BREXIT was based on Racism
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Willy Pete
About as brilliant as a venereal disease.
Maybe it's just me then. But I love large cities, and nothing in the UK comes close for me apart from London (although I've never been to Edinburgh)
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Original post by jape
The single biggest reason people voted was democracy, independence and self-government.
This all depends on your reference point. Many of the same people arguing for Brexit on such an "independence and self-government" basis had opposed such arguments during the Scottish referendum.
If you're objecting to the structure of the EU legislative process and the elected European Parliament not being as powerful within the EU (relative to other institutions) as it ought to be, then that's a valid concern about a democratic deficit (and indeed, part of the reason why I didn't vote Remain either), but there's nothing inherently undemocratic about decisions being taken at a pan-European level.
Original post by anarchism101
This all depends on your reference point. Many of the same people arguing for Brexit on such an "independence and self-government" basis had opposed such arguments during the Scottish referendum.
If you're objecting to the structure of the EU legislative process and the elected European Parliament not being as powerful within the EU (relative to other institutions) as it ought to be, then that's a valid concern about a democratic deficit (and indeed, part of the reason why I didn't vote Remain either), but there's nothing inherently undemocratic about decisions being taken at a pan-European level.
If you're objecting to the structure of the EU legislative process and the elected European Parliament not being as powerful within the EU (relative to other institutions) as it ought to be, then that's a valid concern about a democratic deficit (and indeed, part of the reason why I didn't vote Remain either), but there's nothing inherently undemocratic about decisions being taken at a pan-European level.
I hate to bump in. but don't you think that, while it is not inherently undemocratic to take decisions at more of a distance and in a much larger jurisdiction, it still makes the decision less* democratic? I'm trying to not talk so much about the insignificance of the EU parliament relatively speaking within the EU and the fact that the UK is only a tiny amount of the representation within it - I'm merely, now, saying that the fact that the EU parliament represents more and more people means that our UK representation inherently goes down - if we want to run ourselves, do we mean "us as in europe" or "us as in the UK"? because if we want to run ourselves as the UK (which is a legitimate political community), surely the EU weakens democracy by diverging away from the UK and lumps in more and more players that aren't bonded by anything more than generalities? there wouldn't be an issue if we thought of the EU as a political community or a nation, but I don't think anybody believes europe (or the EU) *is* a political community. it's more of a civilisation and less so a community of members. I find it hard to comprehend why there would be democracy over multiple communities that have nothing to do with one another other than civilisational commonalities. for instance, unless perhaps at a minimum we're talking about diplomatic strategy or foreign policy, why would the UK want to negotiate a collective package of domestic policies with a nation like bulgaria? that "pan-european" level, like I said, doesn't function as a sphere of a community, it's merely "us and them, trying to work together as two actors not one" - we really don't have anything to do with bulgaria (etc) other than "we have roughly similar political beliefs, sometimes, hopefully..." so there isn't that base of collectivity in my opinion and that's a huge issue with the idea of the EU itself as anything more than a diplomatic alliance for certain foreign or diplomatic policies (i.e. not immigration or border policy) - if europe was a nation it would work to some level, at least if it was deeply federal, but it is anything but - the history of europe has been very nation based (or similar to "nation" before the "nation" was such a popular political entity)
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by sleepysnooze
I hate to bump in. but don't you think that, while it is not inherently undemocratic to take decisions at more of a distance and in a much larger jurisdiction, it still makes the decision less* democratic?
I accept there's an argument that more decentralised democratic decision making is more democratic than centralised decision making, but again, I'd raise the example of Scottish independence, where many of the leading Brexiters opposed such arguments.
Original post by anarchism101
I accept there's an argument that more decentralised democratic decision making is more democratic than centralised decision making, but again, I'd raise the example of Scottish independence, where many of the leading Brexiters opposed such arguments.
I understand that - you could say that there was hypocrisy from both sides because the either wanted independence from the EU but not scottish independence from westminster, or they wanted independence from westminster but not the EU
but I would say that this has to do with scotland's particular relationship with england - do you think scotland is still a part of the "british nation"? do you think they still fit in comfortably within this modern UK nation or do you think that they have now crossed the line into a different nation altogether (in reality, not law)? because I will at least admit that scotland *is* breaking away (not "has broken away"] from the "british nation", so the idea of a british "nation-state" is weakening. but I can only judge it as "almost" based on the referendum result being in favour of maintaining that nation. so I can only say that the SNP Were being more hypocritical than the british unionists who opposed the EU in the sense that the UK (england and scotland...and wales+NI) is a credible and legitimate political community fit for making collective decisions whereas the EU is much less a nation of citizens but rather an association, or an alliance, which happens to have a parliament and other nation-state-esque structures
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Willy Pete
It would also have a much lower crime rate.
Any place with high density population would have crime. And London isn't even that bad.
Economy > Crime rate, ofc what would you countryside farmers know about that. Soon when the primary and secondary sector shrinks to irrelevance it would be English cities that will carry this country.
Original post by knightchildish
Any place with high density population would have crime. And London isn't even that bad.
Economy > Crime rate, ofc what would you countryside farmers know about that. Soon when the primary and secondary sector shrinks to irrelevance it would be English cities that will carry this country.
Economy > Crime rate, ofc what would you countryside farmers know about that. Soon when the primary and secondary sector shrinks to irrelevance it would be English cities that will carry this country.
I'm not a farmer. If you must know I work in property.
Original post by zayn008
Compared to what? It has a much lower population density than many large cities (much lower than New York, for example. Definitely much lower than Singapore or Hong Kong).
filled with poverty
Actually the GDP produced by Londoners is much greater than other parts of the country. To the extend there is poverty in London (just like you can find poverty in all parts of the country, particularly in regional parts of the North, Midlands and Scotland), it exists alongside great wealth and prosperity just like in all great historical metropoli (like Ancient Rome)
filled with crime
Actually London has quite a low crime rate by global standards. It's even quite low compared to many parts of the United States. There is no part of London that is even in the same poverty/deprivation universe as you will see in parts of, say, Detroit.
Your perception of London (filled with poverty, crime, pollution, etc) smacks of the kind of embittered, anti-London sentiment held in many parts of this country. It is held by people who are either jealous of London's greatness, or who are ignorant of its greatness and whose views on it have been poisoned by the prejudice of embitterment.
London is an absolutely cracking city, probably the best in the world if you enjoy, you know, human civilisation. London has all the upshots of New York, but with universal healthcare and less chance of being shot. It is the Jerusalem of the global finance industry. It has 30 universities. It is in the absolute top-tier (only rivalled by New York) in its position in the global advertising, insurance, legal services, finance and creative industries. It is filled with some of the best museums and most interesting historical sites in the world. It has beautiful architecture. It is filled with trendy food markets where you can enjoy a walk on a nice saturday morning, perusing the various scrumptious foods. It's filled with an unlimited number of prospective dates and sexual partners. It has so many parks, so many opportunities for exercise and recreation of the physical kind.
In late spring when the days are warm and long, and the cherry blossoms are in bloom, and everyone is enjoying a drink outside the pubs on the sidewalk, or basking in the sunshine at the Waterloo embankment before popping into the Brasserie Blanc for a bite to eat and then into the Southbank Centre to watch a debate between Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris and some disagreeable cleric.. on days like that, it's ****ing perfect.
There are very few cities in the world, like London, where no matter what your interest you can find so many people with whom you can geek out over it. There are few cities where you have so many options for wonderful, free (or cheap) intellectual entertainment in the evenings, like the museums, or public debates, or art galleries, or theatre. I haven't even done London the credit it deserves and I couldn't without going on for another five paragraphs.
The long and short of it is that Samuel Johnson was correct when he said in the 18th century, "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life". Many people in this country mislike the metropolis having never really had an opportunity to appreciate its beauty, its depth and its wonder. Many link the sort of reactionary, right-wing embitterment against London possessed of so many of the provincial lower-middle class, with their personal lack of experience of London beyond perhaps a few day or weekend visits, competing and pressing against tourists on the tube and then pouring that frustration into their view of London. Frankly, Britons are lucky to live in the same country as London, you should take advantage of your proximity to such a city rather than moaning about it.
@jape @knightchildish @Willy Pete
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlexanderHam
x
I completely agree, brilliant post. London is easily in the top 5 cities in the world and this anti-London sentiment is just pure jealousy. London has really brought the UK to an international stage with the wealth and power it holds.
We should just separate from the rest of the UK and declare ourselves a Sovereign state, we'd still be richer than Saudi Arabia.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Compared to what? It has a much lower population density than many large cities (much lower than New York, for example. Definitely much lower than Singapore or Hong Kong).
Actually the GDP produced by Londoners is much greater than other parts of the country. To the extend there is poverty in London (just like you can find poverty in all parts of the country, particularly in regional parts of the North, Midlands and Scotland), it exists alongside great wealth and prosperity just like in all great historical metropoli (like Ancient Rome)
Actually London has quite a low crime rate by global standards. It's even quite low compared to many parts of the United States. There is no part of London that is even in the same poverty/deprivation universe as you will see in parts of, say, Detroit.
Your perception of London (filled with poverty, crime, pollution, etc) smacks of the kind of embittered, anti-London sentiment held in many parts of this country. It is held by people who are either jealous of London's greatness, or who are ignorant of its greatness and whose views on it have been poisoned by the prejudice of embitterment.
London is an absolutely cracking city, probably the best in the world if you enjoy, you know, human civilisation. London has all the upshots of New York, but with universal healthcare and less chance of being shot. It is the Jerusalem of the global finance industry. It has 30 universities. It is in the absolute top-tier (only rivalled by New York) in its position in the global advertising, insurance, legal services, finance and creative industries. It is filled with some of the best museums and most interesting historical sites in the world. It has beautiful architecture. It is filled with trendy food markets where you can enjoy a walk on a nice saturday morning, perusing the various scrumptious foods. It's filled with an unlimited number of prospective dates and sexual partners. It has so many parks, so many opportunities for exercise and recreation of the physical kind.
In late spring when the days are warm and long, and the cherry blossoms are in bloom, and everyone is enjoying a drink outside the pubs on the sidewalk, or basking in the sunshine at the Waterloo embankment before popping into the Brasserie Blanc for a bite to eat and then into the Southbank Centre to watch a debate between Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris and some disagreeable cleric.. on days like that, it's ****ing perfect.
There are very few cities in the world, like London, where no matter what your interest you can find so many people with whom you can geek out over it. There are few cities where you have so many options for wonderful, free (or cheap) intellectual entertainment in the evenings, like the museums, or public debates, or art galleries, or theatre. I haven't even done London the credit it deserves and I couldn't without going on for another five paragraphs.
The long and short of it is that Samuel Johnson was correct when he said in the 18th century, "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life". Many people in this country mislike the metropolis having never really had an opportunity to appreciate its beauty, its depth and its wonder. Many link the sort of reactionary, right-wing embitterment against London possessed of so many of the provincial lower-middle class, with their personal lack of experience of London beyond perhaps a few day or weekend visits, competing and pressing against tourists on the tube and then pouring that frustration into their view of London. Frankly, Britons are lucky to live in the same country as London, you should take advantage of your proximity to such a city rather than moaning about it.
@jape @knightchildish @Willy Pete
Actually the GDP produced by Londoners is much greater than other parts of the country. To the extend there is poverty in London (just like you can find poverty in all parts of the country, particularly in regional parts of the North, Midlands and Scotland), it exists alongside great wealth and prosperity just like in all great historical metropoli (like Ancient Rome)
Actually London has quite a low crime rate by global standards. It's even quite low compared to many parts of the United States. There is no part of London that is even in the same poverty/deprivation universe as you will see in parts of, say, Detroit.
Your perception of London (filled with poverty, crime, pollution, etc) smacks of the kind of embittered, anti-London sentiment held in many parts of this country. It is held by people who are either jealous of London's greatness, or who are ignorant of its greatness and whose views on it have been poisoned by the prejudice of embitterment.
London is an absolutely cracking city, probably the best in the world if you enjoy, you know, human civilisation. London has all the upshots of New York, but with universal healthcare and less chance of being shot. It is the Jerusalem of the global finance industry. It has 30 universities. It is in the absolute top-tier (only rivalled by New York) in its position in the global advertising, insurance, legal services, finance and creative industries. It is filled with some of the best museums and most interesting historical sites in the world. It has beautiful architecture. It is filled with trendy food markets where you can enjoy a walk on a nice saturday morning, perusing the various scrumptious foods. It's filled with an unlimited number of prospective dates and sexual partners. It has so many parks, so many opportunities for exercise and recreation of the physical kind.
In late spring when the days are warm and long, and the cherry blossoms are in bloom, and everyone is enjoying a drink outside the pubs on the sidewalk, or basking in the sunshine at the Waterloo embankment before popping into the Brasserie Blanc for a bite to eat and then into the Southbank Centre to watch a debate between Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris and some disagreeable cleric.. on days like that, it's ****ing perfect.
There are very few cities in the world, like London, where no matter what your interest you can find so many people with whom you can geek out over it. There are few cities where you have so many options for wonderful, free (or cheap) intellectual entertainment in the evenings, like the museums, or public debates, or art galleries, or theatre. I haven't even done London the credit it deserves and I couldn't without going on for another five paragraphs.
The long and short of it is that Samuel Johnson was correct when he said in the 18th century, "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life". Many people in this country mislike the metropolis having never really had an opportunity to appreciate its beauty, its depth and its wonder. Many link the sort of reactionary, right-wing embitterment against London possessed of so many of the provincial lower-middle class, with their personal lack of experience of London beyond perhaps a few day or weekend visits, competing and pressing against tourists on the tube and then pouring that frustration into their view of London. Frankly, Britons are lucky to live in the same country as London, you should take advantage of your proximity to such a city rather than moaning about it.
@jape @knightchildish @Willy Pete
I think I'm going to cry.
Original post by Willy Pete
I'm not a farmer. If you must know I work in property.
The property market is the best in London.
Original post by knightchildish
The property market is the best in London.
Not the office market. It is stagnating and the returns are poor.
Birmingham is in fact better for investment since you get better yields.
Original post by jape
I think I'm going to cry.
Haha, thanks!
As I said above, if someone loves human civilisation they must surely love London. It is possible to say it is the climax of human civilisation achieved thus far; a place with great wealth, great culture, great opportunity but also a care for the poor and the sick that was never known in the previous great metropoli of human history.I feel London of the 21st century has no equal in human history. Anyone who enjoys the wonderful tapestry of civilisation, with commerce and art and law and politics, should appreciate and enjoy what it has to offer.
For those who have narrower horizons, perhaps it's understandable that all they will see is the crowds and the immigrants and the pollution, failing to see the forest for the trees.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Haha, thanks! As I said above, if someone loves human civilisation they must surely love London. It is possible to say it is the climax of human civilisation achieved thus far; a place with great wealth, great culture, great opportunity but also a care for the poor and the sick that was never known in the previous great metropoli of human history.
I feel London of the 21st century has no equal in human history. Anyone who enjoys the wonderful tapestry of civilisation, with commerce and art and law and politics, should appreciate and enjoy what it has to offer.
For those who have narrower horizons, perhaps it's understandable that all they will see is the crowds and the immigrants and the pollution, failing to see the forest for the trees.
As I said above, if someone loves human civilisation they must surely love London. It is possible to say it is the climax of human civilisation achieved thus far; a place with great wealth, great culture, great opportunity but also a care for the poor and the sick that was never known in the previous great metropoli of human history. I feel London of the 21st century has no equal in human history. Anyone who enjoys the wonderful tapestry of civilisation, with commerce and art and law and politics, should appreciate and enjoy what it has to offer.
For those who have narrower horizons, perhaps it's understandable that all they will see is the crowds and the immigrants and the pollution, failing to see the forest for the trees.
The only real downside is the weather, for me. But that's live-withable.
Original post by knightchildish
I completely agree, brilliant post.
Thank you, sir! You are kind indeed.
London is easily in the top 5 cities in the world and this anti-London sentiment is just pure jealousy. London has really brought the UK to an international stage with the wealth and power it holds.
Absolutely. Every great city has a 'hinterland' that supports it, for which it is the aggregator of finance, art, culture, law etc. The United States needs 320 million people to provide the hinterland for New York. The UK, with just 60 million, has New York's equal. No other country our size has a city of this nature. For Britons it's like having a New York in your own backyard, and yet they cannot appreciate it (just as you will find a really obnoxious anti-New York hatred, often from people who have never even been there, in many parts of the American South).
We should just separate from the rest of the UK and declare ourselves a Sovereign state, we'd still be richer than Saudi Arabia.
Indeed. Although I don't favour full independence, maybe London should be an 'independent' city-state but remain in union with the crown of England. Or the kingship of London could devolve onto the heir of the crown, so that they would be the Prince of London and get practice as its monarch before ascending to the throne of the UK
Original post by zayn008
We're suddenly going to implement African polices? But instead steal from the black and European people then give it to the working class north? Nah that's not brexit, that's what'll happen if you vote Corbyn.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Absolutely. Every great city has a 'hinterland' that supports it, for which it is the aggregator of finance, art, culture, law etc. The United States needs 320 million people to provide the hinterland for New York. The UK, with just 60 million, has New York's equal. No other country our size has a city of this nature. For Britons it's like having a New York in your own backyard, and yet they cannot appreciate it (just as you will find a really obnoxious anti-New York hatred, often from people who have never even been there, in many parts of the American South).
Absolutely. Every great city has a 'hinterland' that supports it, for which it is the aggregator of finance, art, culture, law etc. The United States needs 320 million people to provide the hinterland for New York. The UK, with just 60 million, has New York's equal. No other country our size has a city of this nature. For Britons it's like having a New York in your own backyard, and yet they cannot appreciate it (just as you will find a really obnoxious anti-New York hatred, often from people who have never even been there, in many parts of the American South).
London is the forefront of urbanisation, it's a model city that developing countries aspire to be and want to replicate its success. The importance of London is more appreciated to foreigners who dream of working here than the villagers in some unknown countryside. You've summed it up very eloquently.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Indeed. Although I don't favour full independence, maybe London should be an 'independent' city-state but remain in union with the crown of England. Or the kingship of London could devolve onto the heir of the crown, so that they would be the Prince of London and get practice as its monarch before ascending to the throne of the UK
Indeed. Although I don't favour full independence, maybe London should be an 'independent' city-state but remain in union with the crown of England. Or the kingship of London could devolve onto the heir of the crown, so that they would be the Prince of London and get practice as its monarch before ascending to the throne of the UK
Lol yeah, either way the rest of the UK is holding us down. Something needs to happen
Original post by Willy Pete
Not the office market. It is stagnating and the returns are poor.
Birmingham is in fact better for investment since you get better yields.
Birmingham is in fact better for investment since you get better yields.
If you've got enough money you'll find that London is so diverse that different areas of Greater London are gems for real estate.
I dont see any real estate investers moving to Birmingham. But if it's nice up there in Birmingham then sure have fun.
Original post by knightchildish
If you've got enough money you'll find that London is so diverse that different areas of Greater London are gems for real estate.
I dont see any real estate investers moving to Birmingham. But if it's nice up there in Birmingham then sure have fun.
I dont see any real estate investers moving to Birmingham. But if it's nice up there in Birmingham then sure have fun.
You clearly have very little understanding on the investment market. I'm talking about commercial property not resi.
Original post by Willy Pete
You clearly have very little understanding on the investment market. I'm talking about commercial property not resi.
Clearly i meant Residential real estate.
Your self superiority is somewhat humorous given that the only reason you think London is bad is because "crime".
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Craig Foster apologises to Sam Kerr for saying her crime was sackable
- Finally, a study to show what we all knew anyway.
- EPQ help
- a level poltics
- Racism
- Welcome to Exeter -Black students
- Lack of inclusivity for mixed races (diversity)
- When did 21st century decades culturally begin and end?
- assumed racism makes your racist
- My south Asian best friend is racist to white people
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Should i do my epq on the 2008 financial crisis?
- westminister sixth form review
- BBC: Tory donor accused of racist remarks about Diane Abbott
- Applying to a Spanish university with A-levels from the UK
- Exchange to the UK
- Question regarding Master's tuition fees loan
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- Which is better? Univeristy of reading or strathclyde?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
