Brexit and Trump. Do you even have a clue why?

Mr. Incognito

Special Circumstances wrote: »

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?




Real democracy is calling people deplorable idiots and suggesting that they shouldn't have a vote? We are through the looking glass....

What? Is there a point in here? Reads like some sort of rant. I have no idea what you are asserting.

Special Circumstances

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

What? Is there a point in here? Reads like some sort of rant. I have no idea what you are asserting.

Go on, try.
Break it down and try again. Come back to me if you're still stumped.

Or I can guide you through it:

1) Is it only "real" democracy when you get the outcome you want?

2) The votes of the people who voted for Trump, for Brexit, against the Italian PM - Are you saying that these votes are (or should be) worth less than the votes of other people?

Mr. Incognito

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Go on, try.
Break it down and try again. Come back to me if you're still stumped.

Or I can guide you through it:

1) Is it only "real" democracy when you get the outcome you want?

2) The votes of the people who voted for Trump, for Brexit, against the Italian PM - Are you saying that these votes are (or should be) worth less than the votes of other people?

I really don't know how you have extrapolated that from what I wrote. What you have proposed is a logical fallacy. Also known as the straw man argument where you put forward positions that the other person didnt propose and then invite them to agree / disagree.

Frankly, I couldnt be arsed engaging in that nonsense.

Special Circumstances

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. 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.

I'll say it again - your post reads like "real democracy is when the team I support wins".

You seem to talk a lot about equality and democracy on one hand, but on the other hand slate anyone who would vote in a free and fair election for trump, for brexit, for le pen etc etc.

Do you want free and fair elections? Would you prefer if some people were not allowed vote?

MrPudding

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.

Hold on. This is just a repeat. What is the positive of gaining control of immigration? Why don't they do something about the bit they can control, the non-EU immigration, they have full control over that, yet the numbers are climbing. Can you explain that?

We currently have something like 700,000 job vacancies in the UK as well as close to theoretical full employment. if we have 700,000 vacancies now, how will reducing the people coming in help fill those jobs?

Now, you actually do make a good point in regards to benefits. The benefits system does need reformed, and it is the benefits system that disadvantages many of the UK population more than the EU. People in the UK have been failed by government after government. That is not the EU's fault, it is the fault of the government and to a certain extent, the people that vote for them.

A Little Pony wrote: »

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.

Ah, ok, so we are going for the tyranny of the majority? Awesome. You don't know any more than I do why people voted to leave. Whilst much of the campaigning by leave centered around immigration, and there is no doubt that this was the main concern for some, you can't say it was for all. I have met many leave voters that voted leave for other reasons.

A Little Pony wrote: »

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.

What exactly do you mean by "The British people"? When you use that phrase it implies a majority of all British people, and I am sorry but you have no evidence that a majority of all British people think otherwise. There certainly a percentage that do, but neither you nor anyone else can say how many that is, all we know is it most certainly isn't a majority.

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

No, he really didn't. I am simply not automatically agreeing that something is a good thing simply because someone says they think it is. Leaving the EU is a pretty big deal that will cause unnecessary damage to the country and financial hardship to a section of the population ill-equipped to deal with it. I won't apologise for wanting to understand why people think this is a good idea.

I do appreciate that people can feel something is right, and can really, really want something, like reduced influence of Brussels, but when it comes at a massive cost, to everyone, not just those that want it, I think it requires a higher level of scrutiny, and I don't think that is unreasonable.

MrP

A Little Pony

We currently have something like 700,000 job vacancies in the UK as well as close to theoretical full employment. if we have 700,000 vacancies now, how will reducing the people coming in help fill those jobs?

Go look at the unemployment figures in the UK and you will see those jobs can be filled by citizens from the UK. We do not need mass immigration to fill those jobs, people just need the incentive to get out of bed and go to work and stop being on benefits.

What exactly do you mean by "The British people"? When you use that phrase it implies a majority of all British people, and I am sorry but you have no evidence that a majority of all British people think otherwise. There certainly a percentage that do, but neither you nor anyone else can say how many that is, all we know is it most certainly isn't a majority.

Yes it is a majority because the British people had a vote on June 23rd and the majority voted to Leave. Everyone of voting age had the chance to vote, no excuses. Anyone of voting age who didn't vote can not complain.

paleoperson

MrPudding wrote: »

I met one guy (not on the desk, getting a tyre changed) that was voting leave because "there were too many pakkis".

That's a perfectly good reason to vote Brexit, 100%.

If that's your definition of "stupid" then you're a brainwashed mong.

That man to me sounds wiser and having more sense than you ever will.


Where I feel a lot of this is coming from is some jokers conflating less-well educated or intellectually poorer trades with "stupid". Because they're blue-collared rather than white-collared, let's dismiss them as "stupid". That is incredibly wrong on all kinds of levels.

The Backwards Man

paleoperson wrote: »

That's a perfectly good reason to vote Brexit, 100%.

If that's your definition of "stupid" then you're a brainwashed mong.

That man to me sounds wiser and having more sense than you ever will.


Where I feel a lot of this is coming from is some jokers conflating less-well educated or intellectually poorer trades with "stupid". Because they're blue-collared rather than white-collared, let's dismiss them as "stupid". That is incredibly wrong on all kinds of levels.

Blue collar, white collar, purple collar, if you think Hyderabad is in the EU then you deserve to be called stupid.

Maximus Alexander

I get why people are dissatisfied, but I still think it's beyond hilarious that they thought the likes of Trump would offer solutions.

Maximus Alexander

Irish people being pleased to see all of our giant neighbours inching towards right wing nationalism is hilarious too.

MrPudding

paleoperson wrote: »

That's a perfectly good reason to vote Brexit, 100%.

If that's your definition of "stupid" then you're a brainwashed mong.

That man to me sounds wiser and having more sense than you ever will.

Um... you do know that Pakistan isn't in the EU, don't you? The UK government already has full, total and complete control over immigration from Pakistan.

MrP

NoFreeGaffs

MrPudding wrote: »

Um... you do know that Pakistan isn't in the EU, don't you? The UK government already has full, total and complete control over immigration from Pakistan.

MrP

It does not.

You realise that a lot of non EU migrants would get in due to being married to an EU citizen or whatever, right?

A Little Pony

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Irish people being pleased to see all of our giant neighbours inching towards right wing nationalism is hilarious too.

The state you live in was built on nationalism.

pumpkin4life

A Little Pony wrote: »

The state you live in was built on nationalism.

Civilization in its entirety is built on nationalism.

Then it gets rich, starts drifting left, dragging the right with it and then the very bad thing happens and we're back to square one.

What we're seeing right now is the very bad thing coming up the road.

paleoperson

MrPudding wrote: »

Um... you do know that Pakistan isn't in the EU, don't you? The UK government already has full, total and complete control over immigration from Pakistan.

MrP

Oh get a load of this guy.

"Um...", oh I guess you were taken aback by my not knowing such a simple thing so it took you a second to adjust right?

Um... yes I know Pakistan isn't in the EU.

Um... you know I know Pakistan isn't in the EU.

Um... it has nothing to do with the discussion, nobody thought Pakistan was in the EU.

Maximus Alexander

A Little Pony wrote: »

The state you live in was built on nationalism.

As was the state that drove it into the dirt for centuries.

But of course you're talking nonsense anyway, because the state I live in has been benifitting fom EU membership since long before my birth.

Capt'n Midnight

NoFreeGaffs wrote: »

It does not.

You realise that a lot of non EU migrants would get in due to being married to an EU citizen or whatever, right?

And a few of them through marriages of convenience done here between people from Eastern Europe and the sub-continent where they didn't even have a common language.

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

Or look at the UK system. Water is quite expensive. And a lot of the money is going to foreign shareholders instead of repairs and upgrades.

Look at how privatisation worked for the railways. Lots of investment :rolleyes:

Irish water will be funded from general taxation so there will be extra taxes somewhere down the line.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Or look at the UK system. Water is quite expensive. And a lot of the money is going to foreign shareholders instead of repairs and upgrades.

Look at how privatisation worked for the railways. Lots of investment :rolleyes:

Irish water will be funded from general taxation so there will be extra taxes somewhere down the line.

Which means the government has to borrow, increasing national debt. It also means there is little incentive to modernise.

The regulator in the UK has dished out significant fines to water companies for failing to meet standards.

There's pros and cons I'd agree, but the flip flopping by the government over Irish water was in no one's interests.

Special Circumstances

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And a few of them through marriages of convenience done here between people from Eastern Europe and the sub-continent where they didn't even have a common language.

Ah now there's plenty people happy to have a doctor with no common language. I'm sure they'd be just as happy to have a partner with no common language.

Fratton Fred

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Ah now there's plenty people happy to have a doctor with no common language. I'm sure they'd be just as happy to have a partner with no common language.

I'd be the happiest man in the world if my wife couldn't speak English

MrPudding

NoFreeGaffs wrote: »

It does not.

You realise that a lot of non EU migrants would get in due to being married to an EU citizen or whatever, right?

And do you have figures for that? It has been some time since I did EU law, but I remember at the time thinking that we (my girlfriend of some 16 years at the time and I) would struggle to satisfy the requirements for third country spousal rights.

So, whilst I do appreciate that it is a possible route in, and I have no doubt it may be used by some, I would make the following observations/questions:

1) When you say "a lot of non EU migrants would get in due to being married to an EU citizen or whatever, right?" What exactly are you saying? Your use of "a lot" seems to imply you know some numbers, care to share?
2) Do you have an issue with EU people being married to non-EU people in general, or are you simply suggesting that all marriages between EU and non-EU people are sham marriages? Do you have any evidence of this?
3) Sham marriages also take place between UK citizens and people from third countries, how will brexit fix that?

Sham marriages are a problem and leaving the EU will do absolutely nothing to change that. British people are involved in sham marriages now, and they will continue to be involved after brexit. There is a demand and where there is a demand there is money to be made, brexit won't change that.

MrP

sbsquarepants

Let's stick it to the man - instead of voting for the privileged elite, why not vote for your friendly neighbourhood billionaire, he's got your back.:rolleyes:

At least Hillary had the brains and determination to lie, cheat and steal her way to all that money, Trump got his off his daddy:mad:

MrPudding

paleoperson wrote: »

Oh get a load of this guy.

"Um...", oh I guess you were taken aback by my not knowing such a simple thing so it took you a second to adjust right?

Um... yes I know Pakistan isn't in the EU.

Um... you know I know Pakistan isn't in the EU.

Um... it has nothing to do with the discussion, nobody thought Pakistan was in the EU.

No, I didn't know that you knew Pakistan wasn't in the EU. How would I know that you knew that?

Perhaps you might explain how voting to leave the EU to stop people from Pakistan is a 100% good reason for vote for brexit? If your reason is to stop Eu citizens marrying Pakistani people to sneak then in then perhaps you might provide some evidence as to how big that problem is, and while you are at it, explain how it will stop UK citizens from carrying out sham marriages.

MrP

A Little Pony

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The state you live in was built on nationalism.

As was the state that drove it into the dirt for centuries.

But of course you're talking nonsense anyway, because the state I live in has been benifitting fom EU membership since long before my birth.

Some are more willing than others to give up freedom. Good luck to you.

NoFreeGaffs

MrPudding wrote: »

And do you have figures for that? It has been some time since I did EU law, but I remember at the time thinking that we (my girlfriend of some 16 years at the time and I) would struggle to satisfy the requirements for third country spousal rights.

So, whilst I do appreciate that it is a possible route in, and I have no doubt it may be used by some, I would make the following observations/questions:

1) When you say "a lot of non EU migrants would get in due to being married to an EU citizen or whatever, right?" What exactly are you saying? Your use of "a lot" seems to imply you know some numbers, care to share?
2) Do you have an issue with EU people being married to non-EU people in general, or are you simply suggesting that all marriages between EU and non-EU people are sham marriages? Do you have any evidence of this?
3) Sham marriages also take place between UK citizens and people from third countries, how will brexit fix that?

Sham marriages are a problem and leaving the EU will do absolutely nothing to change that. British people are involved in sham marriages now, and they will continue to be involved after brexit. There is a demand and where there is a demand there is money to be made, brexit won't change that.

MrP

Yes, I do have numbers. I'm not the one claiming that the EU has no affect on non EU numbers. It absolutely does. You made the claim. You should be the one backing it up, not asking me to after i pointed out you were talking absolute horse****. That's not how this works. Anyway;

According to IPS estimates, non-EU family migration to the UK increased from an average of 35,000 per year in the 1990s to 51,000 in 2014, or 19% of all non-EU immigration that year. These estimates include both dependents and family unification migrants.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/non-european-migration-to-the-uk-family-unification-dependents/

2) Yes, marrying a Polish person or Irish person shouldn't give you the automatic right to settle in another EU country. Come on a work visa or don't come at all. Your own merits.

3) I never said they didn't. In the past five years a quarter of a million non EU citizens settled in the UK due to EU law. Who did you study EU law with? Ask for a refund.

Slydice

The poll finished on saturday. Thanks very much for voting!

That's a pretty good amount of votes (214 total).

Results in a table
Percent|Voters|Option
56.07%|120|I think I completely understand why they happened
20.56%|44|I think I know why they happened but some small doubts remain
10.75%|23|I have an idea why they happened but it's difficult to figure out
5.14%|11|I think I'm starting to get an idea why they happened
0.93%|2|I don't think I even have the first clue why they happened
6.54%|14|Atari Jaguar (none of the options suit me)


Now, I don't think it can be said everyone thinks the same reason.
I do think most people have a confident ('some small doubts remain') if not very strong ('completely understand') idea.
If nothing else, I think this shows, that most people around us have an opinion on it.

This could be an opportunity:
- asking or sharing thoughts on the reasons might help to share or gain insight on it
- if someone shares that they don't have a clue, then sharing with them or encouraging them to seek information looks like a useful option

So, that's probably a bit of research done there. A snapshot of opinon in time. I found it useful. Make of it what you will