, held a referendum, passed it with 51%, then presented it to congress only for Congress to laugh, throw it back in their face, and tell them to fuck off? I'd be overjoyed. Because that's what Congress [I]should[/I] do if Tennessee votes to secede from the union a second time on such questionable margins. It would be monumentally stupid to go through with it no matter the margin, but by your logic, a 51% result on a state wide referendum would mean every single Tennessean was in favor of secession and that the state government would be obliged to proceed anyway. After all, you're saying 51% of Britian = All of Britian by saying the Brexit referendum represents the will of the British public. I'm no mathematician but I'm pretty sure 51 is NOT equal to 100. So you say it would have been a good idea for the US to glass the middle east in 2001? Because there was quite a vocal portion of the American public calling for us to nuke the everloving hell out of Iraq shortly after the towers fell, in fact, I bet if you had held a referendum on the matter in November of 2001 you would have gotten a landslide supermajority in favor of basking the entire fucking region in Atom's radiance. Hell, even today, over a decade later, there's still a vocal minority in favor of glassing them, and the minority calling for glassing North Korea over Kim's nuclear program is getting bigger and bigger with each bout of sabre rattling. Yet you agree with me that doing so would have been a HORRIBLE idea, right? And you would agree with me that ignoring the public's will on that front was the correct response, right? But by your logic, if we held a referendum and 51% of the American public answered 'Yes, nuke them', the White House would be obliged to order a strike and Congress would be obliged to approve it. Will of the American People is sacred, right? The public can not be trusted to make decisions like this. They're too dumb, too misinformed, too ignorant, and too self-focused to even attempt to make major decisions affecting global politics and economics. Hell, most of them are barely capable of handling the politics and economics of their own household, as divorce and bankruptcy rates on both sides of the pond attest to. This is why they elect leaders. The general public is unable to make these sorts of decisions, but elected leaders are supposed to be able to do so. Your government, as does every government on this planet, exists to protect its people from their own stupidity as much as it does to enact their whims. The parent analogy is spot fucking on. We don't elect officials to handle the daily tasks of government simply because we, the people, don't have the time to do so. We elect them because they are experts in dealing with such matters, that they are more well informed than we are about the issues and details attached to those matters. And sometimes there's things we, the public, don't know that drastically change what the correct decision should be. You want to throw the dictionary at me? Hold that thought. Open it yourself. Look up 'slave', then look up 'Representative'. You're painting politicians as slaves to the people. The are not. They are representatives of the people. Huge difference, and it's one you're either blind to or willfully ignorant of. Part of their job is to give us what we want, but part of their job is to give us what we [B]need[/B]. And sometimes what we need is polar opposite of what we want, yet what we need takes precedence. You want a good case-in-point for why disregarding the public will is sometimes in the best interest of the public? Just take one good hard look at the train wreck of a healthcare system we put up with over here. What we need, what politicians should give us, what it's their job to give us, is a single player system like the rest of the developed world has. Disregarding the will of the public and giving the public what it truly needs would give AN IMMEASURABLY MASSIVE NET BENEFIT TO EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN RICH, POOR, YOUNG, OLD, WHITE, BLACK, MALE, FEMALE, WHATEVER! WE WOULD ALL BENEFIT TREMENDOUSLY! But instead they kowtow to the [I]~'will of the public'~[/I] and continue to force us to languish in what's effectively a debt generator designed to profit off our (literally in some cases) broken backs. And of course the GOP and its benefactors are where this profit goes, so they're more than happy to continually lie to us, right to our faces, try to convince us that we want to remain in this shitty situation. Scarily good at it, too. The people don't always know what's right for them, they don't always want what's right for them. It is objective fact proven by just a casual glance at the American right and the voters that continually prop it up in DC. I shall end with saying I will do no such thing(And if you think I'm somehow a stranger to having politicians break promises, remember I live in America, a country that has been lied to by politicians so heavily that it has assumed them to be lying until proven otherwise for over 50 years), and by saying that if more pedantry and mockery is the response you give me I'm just going to disregard every word you have to say and go back to playing Fallout 4. I may be obligated to put effort into my posts and not directly insult/flame you, but I'm definitely [I]not[/I] obligated to continue to listen to/respond to your posts if I find it a waste of my time to do so.[/QUOTE] I started typing out a long reply, but then I thought: "why bother"? I really have better things to on my Saturday off than argue with someone who is so blinded that: a. Is prepared to ignore the English dictionary: "[I]majority noun uk ​ /məˈdʒɒr.ə.ti/ us ​ /məˈdʒɑː.rə.t̬i/ majority noun (NUMBER) ​ The larger number or part of something: The majority of the employees have university degrees. A large majority of people approve of the death sentence. In Britain women are in the/a majority. tie verb uk ​ /taɪ/ us ​ /taɪ/ present participle tying, past tense and past participle tied tie verb (FINISH EQUAL) To finish at the same time or score the same number of points, etc. in a competition as someone or something else: Jane and I tied (for first place) in the spelling test. We tied with a team from the south in the championships.[/I]" b. Isn't even willing to look further into my examples which act as counter-arguments: "[I]I shall end with saying I will do no such thing[/I]" Although this did make me laugh: "[I]but I'm definitely not obligated to continue to listen to/respond to your posts if I find it a waste of my time to do so.[/I]" Translates into: "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" (See? I can do it too!) [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Novangel))[/highlight]
But the intent of the referendum was to gauge public opinion on Brexit and a 51/49 result falls well into the error margin for such a poll. It would be wildly irresponsible to go full steam ahead on the Brexit path based on that poll, especially since nobody had anything close to an actual plan on how to handle it.
[QUOTE=David29;52921465] Although this did make me laugh: "[I]but I'm definitely not obligated to continue to listen to/respond to your posts if I find it a waste of my time to do so.[/I]" Translates into: "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" (See? I can do it too!)[/QUOTE] Honestly, if someone kept calling 51/49 a 'majority win', I'd throw my hands up and give up too. It's like calling a 1-0 football match a 'crushing victory'. Par for the course with Leave supporters, they never bring anything substantial to the table and just argue like fucking elementary schoolers.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52921680]Honestly, if someone kept calling 51/49 a 'majority win', I'd throw my hands up and give up too. It's like calling a 1-0 football match a 'crushing victory'. Par for the course with Leave supporters, they never bring anything substantial to the table and just argue like fucking elementary schoolers.[/QUOTE] [I][b][u]But it is a majority win.[/u][/b][/I] Christ, is it that hard to get your head around it? 16,141,241 voted to remain. 17,410,742 voted to leave. 17,410,742 is more than 16,141,241 - it is by the very textbook definition a [b]majority[/b] and therefore it is a majority win for the Leave side. And your comparison doesn't even work because I'm using 'majority' as a factual verb - you're using 'crushing' as a descriptive adjective. They aren't comparable. And it's all very well and good calling Leave supporters "elementary schoolers", but so far the major arguments that have been presented to me against the referendum have largely consisted of "ha, you're wrong - the British public don't know what they want I'm not going to actually bother reading anything you have posted as a counter-argument".
[QUOTE=David29;52921779][I][b][u]But it is a majority win.[/u][/b][/I] Christ, is it that hard to get your head around it? 16,141,241 voted to remain. 17,410,742 voted to leave. 17,410,742 is more than 16,141,241 - it is by the very textbook definition a [b]majority[/b] and therefore it is a majority win for the Leave side. And your comparison doesn't even work because I'm using 'majority' as a factual verb - you're using 'crushing' as a descriptive adjective. They aren't comparable. And it's all very well and good calling Leave supporters "elementary schoolers", but so far the major arguments that have been presented to me against the referendum have largely consisted of "ha, you're wrong - the British public don't know what they want I'm not going to actually bother reading anything you have posted as a counter-argument".[/QUOTE] When they genuinely don't and every damn expert is saying we're fucking retarded? You might have a point. And considering that 49% (roughly) of the population did not vote, a win of 52% (of the 51% that did vote) is pretty much margin of error shit, as people have said. So you've got a weak mandate in an advisory referendum and the actually informed experts in economics etc screaming that we're out of our mind. The solution? Don't rush into it, but appoint a team to see if the advisory referendum (as all our referenda ARE) to see if it is worth pursuing.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52921969]When they genuinely don't and every damn expert is saying we're fucking retarded? You might have a point. And considering that 49% (roughly) of the population did not vote, a win of 52% (of the 51% that did vote) is pretty much margin of error shit, as people have said. So you've got a weak mandate in an advisory referendum and the actually informed experts in economics etc screaming that we're out of our mind. The solution? Don't rush into it, but appoint a team to see if the advisory referendum (as all our referenda ARE) to see if it is worth pursuing.[/QUOTE] Your argument loses its credibility somewhat given how in favour of Scottish Independence you were. Should we have ignored there Scottish Referendum if the result had favoured leaving the Union?
[QUOTE=David29;52917024]Well I can assure you, it would be. So you are suggesting that the government denies the UK public it's collective right to self-determination?[/QUOTE] A referendum is not self determination [editline]25th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;52922046]Your argument loses its credibility somewhat given how in favour of Scottish Independence you were. Should we have ignored there Scottish Referendum if the result had favoured leaving the Union?[/QUOTE] How does he lose credibility for calling a factually weak mandate what it is? When the leave campaign was based entirely on lies and misinformation I find it very hard to justify going through with it on a weak mandate and a non binding referendum. You don't. That's fine but stop acting like everyone who opposes you is an evil undemocratic loon.
[QUOTE=David29;52922046]Your argument loses its credibility somewhat given how in favour of Scottish Independence you were. Should we have ignored there Scottish Referendum if the result had favoured leaving the Union?[/QUOTE] And even as a supporter I'd have been wary of pushing forward with it with less than 60% in favour of it - you need a strong mandate to overturn the status quo - 52% of 51% is not a strong mandate. (IndyRef had a huge turnout at 82%, if we'd got a 60+% in favour of leaving the UK I'd be pretty happy with that as a mandate, but we didn't. Instead we got a marginal 'No' victory, but that's a victory for the status quo and you can fairly well assume that those whom didn't vote would have gone in favour of the status quo if they had been forced) Being in favour of ScotIndy means pretty much nothing here because the hope and plan was to remain in the EU, and the economic argument was more hotly debated for Scottish Independence than it was for leaving the EU, where economists are unanimous about it being a terrible idea no matter the outcome. ScotInd depended entirely on what we got out of the divorce settlement, whereas Brexit has no actual means of being a benefit to the British people. Also, self-determination with regards to brexit is a load of horseshit because it is actually a net loss of sovereignty (and thus self-determination) because for this not to be the most stupid case of national suicide ever, we will have to have access to the EU Single Market, and we will now have lost any chance to actually negotiate on and affect policy regarding it.
[QUOTE=David29;52921465]I started typing out a long reply, but then I thought: "why bother"? I really have better things to on my Saturday off than argue with someone who is so blinded that: a. Is prepared to ignore the English dictionary: "[I]majority noun uk ​ /məˈdʒɒr.ə.ti/ us ​ /məˈdʒɑː.rə.t̬i/ majority noun (NUMBER) ​ The larger number or part of something: The majority of the employees have university degrees. A large majority of people approve of the death sentence. In Britain women are in the/a majority. tie verb uk ​ /taɪ/ us ​ /taɪ/ present participle tying, past tense and past participle tied tie verb (FINISH EQUAL) To finish at the same time or score the same number of points, etc. in a competition as someone or something else: Jane and I tied (for first place) in the spelling test. We tied with a team from the south in the championships.[/I]" b. Isn't even willing to look further into my examples which act as counter-arguments: "[I]I shall end with saying I will do no such thing[/I]" Although this did make me laugh: "[I]but I'm definitely not obligated to continue to listen to/respond to your posts if I find it a waste of my time to do so.[/I]" Translates into: "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" (See? I can do it too!)[/QUOTE] so this is a pretty strong example of what's wrong with your mindset here. You're saying that based on a extremely small majority, within a statistical margin of error due to the non voting population is a binding decision that cannot, should not, and under no circumstances should be questioned or re-thought. That is patently absurd. [editline]25th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;52921779][I][b][u]But it is a majority win.[/u][/b][/I] Christ, is it that hard to get your head around it? 16,141,241 voted to remain. 17,410,742 voted to leave. 17,410,742 is more than 16,141,241 - it is by the very textbook definition a [b]majority[/b] and therefore it is a majority win for the Leave side. And your comparison doesn't even work because I'm using 'majority' as a factual verb - you're using 'crushing' as a descriptive adjective. They aren't comparable. And it's all very well and good calling Leave supporters "elementary schoolers", but so far the major arguments that have been presented to me against the referendum have largely consisted of "ha, you're wrong - the British public don't know what they want I'm not going to actually bother reading anything you have posted as a counter-argument".[/QUOTE] I have absolutely read your argument. I just don't think it's a strong argument. You seem to be under the impression that any society that calls itself any form of democratic is bound to group decisions that can't be questioned or changed. That isn't enshrined in any law anywhere, and going against it doesn't destroy the vote, or the decisions of the people. This absolutely should be questioned, the leave campaign was based on lies. You can yell at everyone in this thread for being against your view and not reading what you're saying, but I don't think you've actually done any better at all. You haven't taken any arguments seriously because you already have a point of view, one you think trumps any argument, or reason against you. That isn't the case and you haven't provided a shred of valuable thought as to why your opinion is based on criteria that supersedes any additional reasoning or thought.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.