Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit and Trump. Do you even have a clue why?
Options
Comments
-
-
Make our own laws, out of the Single market, stop free movement of people. stop sending millions of pounds a week to prop up a failing European Union which is dying.A Little Pony wrote: »Yeah because remaining in the EU isn't stupid. :woot:
I guess that too is simply your opinion and, as is usual, you don't have any evidence to show how leaving the EU is better for the country than staying...?
MrP0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »On scale of 1-10, how factually correct would you say your post is?
Pretty accurate, unless the Catholic Church have been prosecuted, offending banking organisations that led to the recession have been shut down, rapists don't get away with rape regularly, and the US and Britain have faced any negative impacts for lying about WMDs in the middle east, destabilizing the entire region for ISIS to step up.
Oh, and let's not forget those Google results were from the UK the day the Brexit vote went through. Or that Trump has literal nazis on his cabinet and white supremacists supporting him. Or that his VP supports electroshock therapy for gay kids to turn them straight.
I was mistaken about Germany, it's actually Austria that's heading for a nazi election, but hey, it's not like history hasn't had issue differentiating the two.
And as for Ireland? The fact that we've got a joint FF-FG government despite the years of ineptitude, including the Apple back-tax issue? 13 billion plus interest they want to reject? And these people were elected?
I'd say my post is factual, it's not unusual for people to vote stupidly, I've known plenty of people who think 'protest' voting is a viable option, like it'll stick it to the government. Though these are the same people who'll use homelessness - the same problem we've had in this country for years - as a reason not to take in Syrian refugees...because all of a sudden, when middle eastern people are involved, people care about the homeless. This is the reality of Western culture. Nothing is taken seriously, and when things inevitably go south, a vast majority of people seem shocked their useless or stupid votes have had a net negative impact on everyone, including themselves. Willful ignorance is stupidity, we can try to ignore it or downplay it, but it is what it is.0 -
Minderbinder wrote: »Ate you talking about the most googled in the UK? Or everywhere? There's a big difference.
The UK. Honestly, nobody else would Google that unless they wanted to learn just how economically boned the UK are, and how they can take advantage of the falling pound value. I, for one, used it to buy cheap stuff off of Amazon.0 -
Advertisement
-
A Little Pony wrote: »Make our own laws, out of the Single market, stop free movement of people. stop sending millions of pounds a week to prop up a failing European Union which is dying.
OK, lets have a look at this. What you have actually listed are consequences, or at least possible consequences, of leaving the EU. I already know what the consequences are, that is why i voted remain, what i would like you to do (but don't worry, I won't be holding my breath) is to explain how these consequences benefit the UK.
So, for example, what laws are you interesting is getting rid of? What laws, specifically, do you think it will be to our advantage to not have to follow?
What are the advantages of being out of the single market? I know the disadvantages it holds, bit I am not sure what the advantages are, perhaps you could enlighten me?
What is the advantage of stopping the free movement of people? Immigrants from the EU appear to make up less than half of the UK's immigrants. The other half come from countries where the UK has full and total control over the numbers that come in, but don't. Why do you think that is? If you are going to say the free movement causes wage depression I am going to have to ask you for evidence. I have seen some papers that suggest a very slight downward pressure on wages as a result of immigration, but it is so small as to be hardly noticeable. Even if it was actually a thing, surely the government, if it was interesting in fixing that problem, would fix it by cutting immigration from countries that they can control the numbers from? Why do you think they haven't done that?
Perhaps you might think about saying immigrants take all the jobs...? Well, that isn't really a good argument either, for a couple of reasons. The first, again, the government has full control over non-EU immigration and has not kerbed the numbers, as you pointed out yourself, they are rising. The second reason it isn't a good argument is the unemployment rate is just under 5%. 2 to 3% unemployment is considered to be "full employment" or as close to it as most countries can manage, so we aren't far off that. Additionally, there are hundreds of thousands of job vacancies. Seriously, do some research, there are plenty of jobs out there. Granted, they may not be the best jobs, and they may not be located in the same place as the people that are looking, but there are jobs.
Now, your last consequence is one that could actually mean something, but, unfortunately it doesn't. if you take a very simplistic view "this is how much we pay directly and this is how much we get back directly" then I can see how you might think it means something, but that is just a simplistic view. The benefits the country gets indirectly brings billions more into the economy that we directly pay out, and that is the bit you and your Brexit buddies ignore. We get more from the EU than the direct payments. Being in the EU, the customs union and the single market causes massive amounts of money to flow into the UK. Additionally, it saves UK businesses millions, if not billions, when they are trading with our largest trading partner, the EU.
So please, dazzle me with how these consequences you have listed will actually benefit the UK.
MrP0 -
I suppose it depends on your definition of stupid. I volunteered on a vote remain desk in the run-up to the referendum, and I spoke to a lot of people, and whilst I know that some intelligent people vote leave there was an awful lot of stupid. I met one guy (not on the desk, getting a tyre changed) that was voting leave because "there were too many pakkis". On the day after the recent High Court judgement, a Radio 4 reporter was pushed by a man when she asked what he thought of the judgement. He was apoplectic with rage, not at the judgement, but that we were still in the EU, he thought we had already left.
I am sorry, but it can't be denied, there was a huge amount of stupid on the leave side. People were simply unwilling and/or unable to carry out even the most cursory of fact checking.They simply sucked up all the lies and misinformation. Many of them had, and have, no idea of the consequences or potential consequences.
They are pretty much fact proof and arguably delusional. Tell them the banker will leave if they loose passporting and the response is basically, "let them, they are all w@ankers anyway". Point out that a pretty large portion of the UK's economy depends on this industry and you get a blank look.
I'm sorry, but is there another word that stupid for people that do what they have done? I fully accept that they have been left behind, that they have not benefitted from globalisation and that their government has let them down, badly, but torching the economy as a protest is the very definition of stupid.
MrP
This same ****e gets trotted out as an excuse every time a vote dosent go the way the establishment wants.
There is the same amount of "stupid" people who voted remain as well. But that dosent matter because it suits your agenda.0 -
The left abandoned the working class because they mistakenly believed that voter base was declining, and instead opted to appeal more to the middle class liberal vote with identity politics, etc. This alienated the working class who were demonised by the left for voicing their legitimate concerns. The right took advantage of this by appealing to this group with simple solutions to complex issues and thus the right wing vote is on the rise across the western world.
Simple.0 -
This same ****e gets trotted out as an excuse every time a vote dosent go the way the establishment wants.
There is the same amount of "stupid" people who voted remain as well. But that dosent matter because it suits your agenda.
Meh, I am pretty sure there were some stupid people voting remain too, in fact, it is absolutely certain. But that isn't really the point, the stupid people voting remain aren't torching the economy.
This has nothing to do with "not voting the way the establishment wants", just because they are the establishment doesn't mean 1) they are always wrong or 2) if they want something it is necessarily bad for those that aren't establishment.
Voting to leave the EU does not help the little guy. Even if the vote to remain did benefit the establishment that does not mean that voting to leave benefits everyone that is not in the establishment, it isn't as simple as "they want this, therefore the opposite is best for me". And that is the point that a lot of people seem to be missing. A good example is Aaron Banks (I think it was him, but certainly one of the rich (establishment???) people on the Brexit side). After it was said that Brexit would cost everyone in the UK £4k a year his response was "it is a price worth paying". Now, if you happen to be a multimillionaire then losing £150 per month isn't going to mean anything to you, but if you are earning about £1000 per month it is pretty fcuking serious.
MrP0 -
The left abandoned the working class because they mistakenly believed that voter base was declining, and instead opted to appeal more to the middle class liberal vote with identity politics, etc. This alienated the working class who were demonised by the left for voicing their legitimate concerns. The right took advantage of this by appealing to this group with simple solutions to complex issues and thus the right wing vote is on the rise across the western world.
Simple.
I actually think the first past the post voting system plays a part too. if you look at the last election UKIP (a party I loath) got just shy of 4m votes, and for that they secured 1 MP. The LibDems got 2.4m votes and 8 MPs. The tories got 11.3m votes and 331 MPs. I think the actual voting system is at least partially to blame for people feeling like they have no voice. If the UK had PR then UKIP would have 60 or 80 MPs, and whilst the thought of that makes me shiver slightly, it would mean that these subjects that make people vote for UKIP would be getting talked about. They would be in the open and exposed, and perhaps they could be addressed in a more sensible way.
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
I actually think the first past the post voting system plays a part too. if you look at the last election UKIP (a party I loath) got just shy of 4m votes, and for that they secured 1 MP. The LibDems got 2.4m votes and 8 MPs. The tories got 11.3m votes and 331 MPs. I think the actual voting system is at least partially to blame for people feeling like they have no voice. If the UK had PR then UKIP would have 60 or 80 MPs, and whilst the thought of that makes me shiver slightly, it would mean that these subjects that make people vote for UKIP would be getting talked about. They would be in the open and exposed, and perhaps they could be addressed in a more sensible way.
MrP
First past the post is a bloody stupid system. As is the US electoral college system.0 -
I actually think the first past the post voting system plays a part too. if you look at the last election UKIP (a party I loath) got just shy of 4m votes, and for that they secured 1 MP. The LibDems got 2.4m votes and 8 MPs. The tories got 11.3m votes and 331 MPs. I think the actual voting system is at least partially to blame for people feeling like they have no voice. If the UK had PR then UKIP would have 60 or 80 MPs, and whilst the thought of that makes me shiver slightly, it would mean that these subjects that make people vote for UKIP would be getting talked about. They would be in the open and exposed, and perhaps they could be addressed in a more sensible way.
MrP
Hard to blame the voting system when they just had the chance to change it a few years ago (had a referendum on it) and it lost comfortably and plenty were questioning the point of changing the first past the post method. Have to blame the established culture of you're either conservative or labour. Same in the US with you have to be Democrat or Republican and the most recent force, the Tea Party, were just dissolved into the Republican party..0 -
When the UK entered the EEC, it was all about trade. The British people did not vote to join a political union. What has happened to the EU over the years is exactly that, branching out, trying to have ever closer union. Which it has no mandate to do so, it interferes in the sovreignty of other nations and takes it away (admittedly with the help of traitorous MPs/politicians).A Little Pony wrote: »Make our own laws, out of the Single market, stop free movement of people. stop sending millions of pounds a week to prop up a failing European Union which is dying.
OK, lets have a look at this. What you have actually listed are consequences, or at least possible consequences, of leaving the EU. I already know what the consequences are, that is why i voted remain, what i would like you to do (but don't worry, I won't be holding my breath) is to explain how these consequences benefit the UK.
So, for example, what laws are you interesting is getting rid of? What laws, specifically, do you think it will be to our advantage to not have to follow?
What are the advantages of being out of the single market? I know the disadvantages it holds, bit I am not sure what the advantages are, perhaps you could enlighten me?
What is the advantage of stopping the free movement of people? Immigrants from the EU appear to make up less than half of the UK's immigrants. The other half come from countries where the UK has full and total control over the numbers that come in, but don't. Why do you think that is? If you are going to say the free movement causes wage depression I am going to have to ask you for evidence. I have seen some papers that suggest a very slight downward pressure on wages as a result of immigration, but it is so small as to be hardly noticeable. Even if it was actually a thing, surely the government, if it was interesting in fixing that problem, would fix it by cutting immigration from countries that they can control the numbers from? Why do you think they haven't done that?
Perhaps you might think about saying immigrants take all the jobs...? Well, that isn't really a good argument either, for a couple of reasons. The first, again, the government has full control over non-EU immigration and has not kerbed the numbers, as you pointed out yourself, they are rising. The second reason it isn't a good argument is the unemployment rate is just under 5%. 2 to 3% unemployment is considered to be "full employment" or as close to it as most countries can manage, so we aren't far off that. Additionally, there are hundreds of thousands of job vacancies. Seriously, do some research, there are plenty of jobs out there. Granted, they may not be the best jobs, and they may not be located in the same place as the people that are looking, but there are jobs.
Now, your last consequence is one that could actually mean something, but, unfortunately it doesn't. if you take a very simplistic view "this is how much we pay directly and this is how much we get back directly" then I can see how you might think it means something, but that is just a simplistic view. The benefits the country gets indirectly brings billions more into the economy that we directly pay out, and that is the bit you and your Brexit buddies ignore. We get more from the EU than the direct payments. Being in the EU, the customs union and the single market causes massive amounts of money to flow into the UK. Additionally, it saves UK businesses millions, if not billions, when they are trading with our largest trading partner, the EU.
So please, dazzle me with how these consequences you have listed will actually benefit the UK.
MrP
The vote went the way it did because the people felt they had lost control and felt the EU had too much power regarding our laws and the free movement of people within the EU was too overbearing. The Remain side did not make a good enough argument to the British people on why we should remain in the EU.
You can not ignore the cultural element, the hate towards globalization by working class communities who don't see it benefiting them. Free trade vs protectionism is one of the biggest arguments of our way, I am for free trade but I am not for freedom of movement. I think it hurts socially when communities are changed and the people living in those communities get no say.
If the European Union had given Cameron a better deal, a deal which allowed him to implement changes to EU immigration and curb it, then we probably would still be out of it. I think over time we will be fine economically but it will take a while. But the vote was won based on social values, it was not won due to economics, not in the short term anyway as I think we all recognize it will be hard to begin with.
The negotiations with Cameron summed up to me what is wrong with the European Union, thinking every country is the same socially and politically. Not willing to budge on some fundamental issues like immigration, they must know it is a huge talking point here in the UK, why risk having the UK leave the EU because you would not give up some concessions?
The EU has no one but themselves to blame as to why the UK is leaving the EU, it is not OUR fault that they didn't want to give up some concessions and so when the vote was put to us, we decided to leave. If they had been sensible and changed some things, like I said, we probably would still be in the EU and I would probably have voted to remain IF I knew EU immigration was going to be in our control.0 -
A Little Pony wrote: »When the UK entered the EEC, it was all about trade. The British people did not vote to join a political union. What has happened to the EU over the years is exactly that, branching out, trying to have ever closer union. Which it has no mandate to do so, it interferes in the sovreignty of other nations and takes it away (admittedly with the help of traitorous MPs/politicians).
The vote went the way it did because the people felt they had lost control and felt the EU had too much power regarding our laws and the free movement of people within the EU was too overbearing. The Remain side did not make a good enough argument to the British people on why we should remain in the EU.
You can not ignore the cultural element, the hate towards globalization by working class communities who don't see it benefiting them. Free trade vs protectionism is one of the biggest arguments of our way, I am for free trade but I am not for freedom of movement. I think it hurts socially when communities are changed and the people living in those communities get no say.
If the European Union had given Cameron a better deal, a deal which allowed him to implement changes to EU immigration and curb it, then we probably would still be out of it. I think over time we will be fine economically but it will take a while. But the vote was won based on social values, it was not won due to economics, not in the short term anyway as I think we all recognize it will be hard to begin with.
The negotiations with Cameron summed up to me what is wrong with the European Union, thinking every country is the same socially and politically. Not willing to budge on some fundamental issues like immigration, they must know it is a huge talking point here in the UK, why risk having the UK leave the EU because you would not give up some concessions?
The EU has no one but themselves to blame as to why the UK is leaving the EU, it is not OUR fault that they didn't want to give up some concessions and so when the vote was put to us, we decided to leave. If they had been sensible and changed some things, like I said, we probably would still be in the EU and I would probably have voted to remain IF I knew EU immigration was going to be in our control.
So I guess that is a no then to you giving the positive effects of the consequences you listed. Thought as much.
MrP0 -
What is the advantage of stopping the free movement of people? Immigrants from the EU appear to make up less than half of the UK's immigrants. The other half come from countries where the UK has full and total control over the numbers that come in, but don't. Why do you think that is? If you are going to say the free movement causes wage depression I am going to have to ask you for evidence. I have seen some papers that suggest a very slight downward pressure on wages as a result of immigration, but it is so small as to be hardly noticeable. Even if it was actually a thing, surely the government, if it was interesting in fixing that problem, would fix it by cutting immigration from countries that they can control the numbers from? Why do you think they haven't done that?
...
So please, dazzle me with how these consequences you have listed will actually benefit the UK.
MrP
The UK won't benefit from it. Those on average and higher incomes will likely lose out. GNP will drop...
however there are a percentage of voters that stand a chance of benefiting, which is all that's needed to tip the scale given an otherwise unconvinced divided electorate.
The Labour Market Effects of ImmigrationThe greatest wage effects are found for low-waged workers. Dustmann et al (2013) find that each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. Similarly, another study focusing on wage effects at the occupational level during 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by 0.5% (Nickell and Salaheen 2008).
Labour scarcities can create opportunities, and an incentive for business and government to put more effort into upskilling the unqualified, the dropouts, the older jobhunters whose CVs are typically discarded in the first round.
And for existing resident migrant workers in that 5% lowest paid category, the effect can be more pronounced.
an impulse to pull up the ladder after you out of self interest is not irrational.The available research further shows that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89458
Trump has created 2.5 million job vacancies.A Little Pony wrote: »He already has done, he saved over a thousand jobs and he isn't President yet.
Or rather he will if all those liberals flee to Canada0 -
First past the post is a bloody stupid system. As is the US electoral college system.
FPTP can be unfair, but it at least generally gives a strong government.
I would like to see the UK adopt a more PR system, but I believe the system used in Ireland is ridiculous in the other extreme.
The fact that an independent or marginal party can become king maker and demand a crucial ministerial job does no one any favours.0 -
The left abandoned the working class because they mistakenly believed that voter base was declining, and instead opted to appeal more to the middle class liberal vote with identity politics, etc. This alienated the working class who were demonised by the left for voicing their legitimate concerns. The right took advantage of this by appealing to this group with simple solutions to complex issues and thus the right wing vote is on the rise across the western world.
Simple.
"To the ordinary working man, the sort you would meet in any pub on Saturday night, Socialism does not mean much more than better wages and shorter hours and nobody bossing you about."0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »FPTP can be unfair, but it at least generally gives a strong government.
I would like to see the UK adopt a more PR system, but I believe the system used in Ireland is ridiculous in the other extreme.
The fact that an independent or marginal party can become king maker and demand a crucial ministerial job does no one any favours.
You don't remember the Unionists in coalition in the UK then? It's in every parliamentary system. Really any country that has more than two parties.
The one thing wrong with our system is that we have too many TD's. We could get rid of 1/3 of them and still be ok.0 -
I consider myself relatively on top of major political stuff. (Relatively on top means I don't get my news on fb.) However I really don't have a clue why people voted for Brexit or Trump. There is no one clear reason why it happened, it's a mix of different reasons and 'oh it's antiglobalisation' is the easiest reply because it makes left feel all nice and fuzzy inside that they are proven right about something (and yet there doesn't seem to be huge vote for them). On the other side misogyny or racism and nationalism could be just as big factors. It could be that Hilary Clinton was in the spotlight way to long or that those Brits who actually know who Juncker is don't like him. It could be weakened international position of USA and especially UK. It could be that people are not able to process anything longer thatn 140 charactersb or it could be just fashion. It's probably a mix of all above and many other reasons.0
-
Advertisement
-
true, it would be the exception rather than the rule with the UK system though.You don't remember the Unionists in coalition in the UK then? It's in every parliamentary system. Really any country that has more than two parties.The one thing wrong with our system is that we have too many TD's. We could get rid of 1/3 of them and still be ok.
that's very true, save ourselves a fortune as well. The lazy ****ers might actually try and do something as well, if they thought getting re-elected was a bit harder.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89458
FPTP leads to polarisation on key policies to differentiate the parties.Fratton Fred wrote: »FPTP can be unfair, but it at least generally gives a strong government.
What's the point of a strong government if it spends all it's time trying to reverse what the previous government did, while knowing that that the next government will try to reverse their policies. Babies and bathwater left and right.
PR means that you end up with broadly similar parties because you can't get transfers if you are out on the fringe like SF. Now that FG and FF have done deals means that there'll be plenty of horse trading in future. The latest thing with water where everyone claims they won shows this.I would like to see the UK adopt a more PR system, but I believe the system used in Ireland is ridiculous in the other extreme.
The fact that an independent or marginal party can become king maker and demand a crucial ministerial job does no one any favours.
The UK shot itself in the foot (perhaps deliberately) re PR not so long ago. The message should have been PR won't affect safe seats but in a marginal it would mean you can vote for your favoured candidate without wasting your vote. Instead they made it sound like there would be radical changes in the election process.0 -
Plenty of positives socially if the government goes with Brexit as it should. Gain control on immigration, tighten the border up as hard as possible, get skilled immigrants in to do jobs which need filled. The benefits system also needs reformed, to make sure working is much better than being on any type of job seeking benefits and not turned into a life style choice which too many make it.A Little Pony wrote: »When the UK entered the EEC, it was all about trade. The British people did not vote to join a political union. What has happened to the EU over the years is exactly that, branching out, trying to have ever closer union. Which it has no mandate to do so, it interferes in the sovreignty of other nations and takes it away (admittedly with the help of traitorous MPs/politicians).
The vote went the way it did because the people felt they had lost control and felt the EU had too much power regarding our laws and the free movement of people within the EU was too overbearing. The Remain side did not make a good enough argument to the British people on why we should remain in the EU.
You can not ignore the cultural element, the hate towards globalization by working class communities who don't see it benefiting them. Free trade vs protectionism is one of the biggest arguments of our way, I am for free trade but I am not for freedom of movement. I think it hurts socially when communities are changed and the people living in those communities get no say.
If the European Union had given Cameron a better deal, a deal which allowed him to implement changes to EU immigration and curb it, then we probably would still be out of it. I think over time we will be fine economically but it will take a while. But the vote was won based on social values, it was not won due to economics, not in the short term anyway as I think we all recognize it will be hard to begin with.
The negotiations with Cameron summed up to me what is wrong with the European Union, thinking every country is the same socially and politically. Not willing to budge on some fundamental issues like immigration, they must know it is a huge talking point here in the UK, why risk having the UK leave the EU because you would not give up some concessions?
The EU has no one but themselves to blame as to why the UK is leaving the EU, it is not OUR fault that they didn't want to give up some concessions and so when the vote was put to us, we decided to leave. If they had been sensible and changed some things, like I said, we probably would still be in the EU and I would probably have voted to remain IF I knew EU immigration was going to be in our control.
So I guess that is a no then to you giving the positive effects of the consequences you listed. Thought as much.
MrP
The Conservative government needs to carry out the demands of the British people, in order to control immigration from the EU countries, you need to be out of the single market. To be a member of the single market, you have to agree to free movement of people. Brexit was won based on that vital point. Leave would never have won otherwise.
No point in messing about and trying to please everyone, not everyone is going to be happy. The side which won should gain the fruits of victory.0 -
A Little Pony wrote: »Plenty of positives socially if the government goes with Brexit as it should. Gain control on immigration, tighten the border up as hard as possible, get skilled immigrants in to do jobs which need filled. The benefits system also needs reformed, to make sure working is much better than being on any type of job seeking benefits and not turned into a life style choice which too many make it.
The Conservative government needs to carry out the demands of the British people, in order to control immigration from the EU countries, you need to be out of the single market. To be a member of the single market, you have to agree to free movement of people. Brexit was won based on that vital point. Leave would never have won otherwise.
No point in messing about and trying to please everyone, not everyone is going to be happy. The side which won should gain the fruits of victory.
I don't think it's out of control.0 -
The British people think otherwise. It was the cornerstone of the election, not one other topic was discussed more or was more important to the vote than immigration. If the public felt it was not an issue, the referendum probably would never have happened to begin with.Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »A Little Pony wrote: »Plenty of positives socially if the government goes with Brexit as it should. Gain control on immigration, tighten the border up as hard as possible, get skilled immigrants in to do jobs which need filled. The benefits system also needs reformed, to make sure working is much better than being on any type of job seeking benefits and not turned into a life style choice which too many make it.
The Conservative government needs to carry out the demands of the British people, in order to control immigration from the EU countries, you need to be out of the single market. To be a member of the single market, you have to agree to free movement of people. Brexit was won based on that vital point. Leave would never have won otherwise.
No point in messing about and trying to please everyone, not everyone is going to be happy. The side which won should gain the fruits of victory.
I don't think it's out of control.0 -
So I guess that is a no then to you giving the positive effects of the consequences you listed. Thought as much.
MrP[/quote]
He just did. The problem is that you are not viewing intangible things such as reduced influence from Brussels as a good thing. There is more to what constitutes a nation than levels of economic activity. I don't think too many folks argue against an economic benefit to being in the EU. They merely believe that the other benefits, such as self-determination (a lot of wars have started over this concept) to not being in the EU are more important to them.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »PR means that you end up with broadly similar parties because you can't get transfers if you are out on the fringe like SF. Now that FG and FF have done deals means that there'll be plenty of horse trading in future. The latest thing with water where everyone claims they won shows this.
imho, Irish water is the perfect example of where the irish system fails.
Irish water should have been up and running long before the next election, but FG didn't have the political capital to drive it through parliament. Instead six years and €1Bn later, we still don't really know what is going on and the decaying water system isn't being upgraded because there is no working body in control.0 -
To simplify it as much as possible:
1: The economic performance of the United States and Britain has been poor in recent years.
2: The native white population are worried about being in danger/replaced/crime from immigration.
3: Nigel Farage and Donald Trump are excellent marketers/persuaders and have been able to bring people forward with this.
4: The European Union/MSM/liberal politicians/Hilary Clinton etc are becoming increasingly unlikeable/unhinged/extreme as time has gone on.
People vote on feelings and emotions, not policies. No job = threatened and feel like crap. Rotherham happens - threatened and feel like crap.
The first two reasons are the biggest ones. No need for some dumb benny article on neoliberalism or anything like that.0 -
pumpkin4life wrote: »To simplify it as much as possible:
1: The economic performance of the United States and Britain has been poor in recent years.
2: The native white population are worried about being in danger/replaced/crime from immigration.
3: Nigel Farage and Donald Trump are excellent marketers/persuaders and have been able to bring people forward with this.
4: The European Union/MSM/liberal politicians/Hilary Clinton etc are becoming increasingly unlikeable/unhinged/extreme as time has gone on.
People vote on feelings and emotions, not policies. No job = threatened and feel like crap. Rotherham happens - threatened and feel like crap.
The first two reasons are the biggest ones. No need for some dumb benny article on neoliberalism or anything like that.
I think this is a perfect example of why Trump won. Why people voted for Brexit, why Italy is going down the toilet this morning.
People are disengaged. Or Distracted. The Media which used to be the Fifth estate and holding ideas and ideals up to scrutiny has become a series of salacious tatty stories which are utterly vacous. It will print a sensational headline and then report on how people are reacting and what Twitter thinks.
We have become a world where all opinions are valid, no matter how ignorant, ill informed, mysoginist, racist and even plain wrong.
The best commentary of Trump I saw early on in the race was someone described him as if the comments section on the internet came to life and ran for President. That's actually fantastically accurate. He is a real life Troll.
And people vote for him because there is an absence of any real meaningful dialogue or analysis. People are not stupid, or ignorant, or lazy. They are simply misinformed. They dont have access to information, at least not readily. There are a few decent media outlets left but they are dying.
Instead we are bombarded by the lowest common denominator, a new soundbite fifty times a day. We are consuming information but due to the voracious demand the quality and analysis applied to that information is minimal. We are being fed overly simplistic tripe and have become accustommed to it so that anything with any sort of anlysis becomes "tldr". I'm 34 and I can actually see it, and how it has changed in my lifetime with the rise of the Internet, Facebook and News Apps. People get their news from Facebook. That's sad.
Trump and Farrange arent great communicators. They are simply peddling fear and hate. And people ARE afraid, the economy is a mess. No matter how many bailouts we try someone needs to just own up to the fact everything was overvalued because deregulated Banks who were leveraged up to their eyes fell over each other lending to people to buy hyperinflated property. The Bubble was not real and this idea that we can simply inflate the global economy out of it by Quantative Easing. (Printing money) is irresponsible and delaying the inevitable. People are waiting for a leader to tell them everything is going to be okay and they will fix it. People want to believe. People want hope. And if the person who can deliver that goes around grabbing pussies most people don't care. Trump is a comfort blanket.
But it's a lie. Trump doesnt give a **** about making America great again. He cares about lining his own pockets. But he knows the game, say something outragious, raise your profile, rinse wash and repeat. And if anyone makes noise about your outragious statements just release another one. And the news cycle just repeats it without any real analysis or debate because they are onto the next salacious story. And there is no active voice to stop them.
Even the analysis of his win has been so so so poor. Lazy bullet points like the above grasping at some vague notion of people voting on emotion and the failure of the "Liberal" politicians and political machinery mashed together in some sort of equals equation.
It's not "Liberal" politics. It's democracy. Real Democracy. Equality. Based on inherent values that all people are created equal. The UN was set up to hold these values together after two world wars. It says that in the preamble. The EU was set up as well as an economic union to come together as Eurpeans and combat wars in Europe and it, until now, has succeeded. This is the longest period of peace in Europe in recorded history.
But now we have Trump and Farange and Le Pen and more to follow who don't hold these values. Their values are those set out by George Orwell in Animal Farm. "Some animals are more equal than others" And when we go down that route, wars inevitably follow. It's repeated in our history over and over again.
The sad truth is a modern journalism degree is "ctrl c", "ctrl v". There are very few outlets producing quality analysis. A few bloggers and perhaps the flagship papers but thats not where most people get their news. So people will keep on watching dancing on ice, or I'm a celebrity, or googlebox while Trump and Farrange and Le Pen pull Europe apart with their simplistic bigotry and frogmarch us into a war as they consolidate power. And we hold our hands up and say, well, what can I do. What you can do is simple. Inform yourself. Properly. Read, support decent independent media outlets. Educate your self and form opinions, don't just repeat what you read as gospel. Disagree in a respectful way and have respect for an alternative opinion. Change your mind..0 -
Advertisement
-
Would you say that the people who voted for hillary in the same voting system that has been around for how long, and now won't accept the outcome are more equal than others?
The countless people looking in from outside to tell the American people they made a mistakeven - more equal than those "deplorable" people who didn't vote for hillary in a free and fair election?Mr. Incognito wrote: »Even the analysis of his win has been so so so poor. Lazy bullet points like the above grasping at some vague notion of people voting on emotion and the failure of the "Liberal" politicians and political machinery mashed together in some sort of equals equation.
It's not "Liberal" politics. It's democracy. Real Democracy. Equality. Based on inherent values that all people are created equal. ......
But now we have Trump and Farange and Le Pen and more to follow who don't hold these values. Their values are those set out by George Orwell in Animal Farm. "Some animals are more equal than others"
Real democracy is calling people deplorable idiots and suggesting that they shouldn't have a vote? We are through the looking glass....0
Advertisement