[Politics] Brexit

[5ways]

That's what you were telling us!

Hopefully I will end up wrong.

 

[5ways]

I give up.

The big lie from IN was the emergency budget, yes that was very bad.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

The big lie from IN was the emergency budget, yes that was very bad.

Good stuff, I'm back in then !
Yes, terrible lies on both sides. Neither interested in engaging in debate. Both sides showing contempt for the people and the ideas of the other side. I just don't think it matters whos's lies were the bigger, it's just pointless. Politics is moving in a dangerous direction where mutual respect and polite exchange of ideas is disappearing. We saw it in the Scottish and EU referendums and now we have Donald Trump.
It's such a shame that for all the words in the referendum campaign (and since) I have seen very little non hostile / non name calling discussion....well, apart from the occasional and temporary outbreak on here.

 

[El Presidente]

I have seen a lot of this type of post on both sides. If you can't see the disgraceful lies on both sides of the Official Tory led campaigns then it is difficult to debate as feels more like two sides in a football crowd.
There are in fact rational and coherent arguments to both sides of this debate and your constant assertion that this is not the case and that Leave voters are lacking in intelligence to believe so is somewhat wearing. I think that if it could have been accepted during the campaign that there was merit in the oppositions case then we would have had a chance of hearing the debate we deserved rather than the childish name calling and insults we were left with.

I agree wholeheartedly, it was an appalling campaign from both sides.

The arguments for leave were migration and sovereignty.

The arguments for remain were economic and cooperation.

If you thought the first was more important than the second you were right in voting leave, and vice versa.

Attempts by both sides to claim the moral high ground on issues such as defence and security were embarrassing.

Seeing how the US presidential 'debate' is proceeding, unfortunately there is no political will anymore to deal with issues in depth, as soundbites,shallowness, personality issues and a disregard for factual accuracy are the new world order.

We still have domestically both the leading parties involved in internal wars for turf, and strategy has gone out of the window, as evidenced by the Hinckley power station debacle.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I agree wholeheartedly, it was an appalling campaign from both sides.

The arguments for leave were migration and sovereignty.

The arguments for remain were economic and cooperation.

If you thought the first was more important than the second you were right in voting leave, and vice versa.

Attempts by both sides to claim the moral high ground on issues such as defence and security were embarrassing.

Seeing how the US presidential 'debate' is proceeding, unfortunately there is no political will anymore to deal with issues in depth, as soundbites,shallowness, personality issues and a disregard for factual accuracy are the new world order.

We still have domestically both the leading parties involved in internal wars for turf, and strategy has gone out of the window, as evidenced by the Hinckley power station debacle.

Why do you think this has happened ? Has there been any academic research in this area ? (I know you work in a Uni but I guess it may not be your subject).I'm sure the quality of debate has declined in recent years. My own theory is that the rise of the opportunities for anonymous abuse on the Internet has empowered and normalized a new and less respectful debating style.

 

[5ways]

Why do you think this has happened ? Has there been any academic research in this area ? (I know you work in a Uni but I guess it may not be your subject).I'm sure the quality of debate has declined in recent years. My own theory is that the rise of the opportunities for anonymous abuse on the Internet has empowered and normalized a new and less respectful debating style.

A desperate attempt at balance from the BBC in particular led to a lot of false equivalence I felt.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

A desperate attempt at balance from the BBC in particular led to a lot of false equivalence I felt.

But there is equivalence. That's the point. It's only by accepting this that the issues rather than the personalities get debated. What are Donald Trump's policies ? Nobody knows because all he keeps going on about is crooked Hilary and whoever else is in his firing line. It is distraction politics and we saw exactly the same in the Referendum campaign....I won't call it a debate because that did not happen, instead we had false promises, Project Fear and insults aimed at people who disagreed with the speaker. There are no facts in the EU debate, only predictions and opinions and it is the refusal to accept this that blighted the entire discussion.

 

[GT49er]

ideally freedom of movement should cover the whole planet.

Given half a chance it will.






That's the problem.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Why is that a problem? I fundamentally do not see why someone should be constrained by where they happen to be born.

Because the rights of the community are more important than the rights of the individual.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

What? Why is an individual beholden to one community?

An individual is not beholden to one community. However a community must protect itself and particularly its most vulnerable members. That higher ideal is more important than the rights of an individual from elsewhere.

 

[Hampster Gull]

You seem to have had no trouble believing the politicians that have argued for us to remain in the EU and who tried to scare us into voting remain by warning us that the sky would instantly fall in should we vote for Brexit

You seem a bright enough guy GT49er. I inform my views, influenced from my personal life experiences, from my economics education and my business experience. I don't follow any party as non represent enough of my views. I make my own judgements

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

An individual is not beholden to one community. However a community must protect itself and particularly its most vulnerable members. That higher ideal is more important than the rights of an individual from elsewhere.

......unless you're an internationalist.

 

[Murray 17]

Agreed, we need to protect the most vulnerable. So why do we not allow people born in poor countries the access to good education and jobs? We should help them by your logic. Allowing them to move would do that. Or it would force richer countries to invest in poorer ones so they have the infrastructure to succeed as well.

So how many hundreds of millions of people would want to move to the West? Remembering of course that there are 77 larger countries than us in the world.

 

[Soulman]

Agreed, we need to protect the most vulnerable. So why do we not allow people born in poor countries the access to good education and jobs? We should help them by your logic. Allowing them to move would do that. Or it would force richer countries to invest in poorer ones so they have the infrastructure to succeed as well.

There are plenty of rich countries surrounding the countries where people are fleeing, these countries also share the culture and religion...... how many have they helped.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Agreed, we need to protect the most vulnerable. So why do we not allow people born in poor countries the access to good education and jobs? We should help them by your logic. Allowing them to move would do that. Or it would force richer countries to invest in poorer ones so they have the infrastructure to succeed as well.

Success is a comparative term, for some to succeed someone else must fail. For mankind to keep evolving, to keep learning, and to keep creating there has to be incentive, otherwise known as reward. That creates competition, which in turn creates winners and losers. If you take away incentive/reward then a species becomes lazy and will ultimately be overtaken by others. The sooner the naive and stupid people (otherwise known as the young or left wing) realise this the better, although their ideals do help to keep the excesses of competition to a more civilised level than if left unchecked.

 

[Murray 17]

If we, as a species, fund ourselves correctly there should be no mass emigration as the standards in each country will be similar. If freedom of movement will cause huge problems because of migration then it is because we are failing appallingly in other areas.
For example, if all of Poland wants to move to the UK then stopping freedom of movement is not solving the problem of improving standards in Poland!

But there are plenty of reasons why Africa or Eastern European countries are less desirable places to live, some of which cannot be altered (climate etc), and aspects such as culture would take hundreds of years to change.

Your theory would be great for an A Level sociology essay, but IMO, will never happen.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

edit

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Agreed, we need to protect the most vulnerable. So why do we not allow people born in poor countries the access to good education and jobs? We should help them by your logic. Allowing them to move would do that. Or it would force richer countries to invest in poorer ones so they have the infrastructure to succeed as well.

......unless you're an internationalist.

we differ on scale and rights. I put the rights of society and the community first. If we are able to take people in then we should but there is no automatic individual right to turn up somewhere, not if it is to the detriment of the community. I just think this veneration of the individual over the collective has gone too far. We all have obligations to our fellow citizens not rights. Suppose I'm not really an Internationalist or at least I don't put this above everything else.
The biggest internationalists are the capitalist multinationals. They love the cheap labour and are not interested in the consequences for society.

 

[wellquickwoody]

By that argument to keep the human species advancing we should be in perpetual war, the biggest type of competition!
Anyway, you can have competition without failure destroying peoples lives. Plus, huge swathes of people don't even get the chance to compete. If you want competition you should at least make it fair.

As a species we are in perpetual war. Do a bit of research, see if you can find any point in WHOLE of human history when conflict was not happening. As for failure as mentioned above, the idealists do their best to mitigate this as I said in my post, which is a great benefit of civilised democracy. Competition being fair? Another ideal from the liberal elite, life ain't fair, get on with it.

 

[wellquickwoody]

No, it will never happen as humans are too stupid a species.

So stupid that as a species we do not have a predator on this planet. Our greatest enemy is ourselves, and hopefully we can use our non existant intellect (according to you) to protect ourselves from our excesses. I bet you are one of those people who always support the 'other' team, anyone but England for instance, or if it were Earth against Mars in laser wars you would at least see their point of view?