h a l f b a k e r yNot from concentrate.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The UK Government has said that having
had one referendum on leaving the EU
there won't be another one. However,
they have no mandate for ruling out
another EU referendum and have not ruled
out having a referendum on the question
of whether they should hold another EU
referendum. Holding
such a referendum
seems like the logical next step, to me.
(?) Theresa May
www.obviouslynot
Obviously not. Some people will believe anything. [MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 27 2016]
//The government, therefore, is obliged to listen to the majority of voters//
http://www.bbc.co.u...k-politics-37857785
You see, this is why politicians try to avoid making definitive statements about anything. [DrBob, Nov 03 2016]
[link]
|
| |
Do you have your Brexit buddy?... |
|
| |
I much prefer a soft brexit to a hard brexit. Prune juice often helps. |
|
| |
So, [zen], where do you stand on Brexit then? |
|
| |
// the democratic process must be respected // |
|
| |
But will that not be setting an extremely dangerous precedent... ? |
|
| |
"Vox Populi, Vox Dei ..." |
|
| |
One would think that the populace might have an opportunity to rescind the Brexit by virtue of voting in representatives who favor rescinding the Brexit - this representative democracy thing. In the US we do that every couple of months. But I have realized that some of the British poobahs are not elected but rather appointed by other lesser poobahs - like the lady in charge I have seen in the news. Perhaps more elections generally will allow the dyspeptic British 52% to cool their ardor. |
|
| |
//One would think that the populace might have an
opportunity to rescind the Brexit by virtue of voting
in representatives who favor rescinding the Brexit//
But, given that the populace voted for Brexit in the
first place... |
|
| |
And, in any case, both major parties (and probably
the Liberal Democrats too, though nobody knows)
were in favour of continuing under Brussels
Administration. |
|
| |
//being stripped of my citizenship, told I'm a citizen
of nowhere // That is intriguing. What is your
present citizenship? |
|
| |
Hey [zen], UKIP are looking for a new leader and you sound like a perfect fit for the job; failing that, there's good money in being a speech writer* for Boris Johnson. |
|
| |
*You can write it down as an aide-memoire, but you'll still have to teach it to him phonetically. |
|
| |
That boat has sailed. It ain't coming back. |
|
| |
I'm cancelling out that bone! Anything that retard Farage,
or Hitler Trump think is a good idea, is by definition an
ultra bad one, and both of these two morons are in favour
of brexit. Another vote is clearly needed to approve or
disapprove the eventual terms and conditions of the actual
brexit, the default poistion of that being a remain
outcome. |
|
| |
// terms and conditions of the actual brexit // |
|
| |
That's easy. "You give us everything we want, and we don't send in a flght of Tornados at treetop hight to drop some stores in EU HQ." |
|
| |
// detaching your sense of connection with reality and immersing yourself instead into a kind of primitive headspace populated only by half-formed emotional gists and stories, the more incoherent the better // |
|
| |
Now you're getting it. Just close your eyes and let the internal narrative take over. Best plug your ears, too ... otherwise you're risking reality - or even worse, facts - leaking in ... |
|
| |
// we can simply ask for "Everything we want" since we are as a
nation, demonstrably sure as to exactly what that is // |
|
| |
No, no, no. Never "ask", particularly when dealing with mere
foreigners. You tell Johnny Foreigner how it's going to be, and if
they don't jump to it chop-chop, send a gunboat to lob a few
shells into their thatched huts or whatever primitive squalid
hovel* they squat in. |
|
| |
*Most hovels in france and Belguim would need major work** to improve them so as to lift them into the "primitive and squalid" category. |
|
| |
** and real drains, done with all proper pipes and running water and stuff. |
|
| |
[zen tom] It must amaze you like some sort of magic trick
how successful the numerous countries are who have never
been and never will be in the EU. Take Singapore for
example. If only they were in the EU...... or Iceland, or
Australia, or New Zealand, or Canada, or Switzerland. The
EU is a basket-case, but leaving it was not the right thing to
do, and reforming it was. |
|
| |
We agree entirely. Just like mechanically reclaimed meat; it needs to be smashed down into a viscous puree, then chilled, mixed with synthetic additives, compressed, and extruded in a new form which - after being immersed in boiling lard for ten minutes - can appear almost palatable. |
|
| |
As long as it's not inspected too closely. |
|
| |
It's strange how we Brits generally cheer for little
countries trying to gain independence from their
big
brothers, but bemoan our desire to be
independent
of Big Brother. |
|
| |
It's also noticeable that there is a strong
generational divide between Brexiteers and
Bremainers. It would be unkind and far too easy to
criticise the young for wanting to maintain the
status quo - after all, young people do not cope
well with change, perhaps because they have
never lived through it. Anyone in
England under the age of 45 has never known life
outside the EU, so of course they find the idea
frightening. |
|
| |
We should just have patience with them, and try
to help them stop panicking. The young cannot be
expected to be as adaptable as the old. |
|
| |
Frankly, I can't see what the argument is all about. I don't see any difference between having our lives ruined by faceless, uncaring politicians in Brussels & having them ruined by faceless, uncaring politicians in Westminster. A pox on both their houses! |
|
| |
//the EU - as an institution - doesn't promote
xenophobia and right-wing ideology// That is
certainly true. |
|
| |
However, it is also worth bearing in mind that the
unsavoury xenophobic attitudes displayed by some
idiots today were developed in a Britain that was
part of the EU. So perhaps the EU has
unintentionally created the situation in which
xenophobia thrives. It's not as if xenophobia has
just been invented, post-Brexit-vote. |
|
| |
// the unsavoury xenophobic attitudes displayed by some idiots today were developed in a Britain that was part of the EU // |
|
| |
Donald Trump is British ? Well, who knew, eh ? |
|
| |
//the EU - as an institution - doesn't promote xenophobia and right-wing ideology// |
|
| |
Well, not openly. The Germans are a bit more subtle than they were mid-20th century. |
|
| |
The way I see it, the tragedy of Brexit is this: |
|
| |
By my hunch, based on no evidence whatsoever, the vote was against a cultural problem, whereby government is based on unaccountable cliques, rather than on ideas or principles that can be debated publicly and, where necessary, voted down. |
|
| |
The tragic mistake was to see the EU as the source of this problem, whereas it's really just one expression of it among many. |
|
| |
Just as the American colonists could probably have had representation in the British parliament, if they'd been willing to wait until, say, 1832, so too Britain could have had a more democratic EU, maybe some time in the next generation. |
|
| |
I write this from the safe distance of Australia, not having voted in the referendum. |
|
| |
//the vote was against a cultural problem// |
|
| |
That was certainly a large part of it. Both major
parties PLUS the bankers were all campaigning for
"remain". Everybody hates two out those three
groups, so of course they voted "leave". |
|
| |
The press (and, before the vote, the politicians)
overplayed the immigration angle: the rabid
xenophobes are an ugly minority, as in most
countries. Immigration was a factor,
but not the major one. Mostly, people are just sick
of the way things are, with no connection between
those in power and the average person. |
|
| |
There are other reasons, too, behind the majority
Brexit vote, but the main one is that people are
just sick of the whole bunch. |
|
| |
Would that bunch be composed of EU regulation curved
bananas? Meanwhile the two arrogant euro clowns I'm
totally
sick of are Tuske and Juncker. (-sp?). Getting away for
these
two overpaid power mad parasites and their army of
unquestioning
minions is a good enough reason for any country to leave
the Euro mess - and make no mistake, the EU is a total
mess, and will get much much worse, especially after the
UK leaves. |
|
| |
^^ Yeah, the red tops were all xenophobic during the campaign...an ugly sight |
|
| |
... yet a strangely familiar one ... |
|
| |
//Immigration was a factor, but not the major one// |
|
| |
There is some reason to believe that there is a connection between, on the one hand, the cultural problem I mentioned and, on the other hand, immigration - or, rather, multiculturalism, (which is not the same thing, but is often conflated with it). |
|
| |
I would like to refer you to a lecture given by David Riesmann, back in 1952. That was when what they used to call "the post-war consensus" was still being formed. That consensus did a lot to shape the European Union, and Riesmann was one of those to contribute significantly to its formation (the consensus, not the EU). |
|
| |
In this lecture, "Values in Context", Riesmann says (among other things) that the extra corruption associated with multi-cultural societies is nothing to worry about. He gives two reasons for this. One is that, supposedly, only multicultural societies have what he calls ideological pluralism - which is, apparently, more important than honesty or accountability. The other is that the economic cost of corruption is negligible, because the broader economy is so healthy. |
|
| |
The latter was probably true, back in 1952. Not so much today, I suggest. |
|
| |
And the striking thing is that he takes it as read, and as undeniable, that this extra corruption is real, and is not just a fabrication by ignorant xenophobes. |
|
| |
// this extra corruption is real // |
|
| |
... an importantly, not necessarily financial. |
|
| |
There is, on average, an innate tendency to favour one's own racial/social/political group. Where there is a dominant group, there can be an impulse to display magnanimity to a minority perceived as disadvantaged, because the overall effect on the "balance of power" is negligible. |
|
| |
But where multiple groups perceive themselves as competing, the tendency to show generosity outside the group is curtailed. |
|
| |
It's possible for individuals and institutions to be effectively corrupt without a penny ever changing hands. |
|
| |
Yes, but corruption is so much more fun when you
play with real money. |
|
| |
//the economic cost of corruption is negligible// I
suspect that the right amount of corruption is
hugely
beneficial to society. Put someone in charge of
getting something done, and they will quickly
realize
that they will be out of a job as soon as the thing
is
done. Give them a 0.5% backhander on the
contract
to get the thing done, and it will happen much
faster. |
|
| |
I've often explained to sales reps that it would be
more cost effective for them simply to give me
twenty quid to specify their product, than to spend
ages demonstrating its merits to me and being
nice. |
|
| |
Ignore him, he's just fishing. The most he's ever actually got was a rather dull plastic keyring, which he insisted on showing to absolutely everyone he met for the next six months. |
|
| |
Not even that, alas. It seems all these reps have
something called a "policy". It's completely
counterproductive. Anyway, where were we? |
|
| |
// One would think that the populace might have an opportunity to rescind the Brexit by virtue of voting in representatives who favor rescinding the Brexit - this representative democracy thing. //
This is still a theoretical possibility, provided somehow a general election is called. The main problem is that neither of the major parties has a firm internal policy about EU membership: the parliamentary Tories are I'd say about 70 anti / 30 pro, and the parliamentary Labour party is split into Jeremy Corbyn (nominally pro but actually anti) and everyone else (actually pro but willing to claim anti-hood so that they can "win elections"). While the SNP and the Liberal Democrats are pro-Europe, the parliamentary arithmetic is such that calling an election as a proxy referendum isn't a goer (and in the case of the SNP, while membership of the EU is better for Scotland, leaving the EU increases the case for and prospects of a second independence referendum, so). All in all, we're a bit fucked and the conclusion to be drawn from this is: British people hate forrins and they are willing to harm their own interests to further the aim of getting rid of forrins. |
|
| |
The horrible truth is that there is a referendum result and notwithstanding it is a stupid result arrived at out of ignorance, complacency and lies, the result is the only firm part of the political landscape, so the MPs will cling to the fucker like the Raft of the Medusa. |
|
| |
// hugely beneficial to society// |
|
| |
At the risk of sounding like a whining pinko Trotskyist, I suggest "hugely beneficial for that part of society best placed to distribute backhanders, having both the necessary money and the necessary connections, and not so much for everyone else". |
|
| |
//it is a stupid result arrived at out of ignorance,
complacency and lies, // |
|
| |
You see, that's where I have an issue. The "remain"
campaign had many good points and made a
number of valid arguments. I actually liked
Cameron and agreed with many of his points.
People who voted
"remain" did so for good reasons which, on
balance, led to their choice. |
|
| |
The people who voted "leave" also did so for good
reasons. They largely recognised the "remain"
arguments as valid, but did not consider those
arguments as important as other points. And those
"other points" were not, by and large, that they
"hate forrins" - my mother was one, for instance. |
|
| |
In other words, voters on both sides considered the
arguments, weighed them, and came to a
conclusion. It is not surprising that different
people weighed the different factors differently
and came to different conclusions. |
|
| |
But, almost universally, everyone who voted
"leave" (which is the majority of people who voted)
is said to be stupid, racist, isolationist, or just
plain evil. We're not: we just came to a different
conclusion than you did. |
|
| |
Your mother was an Alien ... that's not quite the same thing ... |
|
| |
It's significant that the margin for "leave" was so small - much smaller than the opinion swings shown in parliamentary elections. |
|
| |
The 1975 referendum was a 67 yes, 33 no split. Much more decisive. |
|
| |
It suggests, as [MB] indicates, that the arguments are fairly evenly balanced. |
|
| |
//the margin for "leave" was so small// |
|
| |
Yes, and that's probably true on a per-voter basis.
Most people who voted one way understood that
there were reasons for voting the other way too.
Yet the small majority who "won" the referendum
are widely accused of being simple-minded,
argument-blind idiots. I don't understand why the
"remainers" can't imagine a balanced decision
coming down on the other side of the argument. |
|
| |
If anything, I would say that "leavers" are a more
reasonable and moderate lot than the "remainers"
who seek to cast dissenters as idiots or
xenophobes. |
|
| |
//In other words, voters on both sides considered the arguments, weighed them, and came to a conclusion. It is not surprising that different people weighed the different factors differently and came to different conclusions.//
And thus Max reveals he is at heart an optimist about human nature. I think that leave and remain voters alike voted in the same way that they vote in other elections - largely without considering the options or the consequences of their decisions. Given the insipidity of the Remain campaign and the disingenuousness of the Leave campaign I can't blame the voters for making low-information decisions. |
|
| |
I don't dispute that there are cogent reasons for leaving the EU. Likewise, though, I have only met one leave voter who did not put forward border controls and too many forrins as one of their major reasons for voting to leave and, based on further discussion with the leave voters, it was clearly the issue that they understood most comprehensively / clearly. Granted, It could be that my sample size is skewed by the fact that I only meet leave voters at the EDL rallies I attend with my granny but my granny has been dead since 1995 and I don't even know what an England is. |
|
| |
// If anything, I would say that "leavers" are a more reasonable and moderate lot than the "remainers" who seek to cast dissenters as idiots or xenophobes //
It is easier to be sanguine when you have what you want. I find that as a white middle class male with a well paying job and only first world problems (brouilly stain in the chaise longue) to worry about, I am less likely to be protesting about anything much really. |
|
| |
//I think that leave and remain voters alike voted in
the same way that they vote in other elections// I
dunno. Most people I talked to before the vote were
genuinely unsure, because they could see arguments
on both sides, and were also well aware of the hype
promulgated by each camp. |
|
| |
Another factor, of course, is that the bankers all
wanted us to remain. How many people feel
charitably towards the bankers? |
|
| |
I feel charitable about them insofar as their financial security is strongly correlated with my financial security. This may be particularly true of the services sector but having seen what happens when the banks shite it (2008-2013) and call in all their loans, I wasn't then and amn't now keen to fuck them up any more, at least until the Fourth International comes good. And this is maybe my point - if the banks were making reasonable (if strongly worded and inexpertly spun) points about the potential economic consequences of a Leave vote and people chose to disregard it because they think that bankers are dicks, well, then they have applied an arguably incorrect weighting to the potential economic consequences. |
|
| |
// if the banks were making reasonable (if strongly worded and inexpertly spun) points about the potential economic consequences of a Leave vote // |
|
| |
The problem there is that the banks no longer have any implied credibility. They've blown that. |
|
| |
Decades ago, banks used to be slightly less distrusted than Governments and journalists. Now, they have been shown up as just as greedy, venal and self serving as the others*, and no-one trusts them. |
|
| |
So it doesn't matter what they say; the presumption now is "They're lying to us - for their own sly motives - again", even when they're telling the truth. |
|
| |
The net result is that voters make decisions based on an arguably incorrect weighting. |
|
| |
*Banks have always been just as greedy, venal and self serving as they are now perceived, but in the past the public weren't so aware of it. |
|
| |
//they have applied an arguably incorrect
weighting to the potential economic
consequences// Well, so far the pound has
slumped against other currencies as expected, but
we're barely past the referendum. And in the
meantime, imports are more expensive but exports
are stronger. Personally I don't think it's going to
make any difference overall. |
|
| |
Oh, and most of my consultancy income is in
dollars, which is quite nice at the moment, thanks. |
|
| |
And as for the banks, ironically they are winners
from Brexit: any time there is economic
turbulence, money moves around. And whenever
money moves, the banks get their slice. They are
laughing all the way to themselves. |
|
| |
This may also be the time to point out that the
collective noun for bankers is a "wunch". |
|
| |
//could see arguments on both sides, and were also
well aware of the hype promulgated by each camp.// |
|
| |
I thought both campaigns were poorly fought. Even
within the confinements of modern political
campaigning, there were much sharper arguments to be
made. This revealed what many already knew: our best
politicians seem like average middle management.
What I read into the opinions of the younger and older
demographics was "Oh hell, you're going to give this
bunch of morons more power/less protections?" Vs.
"Having an additional layer of morons doesn't help, and
I think selling my jam is now illegal". |
|
| |
I think the political class behave like middle
management because they essentially are. Imagine a
focused, bright & talented individual managed to sneak
past the selection by local popularity contest, navigate
the intra party politics and get themselves elected PM.
Now, with the levers of government control in front of
them they can enact change. Except every lever has
little labels on it: Defense> don't move this down, or
NATO will be V.upset. Health> moving this in any
direction, or leaving it alone will make everyone angry.
Tax: move this too much the IMF will get upset and add
a 1/4% to our debt interest rate, don't take it out of
anything else, wouldn't want to upset the UN or WTO. |
|
| |
Allowing economic migration, which several successive
governments did, is one of the few ways to generate tax
with minimal education and health spending. A short-
term kick the can down the road for the massive
demographic problem. One look at Japan's finances
demonstrates the scale of the problem. But is it fair to
co-opt 350-400k of Poland's most motivated? That's like
our WW2 losses. Did anyone mention any of the bigger
problems? Was there any thought beyond the vote at
all? The Syrian situation is awful, but what about
precedent? What if Nigeria becomes untenable and 117
million is the size of the next crisis? |
|
| |
The hypothetical PM can't really do much of anything,
and so miniscule complications of the tax and benefit
system is about all that gets announced. I suspect the
EU is even more paralyzed, and there's definite
evidence to suggest little to no brain power. |
|
| |
The draft legislation on kettles, toasters, etc.
(Ecodesign consultation) demonstrated that energy
policy was being discussed without a single person in the
room that understood energy. Similarly, mandating car
engine sizes is moronic, you can get 750bhp out of a
900cc engine for your articulated truck, you may not
like the efficiency, reliability or complexity. |
|
| |
I'm also fairly sure the "harmonization" of vehicular
laws that allowed the helmet free riding of super fast
quads was just an EU attempt to assassinate Rik Mayall
and Ozzy. |
|
| |
//collective noun for bankers is a "wunch"// |
|
| |
I'm not going to look that up. I am going to assume that
it is true because the world is better that way. I will
also propagate this cast iron fact far and wide. |
|
| |
//I thought...// You make some very well-
considered and rational points, and do so in a
reasonable manner. What are you doing here? |
|
| |
//What are you doing here?// |
|
| |
Waiting for a 500ml bottle of FBS from the -80 to melt.
Then I can go and get some gin and be irrational and
sentimental. |
|
| |
I expect I'll get a bit misty eyed about staring out of a
VW camper on childhood holidays, marveling at the
stylishly unreliable hydraulic cars with the insane yellow
headlights. The gunpoint searches on the Spanish
border, or the fact that Portugal had an enviably
relaxed attitude toward surfacing the entire length of
the few roads they managed to start. I'll move on to this
being a chilling example of cultural enbeigeing. Then I'll
ramble about the change from 240V to 230V, "20 winds
to 1, simple ratio to make a mains to 12V
transformer... 230 is 19.16 recurring to 1, you show me
point-one-six-reccuringth of a wind!!!" Then I'll point
out that European 220V is a perfect multiple of the rest
of the world's 110V... and that the proposed 1600W EU
max for kettles is all you can get out of a US socket
"global government by the back door!" I'll suggest
conspiratorially "the socket by the back door to be
precise!!" then I'll have a little laugh "what's the point
in anything if you can't lord it over johnny foreigner
about the quality of our electrical system, we get that,
they get snoozes or whatever they go in for... enjoy the
fruits of your own civilization!" I'll say, before suggesting
ordering a pizza. |
|
| |
Howabout a Brexit referendum referendum referendum? |
|
| |
NB "a perfect multiple of the rest of the world's 110V." Ahem, Japan is on 100v, with a different frequency (?) depending if you're in the Tokyo/Kanto half or the Osaka/Kansai half. |
|
| |
What, so one half-cycle is on a different frequency to the other half-cycle ? That's a good trick ... |
|
| |
Actually ... one half-cycle could be a pure sine. The other could be pure sine, but at twice the frequency, with the peak voltage adjusted so that the areas under the curves are identical, giving equal energy delivery on each half-cycle. |
|
| |
Resistive loads and some motors probably wouldn't notice; switchmodes would probably cope, too. But some devices might behave very oddly ... |
|
| |
//Ahem, Japan is on 100v// That seems a little
weedy... |
|
| |
//with a different frequency (?) depending if you're
in the Tokyo/Kanto half or the Osaka/Kansai half.// |
|
| |
Wow, they really have got problems. That seems so
solvable, build an interconnect, then just advance
one substation at a time. Of course it's also an
opportunity. Naturally 400+V 3 phase is the way to
go. Careful design could produce a light, efficient,
slightly warm 20kW vacuum cleaner that would
have no problem dealing with even the trickiest
dust. Also pretty useful for charging electric cars,
and those snazzy trains they like. |
|
| |
But could it have gone any other way ? We think not. |
|
| |
There's a thought experiment called something like "The coffee dilemma" ... |
|
| |
A group of people - say 12 - get together for a weekly meeting. They agree that they would like a break halfway through for a hot drink. They also agree to pay an equal contribution. |
|
| |
Four people want tea. Five want coffee, two want decaf coffee. One wants hot chocolate. Three take sugar, two want lo-cal sweetener. |
|
| |
Easc participant contributes 1 currency unit to the cost. In terms of what they are going to consume, this is fair. |
|
| |
However, when the delegated person gets to a shop to buy provisions, there's a problem. Sufficient tea costs three units; coffee costs four units; decaf another four units; sugar two units, and lo-cal sweetner two units. A small jar of chocolate is three units, and powdered milk is three units. Grand total 21 units. |
|
| |
There's an important point about ethics and choices in there, but we can't remember what it is ... it's about choosing the least worst option. |
|
| |
The answer is probably to buy orange squash. That way, no-one's happy, but at least there's no favouritism. |
|
| |
[8th], your lengthy example makes an excellent
point. I just wish I knew what it was. |
|
| |
I have been pondering this some more and I think that
the main problem with the referendum question was that
it the wrong amount of specificity: in essence it was "are
you happy with the status quo wrt to the EU?" without
any associated proposal for what changing the status quo
would look like. Hence gnomic bollocks like "Brexit means
Brexit". The Scottish Independence Referendum was not
significantly more specific, though the Independentians
did expend a fair amount of effort on setting out
proposals for what they thought it should look like, but
that question could equally have been recast as "are you
happy with the status quo wrt to the UK?" |
|
| |
I appreciate that there might be very good and long
winded reasons for wanting a referendum question that
is fairly specific about what is being asked (not least of all
because any vote against the status quo might actually
represent a practical mandate for whichever poor
buggers survive the political bloodbath and end up having
to implement). But I don't agree that this is how we
should be doing it. Instead, I think we need an approach
to referenda which is significantly - actually entirely - less
concerned with specifics. Each referendum should
consist of the follow text only:
What do you think about it, then?
with the responses being limited to:
JFDI; or
IDGAF. |
|
| |
The advantages are somefold:
1. saves time buggering around with the electoral
commission
2. gives the winning side a clear and open ended mandate
to do whatever it is that post hoc they decide the
question was
3. gives the politically disengaged an option which
reflects their preferences, so turn out should be high
4. and so on and so forth |
|
| |
//the insipidity of the Remain campaign// |
|
| |
I think this insipidity is easily explicable. Imagine a gathering at Bremain HQ. Someone begins to articulate an argument in the form "You know, it's not really the fault of the EU at all; it's the fault of ..." At this point, they realise that every single other group whose fault it might be is represented in the room with them, and they decide not to make the argument after all. |
|
| |
To put it another way, a full-throated defence of the EU would have required a pungent "nostra culpa" from the British establishment, which they were not willing to disgorge. And thus the argument was lost. |
|
| |
//stupid, racist, isolationist// |
|
| |
Ah, now there's a quite interesting reason why opposition to the establishment is intrinsically racist. To demonstrate it, I call upon the observations of three well-known thinkers, namely, Karl Marx, C. P. Snow and Anon. |
|
| |
From Marx, we learn that the culture of any society is the culture of its ruling class*. |
|
| |
From daily observation (thank you, Anon), we learn that, when you've only brought a hammer, everything looks like a nail. |
|
| |
From C. P. Snow, we learn that ... Well, in one of his later books, written during the late sixties, he was observing the rising generation of the ruling class, and what he observed about them was that they were entirely non-judgemental - *except* about racism. |
|
| |
So, per Snow, we have a starting point where we only carry one moral tool - namely, anti-racism. |
|
| |
In order to express disapproval of anything else in an acceptable way, per Anon, we have to extend the definition of racism to include that thing, or at least re-describe that thing in such a way that it sounds like racism. |
|
| |
From this point, we could imagine the definition of racism extending in any random or picturesque direction, but here Marx steps in, and reminds us that the mostly likely such extensions are whichever ones favour the interests of the class that dominates the culture. |
|
| |
So that's why Brexit is "racist". |
|
| |
Of course, in some cases, it may also be actually racist, which muddies the waters rather. |
|
| |
*Of course, Marx's interpretation of this was more paranoid than it needed to be - but the observation per se is good. |
|
| |
The Marx, or a Freudian slip? |
|
| |
//But some devices might behave very oddly ... |
|
| |
Yep, so the washing machine you bought in Osaka, wouldn't work in Tokyo. |
|
| |
I'm more interested in apres Brexit, do I get two passports or what when Scotland calves off...will the Remain bods head north over the border..... |
|
| |
... preferably in cattle trucks, at gunpoint. |
|
| |
Test launches from Trident submarines ? |
|
| |
Dropping a concrete dummy IRV in someone's back yard with a note attached saying, "Oh, by the way, we have real ones, too" does tend to get their attention. |
|
| |
Arguably, the problem with the Brexit referendum is
the same that was/will be faced by the mice in the
Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy in their efforts
to determine the Ultimate Answer to Life, the
Universe and Everything. The answer that was
produced was, like the referendum result, clear and
easy to comprehend. What became obvious though was
that the question had never been properly defined.
In HHGTTG the mice sought to resolve this by
building The Earth; In the case of the referendum,
I think we need a new referendum to determine what
the actual question to the first referendum was. |
|
| |
Brexit cannot exist until there is a vote to approve or
decline the negotiated terms, whatever they turn out to
be. If these are voted against, then the UK should remain in
Europe. It's simple stuff, but probably beyond the brainless
numpties who constitute the current UK government, along
with its equally cretinous opposition. |
|
| |
//If these are voted against, then the UK should
remain in Europe// |
|
| |
Well, no. My understanding is that the referendum
result is not legally binding - i.e. the government
could simply say "bugger the lot of you - we're
staying in" if it chose. However, this would be
political suicide and would be disastrous. |
|
| |
The government, therefore, is obliged to listen to
the majority of voters and get us out of the EU.
How this is done, and on what terms, is in the
hands of the government. If we don't like the way
they're doing it, we can vote them out at the next
general election - just as we would vote out a
government whose policies on anything else we
didn't like. |
|
| |
If we don't like the terms we can say no to them, which
defacto means remaining - ie a laughable mess that only a
shower of total morons could devise. Hey let's build a
boat, powered by the force of a turbine driven by the
influx of water coming in through a large hole in its side
that unfortunately also causes it to sink rather rapidly.
What is the collective name for a large assembly of dim
brains? A Titanicus of retards? |
|
| |
Who is your "we" - is it "we" the British people, or
"we" the British government? Ultimately, only the
government can legally decide whether to activate
Article 50 or not. Once it's activated, my
understanding is that we are out (after 2 years)
whether we like it or not. And of course the terms of
the deal will not become apparent until long after
After 50 is activated. |
|
| |
But that doesn't matter ... |
|
| |
In the Emerald Isle corner, a sovereign nation state with its own armed forces and a good notion of how to use them. |
|
| |
In the wishy-washy pinko corner, a nearly-bankrupt and disparate talking shop for twenty-odd self-interested gravy-train passengers, with no armed forces, no central command, and no ability to make rapid decisions, relying instead on unsatisfactory consensus .... |
|
| |
// If we don't like the terms we can say no to them, which defacto means remaining // |
|
| |
The "terms" are basically "We're off. You will do as we say, or else. Or you can try and stop us. C'mon, then, if you're feeling lucky, give it your best shot." |
|
| |
All it needs is a leader with the guts to ignore the "rules". |
|
| |
//All it needs is a leader with the guts to ignore the
"rules".// |
|
| |
Well given that Theresa May was once the leader of a
pack of Mods in Eastborne, and had several run-ins
with the police <link>, she may be just the man for
the job. |
|
| |
Where these the same mods (with their crap little scooters) that had the shit beaten out of them by the Matchless, Norton and BSA riding rockers? |
|
| |
I think that Max may well be making a version of the same mistake I made when I asked Theresa May to sign my copy of Englishman In New York. |
|
| |
//The government, therefore, is obliged to listen to the majority of voters//
Hmm! Have you actually paid any attention to the way that government operates in this country, Max? (I wouldn't blame you if you hadn't. It's more depressing than switching on the TV when you get home from work to find that EastEnders is now running 24 hours a day on BBC1 plus repeats on BBC2 & an omnibus version on Sundays on the World Service).
Apart from 1945, when a large proportion of the electorate were still under arms & looking a bit angry and 1649, when even God's Own Englishman had to accede to the demands of a rather well-armed & trained citizenry (the demand being that King Charles' head be lopped off with all due dispatch), no parliament has ever done what it was elected to do much beyond the day after the election.
"Ah!", you say. "But this was a referendum, not an election". "Oh, no, no!" say I, "That's what you think!". It was an election to decide who ran the Tory party. The rest is mere table decoration. Rather like Charles I's head. |
|
| |