Topic: Brexitmageddon

[KyriakosCH]

One world government can't work, too huge a world in relation to humans, and too many humans.

You can see how well the one euro gov works

[Mandle]

One world government can't work, too huge a world in relation to humans, and too many humans.

The counter-argument could also be made that with a world population this huge, and with the power to make the world unlivable for the human race, we can't progress much further, or maybe even survive much longer, with the current system of seperate viewpoints constantly clashing...

I cannot imagine a way to implement a world government though...But if it is ever successfully done: It would be the pinacle of human achievement so far...

And therefore I feel it is not a goal that should be given up on despite seeming so improbable...

And it would be a great win condition for Civ XX... (If it's not already a win condition... I haven't played much beyond Civ 2)

[Atelier]

I cannot imagine a way to implement a world government though...But if it is ever successfully done: It would be the pinacle of human achievement so far...

Ooo, I'm not too sure about that! The biggest human undertaking, perhaps, but complexity does not equal progress. We would need to know what it looks like before we call it an achievement.

[Mandle]

I cannot imagine a way to implement a world government though...But if it is ever successfully done: It would be the pinacle of human achievement so far...

Ooo, I'm not too sure about that! The biggest human undertaking, perhaps, but complexity does not equal progress. We would need to know what it looks like before we call it an achievement.

Yeah...I meant if it actually worked then it would be the pinacle...

[Khris]

The problem with this thinking is that it is simply my gut feeling [...]

The biggest problem modern western society has is this right there: people voting with their gut.
People relying on their gut. People apparently thinking with their gut.

I'm not trying to attack you, but your gut is by far the last thing you should listen to when it comes to informed decision-making.

People need to STOP listening to their guts, and the Trumps and Farages and ErdoÄŸans will lose their power.

[Danvzare]

I'm not trying to attack you, but your gut is by far the last thing you should listen to when it comes to informed decision-making.

Except when you're hungry. That's probably the best time to listen to your gut.

[Jack]

There's a huge difference between a reactionary decision and an intuitive one.

A crude example might be the difference between "I'll vote for satan before I vote for trump" or "I voted for an independent candidate even though all three promised things that would benefit me."

Bit of a difficult idea to explain, especially when I know that there are people without a lick of intuition. It's a decision which you don't fully understand, one qualified by the subconscious mind rather than the conscious.

Leaving the EU was the correct move, even if it's expected that they will sabotage your economy for it. Voting to leave because you got swept up in the fervour is a reactionary choice, voting to leave because somehow you know it's the right choice, in spite of the prevailing fervour, is an intuitive one.

[Scavenger]

There's a huge difference between a reactionary decision and an intuitive one.

A crude example might be the difference between "I'll vote for satan before I vote for trump" or "I voted for an independent candidate even though all three promised things that would benefit me."

Bit of a difficult idea to explain, especially when I know that there are people without a lick of intuition. It's a decision which you don't fully understand, one qualified by the subconscious mind rather than the conscious.

The only difference between those things is that you either realise your subconscious bias and influences, or you don't. Voting with your gut is still unbelievably unwise.

Leaving the EU was the correct move, even if it's expected that they will sabotage your economy for it.

And here's where I take so much umbrage with that. Leaving the EU is possibly the worst thing that we could possibly do. Just look at what the government is doing now. Our economy is tanked and tanks every time they affirm they're gonna leave, they're floating the idea of deporting EU citizens to replace with british ones and forcing companies to disclose how many foreign workers they are employing, and what is their economic plan? Artisan jams and cakes? It's monstrous. "Leaving the EU for more sovereignty" was just a dogwhistle for "Shit, let's be incredibly fascist and xenophobic" and that's all it ever was. They had no plans, they had no real idea, they just wanted to reconfirm how xenophobic they want the UK to be. And anyone, ANYONE who says otherwise is completely blind. Hate crime rocketed after Brexit, and even before Brexit the leave propaganda mimicked early Nazi propaganda about immigrants and outsiders. It forces talent out of the country, because wow, the UK's education system sure did get worse under the coinservatives and that's not gonna bring in many new people, and if we lose free travel with the EU we can't even escape the country while it turns into Nazis Take Westminster. Brexit is a living hell, and leaving was a huge mistake, not a correct decision, and any mollification of "voting with your guts to leave" by saying that somehow thinking less about the situation you're voting on is more noble than knowing why you're doing something is not going to help. It was a mistake. It should have never happened.

And no, nobody is sabotaging the UK's economy except the people running the UK. If someone told you putting your hand on a hot stove would burn you, would you then say that the person who warned you was burning you, and not your own stupid decision? Of course the economy would tank if we tried to leave the EU, or even said that we would - our economy is full of businesses that use the UK as a homebase because of our ties with the EU. Stop with the conspiracy stuff, Jack. It's getting old. And quite frankly, it's insulting.

[Jack]

Could I trouble you to find out which part of the ISDS you're most looking forward to?

[Atelier]

The problem with this thinking is that it is simply my gut feeling [...]

The biggest problem modern western society has is this right there: people voting with their gut.
People relying on their gut. People apparently thinking with their gut.

I'm not trying to attack you, but your gut is by far the last thing you should listen to when it comes to informed decision-making.

People need to STOP listening to their guts, and the Trumps and Farages and ErdoÄŸans will lose their power.

That's true, I do agree, but I didn't make my decision on polling day and certainly didn't get swept up in the populist Leave campaign. Ever since I learnt what the EU was I have always felt the same. Without sounding arrogant it is not through ignorance either, I've studied EU frameworks and EU law in detail. As a matter of principle I don't believe it is right that an unelected body has the power to legislate in a country at a supreme, binding level, even if such laws are 'good' law. Sure, we elect MEPs to Brussels, but (a) they do not have legislative initiative and (b) naturally the majority of the Parliament is made up of seats that you have no capacity to elect.

So, by 'gut feeling', I perhaps mean that I could see the merits of both sides, but basically on a matter of principle I voted to Leave.

... we can't even escape the country while it turns into Nazis Take Westminster. Brexit is a living hell

Do you really believe the ground will split and fire will spring forth when we leave the EU? That the EU is the only thing keeping us from the end-times? I think you are catastrophising Brexit just a tiny bit.

Nobody is going to starve because we leave the EU. In the short-term things will not be good, which would happen to any country that leaves. But it's pessimistic to believe that the UK cannot survive and shape its own future outside the EU, and slightly bizarre to believe we will suddenly descend into a fascist state.

[Scavenger]

Nobody is going to starve because we leave the EU. In the short-term things will not be good, which would happen to any country that leaves. But it's pessimistic to believe that the UK cannot survive and shape its own future outside the EU, and slightly bizarre to believe we will suddenly descend into a fascist state.

OK, but what about Children of immigrant families being catagorised (historically used for expulsion of those families), them floating legislation to shame companies and make them list how many foreign workers they have? It really does look like England is trying it's darndest to make life a living hell for people who aren't white british nationals. It's not just the economy. The break from the EU opened the floodgates to a lot of xenophobic bullshit, vindicated it, celebrated it. You know that hate crimes against non-white british citizens went up fivefold after the referendum result. Nothing will suddenly happen. But it will descend into monstrous actions if it isn't stopped cold. You can't be blind to what it will unleash and why the referendum was proposed in the first place. Sure, leaving the EU on it's own might work, but not in this political climate, and not with this government, and not with their lack of a plan, and not with xenophobia as the campaign's major focus. UKIP has been angling for it for years, and they're about as far right as you can get away with.

In the end, it was never really about EU leadership, or the EU itself. You can see it by the legislation that is being proposed right now - they aren't setting up business deals and improving the economy, they're not trying to talk seriously about how the UK will work after Brexit. They're salivating over expelling non-British people from the UK. Leaving the EU was always about xenophobia.

[Danvzare]

Leaving the EU was always about xenophobia.

Just to throw this in here though, not everyone who wanted to leave the EU did it for xenophobic reasons.
Does that count for anything?

[Scavenger]

Just to throw this in here though, not everyone who wanted to leave the EU did it for xenophobic reasons.
Does that count for anything?

Not really. The people in charge wanted to do it for xenophobic reasons, the campaign was xenophobic, it validated xenophobia. It doesn't matter what other reasons there were, if the people in charge of the result wanted a xenophobic end. There was no way to vote "Leave but not in a bigoted way", even though your reasons are more complicated than the binary choice given to you. Could you really trust people who were courting UKIP with any kind of exit from the EU that wasn't abhorrent and xenophobic?

[Snarky]

I've studied EU frameworks and EU law in detail. As a matter of principle I don't believe it is right that an unelected body has the power to legislate in a country at a supreme, binding level, even if such laws are 'good' law. Sure, we elect MEPs to Brussels, but (a) they do not have legislative initiative and (b) naturally the majority of the Parliament is made up of seats that you have no capacity to elect.

The EU structure is complex, but I don't see how it's more undemocratic than most national governments. The European Parliament is directly elected, the European Council consists of the leaders of each country (democratically chosen as long as the individual states remain democratic), and the other institutions consist of ministers, commissioners and judges appointed by each country or by the EU parliament. You don't have much more say than that over the details of the British government (ministerial portfolios etc.): you merely vote for a local MP (and if you're a party member and very keen, in party elections), and the rest is decided by parliament, the prime minister and her government.

And to call it undemocratic because other countries and their citizens also get a say is absurd.

[Atelier]

And to call it undemocratic because other countries and their citizens also get a say is absurd.

But that's the point, of course the European Parliament is holistically democratic, but not from the point of view of an individual country. A country's MEPs will always be in a minority, even if they were unanimously elected, and perhaps even if they form voting blocs. The difference between EU and national elections is that everything on offer in a general election is within the context of that country's range of principles and philosophies. National governments are far more democratic than the European Parliament because every citizen (in theory of course) is able to engage in and influence discourse in their country. This is impossible to do in the other countries that send MEPs.

It is undemocratic that other countries and their citizens in principle alone get a say over the laws in the UK, because I am not a citizen of those other countries, and they are not citizens of the UK!

Most votes in the Parliament are consensual, but when they are not, the UK is usually the loser: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/uk-meps-lose-most-in-the-european-parliament/

[Radiant]

But that's the point, of course the European Parliament is holistically democratic, but not from the point of view of an individual country. A country's MEPs will always be in a minority, even if they were unanimously elected, and perhaps even if they form voting blocs. The difference between EU and national elections is that everything on offer in a general election is within the context of that country's range of principles and philosophies. National governments are far more democratic than the European Parliament because every citizen (in theory of course) is able to engage in and influence discourse in their country. This is impossible to do in the other countries that send MEPs.

That's true on any level of democracy. Regardless of what party you vote for, the majority of elected officials will be from some other party. Regardless of which district or province or city you're from, the majority of elected officials will be from somewhere else. And so forth; this is inherent in how democracy works.

[Atelier]

Regardless of what party you vote for, the majority of elected officials will be from some other party. Regardless of which district or province or city you're from, the majority of elected officials will be from somewhere else.

No, that's not true at all, at least not in a first-past-the-post system. You may vote for the Conservatives at a general election and the Conservative party may very well form a majority. The Conservatives will then legislate and vote on legislation as a majority. In fact, logically it is true to say that it is more than equally likely that an individual vote in a general election with two options is a vote for a majority government.

In the European Parliament, this scenario is always impossible, your vote will always represent a minority vote because the remaining seats are constituted of different choices.

[Cassiebsg]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The EU will never work as long as we are consistently nationalists! Nationalists have no interest in other peoples well being, they're only worried about their own.

Reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... (also nice to finally know who said it!)

[Jack]

First they came for our cheap immigrant labour force.

[Snarky]

No, that's not true at all, at least not in a first-past-the-post system. You may vote for the Conservatives at a general election and the Conservative party may very well form a majority. The Conservatives will then legislate and vote on legislation as a majority. In fact, logically it is true to say that it is more than equally likely that an individual vote in a general election with two options is a vote for a majority government.

In the European Parliament, this scenario is always impossible, your vote will always represent a minority vote because the remaining seats are constituted of different choices.

Most democratic countries have multi-party systems where no one party tends to 50% of the vote. The elections determine the proportional representation of parties in parliament, and then they have to form coalitions to secure a majority. By your logic, that's not democratic, because the party you vote for will always be a minority.

But the trade-off in two-party systems is that you're giving up the ability to make detailed policy choices with your vote, since with only two options you could very easily find yourself disagreeing with both parties on major points. (And both parties may take the same position on certain issues that you disagree with.

The whole concept of democracy is that each person only has a little bit of power, so that in order to govern you need to pool it; you have to come to agreement with other people, compromising on some points, building coalitions, etc. until you have enough support for your program. Each individual is always only a small part of the decision-making, and can always be outvoted, but that doesn't make it undemocratic.

Nor does it make it more undemocratic if the people who are outvoting you happen to be from another country, as long as they are members of the political unit you're voting for. You and people who think like you might be outvoted on some UK law even though a majority support it in your neighborhood, simply because people in London or in Scotland disagree. Similarly, you might be outvoted on an EU law because people in Germany or France disagree. Why is one thing democratic and the other not?

Your argument only makes sense if you start from the assumption that there is no way for citizens of different countries to agree on anything, and in that case... well, you're never going to come to any other conclusion than that the EU is a fundamentally flawed idea, will you?