[Politics] Brexit

[Pretty pink fairy]

No, it will never happen as humans are too stupid a species. As for climatic effects, what defines desirable? Some places lend themselves to certain things more than others. You could have solar farms in Africa easier than in canada! We really do not utilise the world well enough. We are inefficient and poorly organised.

piss off to Africa then
regards
DR

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

People like you would not allow me to. Got to stay within our arbitrary and random lines on the map.

Ignoring the rudeness of the other poster for a moment, you or anyone else can go anywhere you like if you have the means and are not a burden to the community you are joining. You just don't have the right because the host community is more important than you are.

 

[The Rivet]

It is the means that I believe we need to fix. How do you determine if a child will be a burden to a new comunity? They could recieve an education, get very good jobs, pay tax or, even, develop somthing that vastly improves that comunity. How do you decide if a child in a deprived country will be a burden or not? Should they just not be given the same initial opertunity as a child from a rich family in a developed country? The rich child could be more of a burden!

That is why this country contributed £13.2Billion to aid last year. Not every wealthy country subscribes to that level of aid giving and the recipients of said aid are too dumb to spend it how it should be spent. Your ideology is I guess laudable but we are not yet in the 'star trek' millennium. The world and its people are not perfect and wishing it was perfect or lecturing others because it is not just doesn't hack it right now.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

ideally freedom of movement should cover the whole planet.

Thant would only work if there was a single 'World' government and a single taxation system ...... NEVER EVER going to happen.

 

[The Rivet]

It does not mean we can't put structures in place and aim towards it though. We won't achieve equality if we don't aim for it, it won't happen by accident.

Planning is always good but you and I can only use the ballot box to try to achieve that. Or become a politician. However 1,000s of years of politics have achieved nowhere near that ideology.

 

[wellquickwoody]

It does not mean we can't put structures in place and aim towards it though. We won't achieve equality if we don't aim for it, it won't happen by accident.

Enforced equality will lead to the demise of the human race. Take away aspiration and you crush ambition and create laziness which leads to ultimate failure. Darwin's theory of evolution anyone, or do the left believe that to be a product of the nasty party too?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It is the means that I believe we need to fix. How do you determine if a child will be a burden to a new comunity? They could recieve an education, get very good jobs, pay tax or, even, develop somthing that vastly improves that comunity. How do you decide if a child in a deprived country will be a burden or not? Should they just not be given the same initial opertunity as a child from a rich family in a developed country? The rich child could be more of a burden!

I think you are still thinking in terms of the individual. Of course it is impossible to determine who will be a burden and who not. I'm not advocating we should do that as I believe we should look after the vulnerable in our community and I don't in any way see them as a burden. I just don't think your rights as an individual from elsewhere supercede the community's rights to protect its citizens. It seems to me that a whole generation has grown up concerned with its rights but not its obligations.

 

[The Rivet]

I have no idea what the left and right think. The whole bitching between the two is pathetic and childish.
I would counter your argument with such things as ISS, CERN, recent european space programmes... These were all made possible with collaboration and not direct competition. It is possible to progress this way instead of competing against each other.

None of them puts food in the belly of the child in Ethiopia and Bangladesh for example.

 

[The Rivet]

If we can collaborate to put a probe on a comet we should be able to collaborate to put some food on a plate.

I certainly agree with you on that. Shall we call on Elon Musk first?

 

[El Presidente]

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.

There's an excellent article on this in The Economist a couple of weeks ago, which condenses into a few broad issues.

1: Loss of trust in institutions and their decision making, such as WMD and subsequent invasion of Iraq, creation of the Euro, trusting in the world financial system.

2: A broadening of sources of information. The rise of social media means that anyone and everyone can now be a publisher. It also means that it's easier to find like minded people which in turn reinforces ideas.

3: The policy of attacking facts, and instead relying on gut feel. Trump's standard approach is to say "A lot of people are saying" before coming out with his usual shite. He knows that if he says 10 outrageous statements some of them will find a sympathetic ear and he then focuses on the ones that work.

4: The human brain has to work harder to process factually based information, and there's a lot of research to support this. People instinctively accept information to which they are exposed and must actively work harder to resist believing falsehoods. They believe that familiar information is true, and cherry pick data to support their initial beliefs. Being proven wrong has a detrimental impact on their self belief so they resist it at all costs.

You just have to look at NSC after a couple of crap results, the usual whingers and whiners swarm on the board because these results 'prove' (in their heads only) that they were always right about Barber/Hughton/Bloom/Murray etc.

Looking at a big picture, taking a strategic, long term view from analysis of information and respected models can't be done in 140 characters of a tweet, so debate is dumbed down and replaced by one liners and slogans.


Sent from Konnie Huq's lingerie drawer.

 

[BigGully]

ideally freedom of movement should cover the whole planet.

So why are you banging on about the EU, they do not represent your aspiration at all, they are just a bigger version of the UK, which is a bigger version of England and so on ..............

 

[wellquickwoody]

I have no idea what the left and right think. The whole bitching between the two is pathetic and childish.
I would counter your argument with such things as ISS, CERN, recent european space programmes... These were all made possible with collaboration and not direct competition. It is possible to progress this way instead of competing against each other.

You still have not answered my earlier post, which basically asked when did the human race not compete amongst itself?

Lack of competition leads to stagnation, your laudable morals will not change that.

 

[wellquickwoody]

There's an excellent article on this in The Economist a couple of weeks ago, which condenses into a few broad issues.

1: Loss of trust in institutions and their decision making, such as WMD and subsequent invasion of Iraq, creation of the Euro, trusting in the world financial system.

2: A broadening of sources of information. The rise of social media means that anyone and everyone can now be a publisher. It also means that it's easier to find like minded people which in turn reinforces ideas.

3: The policy of attacking facts, and instead relying on gut feel. Trump's standard approach is to say "A lot of people are saying" before coming out with his usual shite. He knows that if he says 10 outrageous statements some of them will find a sympathetic ear and he then focuses on the ones that work.

4: The human brain has to work harder to process factually based information, and there's a lot of research to support this. People instinctively accept information to which they are exposed and must actively work harder to resist believing falsehoods. They believe that familiar information is true, and cherry pick data to support their initial beliefs. Being proven wrong has a detrimental impact on their self belief so they resist it at all costs.

You just have to look at NSC after a couple of crap results, the usual whingers and whiners swarm on the board because these results 'prove' (in their heads only) that they were always right about Barber/Hughton/Bloom/Murray etc.

Looking at a big picture, taking a strategic, long term view from analysis of information and respected models can't be done in 140 characters of a tweet, so debate is dumbed down and replaced by one liners and slogans.


Sent from Konnie Huq's lingerie drawer.

Konnie's lingerie drawer must be a bit bigger by now surely? Maybe doubled or trebled in size based on my assumption of mummy knickers, cannot be single anymore now can she?

 

[El Presidente]

Konnie's lingerie drawer must be a bit bigger by now surely? Maybe doubled or trebled in size based on my assumption of mummy knickers, cannot be single anymore now can she?

Sadly she married Charlie Brooker, despite the advice and suggestions sent to her by myself and [MENTION=21316]ALF[/MENTION]red Mizen

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Sadly she married Charlie Brooker, despite the advice and suggestions sent to her by myself and [MENTION=21316]ALF[/MENTION]red Mizen

Good god I thought she would be much too young for him but apparently she is ... 41

 

[El Presidente]

Good god I thought she would be much too young for him but apparently she is ... 41

Think you and I both missed out there JC.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Think you and I both missed out there JC.

Her loss ...

 

[The Rivet]

Bexit. What does it mean for you?
Serious question asked of remainers and leavers.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Funnily enough I think it most likely a hard Brexit will occur because of the usual problem with the EU (getting 28/27 to agree on a deal) ... they all have to sign off on the Brexit conditions. If they didn't even have the sense to make minor concessions for Cameron to help stop us leaving it will come as no surprise if they can't agree on a deal in their economic self interests. Add to this the splits developing within the EU happy family, weakening of Merkel/Germany's leadership role and the ongoing delusional belief that any problem can be solved by more integration/EU makes a hard Brexit look more likely.

I believe you're mistaken here. The exit conditions/treaty under Article 50 require approval of the European Parliament and (by qualified majority) the European Council. There is no requirement for either unanimity in the Council or for individual member states to ratify.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

There's an excellent article on this in The Economist a couple of weeks ago, which condenses into a few broad issues.

1: Loss of trust in institutions and their decision making, such as WMD and subsequent invasion of Iraq, creation of the Euro, trusting in the world financial system.

2: A broadening of sources of information. The rise of social media means that anyone and everyone can now be a publisher. It also means that it's easier to find like minded people which in turn reinforces ideas.

3: The policy of attacking facts, and instead relying on gut feel. Trump's standard approach is to say "A lot of people are saying" before coming out with his usual shite. He knows that if he says 10 outrageous statements some of them will find a sympathetic ear and he then focuses on the ones that work.

4: The human brain has to work harder to process factually based information, and there's a lot of research to support this. People instinctively accept information to which they are exposed and must actively work harder to resist believing falsehoods. They believe that familiar information is true, and cherry pick data to support their initial beliefs. Being proven wrong has a detrimental impact on their self belief so they resist it at all costs.

You just have to look at NSC after a couple of crap results, the usual whingers and whiners swarm on the board because these results 'prove' (in their heads only) that they were always right about Barber/Hughton/Bloom/Murray etc.

Looking at a big picture, taking a strategic, long term view from analysis of information and respected models can't be done in 140 characters of a tweet, so debate is dumbed down and replaced by one liners and slogans.


Sent from Konnie Huq's lingerie drawer.

Thank you for the summary, I will look up the article. Politicians are certainly picking up on these developments which makes one wonder how the 2020 General Election will be conducted. It seems people are increasingly attracted to exaggeration, extreme positions and contempt for opposing views. I wonder where that could lead...