Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Remainers,are you sure the EU has no hint of Europe's dark past?Plus Brexit thoughts watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Oh, the irony. A political class where 75% believe in something that 52% of the public, on a 72% turnout, ignores people for years and does exactly that.
    The new Labour Party weren't exactly running on a eurosceptic ticket were they? If the MPs publicly supported the EU and chunks of the public voted for them where is this deception?

    If you broke that down to the Labour party there would be a vastly greater disconnect, and they are right now fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they the MP's select their leaders and not record numbers of people now engaged with democracy who want something totally different.
    It's a tricky one, but it's essentially a choice between having 0.7% of the electorate utterly committed to you whilst alienating the rest or of enthusing to varying degrees potential labour voters. In any case we'll see. I suspect Corbyn will win handsomely., not because of mass appeal but because of mass apathy. I'm not saying they shouldn't get their say, far from it. But, I think of you are a person who wants to get into government to make meaningful change instead of protesting it is reasonable to be against something which in your view will trash that potential vehicle and give further power to your ideological opponents.


    What interests have anyone in Remain establishment(and the advocates of the whole political paradigm that goes along with it) shown in anyone else?
    A large degree if brexiters have gone on about democracy but don't appear to know what it is.

    What do you expect them to, convert wholesale? When thatcher won a landslide or Tony Blair, was Corvyb u democratic for sticking to his beliefs and ignoring the overwhelming democratic will? Instead if this farcical myth of the people being tragically deceived can't peoe just be wrong and make mistakes instead of ridiculous conspiracist garbage? And if that is the case the why can't elected officials believe as you do that sometimes democracy can get it wrong and that they should be able to correct the result per a democratic mandate.

    They have 'spoken for the entire nation', and ignored them and shown them contempt, for two decades. They have got away with their arrogance, and their presumption that they could **** people over and trick them long enough. Yes they still want to do that outside the EU, but one layers is gone, and they are not so sure now. It does not have to continue and they are rightly rocked.

    [/quote]
    Look at both Brexit and Corbyn support, they are unique in their high turnouts and engagement, and the whole political, and media class despises it. [/quote]

    The sumiliRity is certainly astounding. LBCs James Obrien does a remarkable job illuminating the vacuity of their arguments.

    [/quote[
    So they despise the democratic will. The status quo and consensus politics of the last twenty years have fed off apathy and disgust and people just reluctantly voting in some prison-state like way for something marginally less awful, when there is little real choice. The moment liberty, and a sniff of changing something with representative democracy, comes to town, they loathe it. What does this say about the media, and the politicians elected to represent people?[/QUOTE]

    Why do you brexiters hate the media so much? Have you forgotten what way The Sun, Daily Mail , telegraph, express et Al voted in the EU referendum? (Often printing clear lies about the EU...

    There was apathy because there was no real opposition to Tony Blair as the Tories listened to their members and elected a 'real tory' IDS and subsequently were out of power for a decade and failed miserably to provide meaningful opposition. corbyn is the IDS of the left.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    2)

    Portugal had a dictatorship from 1926 to 1974
    Spain from 1936 to 1975
    Italy 1922 to 1943
    Romania 1974 to 1989(Ceausescu)
    Milosevic in Serbia 1989- 91 (done for Genocide and war crimes)

    France is patchy, and a relatively new nation.

    France and the United States are rightly considered the birth places of modern democracy. But while Americans have enjoyed the political and institutional stability of the "one and indivisible Republic" for over 200 years, the French since 1789 have experienced a succession of short-lived regimes: a Directoire, a consulate, two empires, two monarchies, and five republics, as well as the Vichy regime during World War II. In France, as one President of the Fifth Republic has noted, political crises tend to lead to institutional crises which threaten the regime itself. In such moments, the French have thrice heeded the call of charismatic and prestigious leaders (Napoleon I, Napoleon III, and Marshall Pétain) whose temperaments and politics paid short shrift to democracy. But twice they have turned to General Charles de Gaulle, who led the French Resistance against the Nazis and, in 1958, founded France's current regime, the Fifth Republic. To date, it has proven a robust, prosperous and stable democracy.

    Then you have the former USSR states.

    Greece had a dictatorship from 1967-1974.

    Turkey has had coup d'etats(three I can find) and now many are worried Erdogan is on the road to dictatorship.

    Germany...well, we know.

    Poland

    In many respects, the Second Republic fell short of the high expectations of 1918. As happened elsewhere in Central Europe, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, the attempt to implant democracy did not succeed. Governments polarized between right- and left-wing factions, neither of which was prepared to honor the actions taken by the other.[21][22]

    In March 1968, student demonstrations at Warsaw University broke out in the wake of the government's banning of the performance of a play by Adam Mickiewicz (Dziady, written in 1824) at the National Theatre in Warsaw earlier that year,[137] because of its alleged "anti-Soviet references". Subsequently state security and ORMO units attacked protesting university students in several major cities.[138]

    In what became known as the March 1968 events, Moczar used the spontaneous and informal celebrations of the outcome of the 1967 Arab–Israeli war and the Warsaw theatre affair as pretexts to launch an anti-intellectual and anti-Semitic (officially designated as "anti-Zionist" press campaign, whose real goal was to weaken the pro-reform liberal party faction and attack other circles.[17][25][138] Thousands of generally secular and integrated people of Jewish origin lost their employment and some 15,000 Jews emigrated between 1967 and 1971.[139] Of prewar Europe's largest Jewish community, only several thousand people remained in Poland.[140]

    Other victims were college students, many of whom were expelled from their institutions and had their careers destroyed, academic teachers who tried to defend the students and the academic institutions themselves: Warsaw University had several departments administratively dissolved.[k] Liberal intelligentsia members, Jewish or not, were removed from the government and other places of employment. Leftist intellectuals and student leaders lost what was left of their faith in the ostensibly socialist government. Finally the Party itself was purged of many thousand suspect members, people who somehow did not fit the new environment of intolerance and hatred

    On 13 December 1981, claiming that the country was on the verge of economic and civil breakdown, and alleging a danger of Soviet intervention,[210] General Wojciech Jaruzelski began a crack-down on Solidarity. Martial law was declared, the free labor union was suspended and most of its leaders detained.[17] Several thousand citizens were interned or imprisoned and much larger numbers were subjected to various forms of harassment.[209] Polish state militia (Milicja Obywatelska, the police) and paramilitaryriot policeZOMO suppressed the strike action and demonstrations. Military forces entered industrial enterprises to clamp down on the independent union movement.[211] A series of violent attacks included the pacification of Wujek Coal Mine during which 9 people were killed.[155] The martial law offensive was directed primarily against workers and their Union; they, rather than intelligentsia activists, were the object of the most brutal treatment.[202] The authorities succeeded in imposing on members of Solidarity an individual and collective trauma, from which the broken mass movement would not be able to recover.[195] The Catholic Church strove to exert on Solidarity a moderating influence both before and after the martial law.[212]

    Initially, the regime leadership intended to remold Solidarity into a compliant union, stripped of its intelligentsia advisers and compatible with the state socialist system. The failure to incite most ranking Solidarity leaders to collaborate, especially Wałęsa's refusal to extend any cooperation along this course of action, resulted in the government adopting the goal of total liquidation of the union movement.[213]

    Strikes and protests followed, but were not nearly as widespread as those of August 1980.[202] The last mass street demonstrations that Solidarity was able to muster occurred on 31 August 1982, the second anniversary of the Gdańsk agreements.[214] The "Military Council of National Salvation" banned Solidarity officially on 8 October.[215] Martial law was formally lifted in July 1983, though many heightened controls on civil liberties and political life, as well as food rationing, remained in place throughout the mid-to-late 1980s.[216] With all the restrictions, however, "the official cultural realm remained far more open than it was prior to 1980" and "cultural policy continued to be the most open in all of Eastern Europe".[217] Among the concessions in the civil and political rights area granted by the troubled regime were the establishment of the Constitutional Tribunal in 1982 and of the Polish Ombudsman office in 1987.


    http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/2...e-dictatorship



    I'm sure there's more about Eastern Europe. That's enough though.l
    Notice how this was all before the EU came about. iys almost as if the EU has been a force for good...

    3)


    It is an issue when we have very disparate economies, and poor ones, exacerbated by the single currency and workers being used for low wages, hence people in those richer economies on the low end of the labour market being given very marginal options and terrible quality of life or no quality of life.
    It is also an issue that Europe seemingly has no strong border controls and even where it does, the leaders of Europe are very pro-open borders anyhow. Of course the corporates love cheap Labour, and maybe the politicians love divided people, especially poor people. It is also clear what is going on within Islam and what swathes of muslim migrants will mean. ISIS explicitly stated they would use the crisis to flood Europe with terrorists.
    So for self-described 'progressives' and the left, many of whom are cossetted from these effects(and more) to self-servingly and contemptuously proclaim what is best for all in this regard and call everyone stupid for opposing it is just insufferable.
    1: why are you such a corbyn fan when he thinks mass immigration is 'wonderful' lets lone his bizarre views on islamism?

    2: you are right, Europe doesn't have a border to non EU countries. That remains the privilege of the nation states. I happen to think that they have done a lousy job and that a collective EU border force would be cheaper and more effective

    3: disparate nation states are at the mercy of TNCs who are able to circumvent any claction taken against then and will always find ways of keeping costs down. I see the EU as a way of allowing collective action against companies who can afford to ignore a single country but not (almost) an entire continent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Notice how this was all before the EU came about. iys almost as if the EU has been a force for good...



    1: why are you such a corbyn fan when he thinks mass immigration is 'wonderful' lets lone his bizarre views on islamism?

    2: you are right, Europe doesn't have a border to non EU countries. That remains the privilege of the nation states. I happen to think that they have done a lousy job and that a collective EU border force would be cheaper and more effective

    3: disparate nation states are at the mercy of TNCs who are able to circumvent any claction taken against then and will always find ways of keeping costs down. I see the EU as a way of allowing collective action against companies who can afford to ignore a single country but not (almost) an entire continent.
    1)I'm not a fan in the sense I'd want his government. I just hate New Labour and I hate the media treatment of him that is so biased and untruthful, and I hate the fact that NuLab has been, and is trying to destroy all economic choice in elections for evermore.
    I also hate how he could be attacked for something like immigration when every Blairite knows how much they and neo-liberals love mass immigration and inflicted it on this country. As for his bizarre view, I take smears about political associations with a pinch of salt- they happen to anyone who falls outside the media and political class's echo chamber consensus view of the world. They happened to Galloway about Iraq, they happend to Farage fro trying to even talk about limits on immigration, they happened to Miliband for trying to address inequality(the shame, for a Labour leader- they couldn't call him an anti-esmite, because he was actually Jewish, but they would have done for the sin of being economic left, if they could) and now they are happening to Corbyn.
    This is the nation that is best friends with the Saudis, selling them arms- they fund Wahabbism, the most extreme sect in Islam, being preached in the UK.
    So as I say, it basically comes down to where power is that sways what's seen as right and wrong, it just comes down to a personal moral judgement, do you compromise and go with the tide of power and convince yourself you've done something right because you support a few token differences and tribal allegiances in a political orthodoxy, or do you stick to the conviction that democracy should represent the spectrum and that Labour should be on the economic left? I think there is a pendulum that always swings back and forth, it's inevitable.. Labour moving right economically was only about a leader who wanted election there and now. I don't resent the Tories like NuLabour becuase they are just doing their job in a democracy-Labour took away economic democracy by doing what they did.

    As it happens, I wouldn't vote for nuclear disarmament ever. But this country desparately needs more democracy and more economic radicalism. It's fine to say Corbyns from the past, but history is cyclical some arguments still have a basis, and can at least stimulate fresh thought around them, and inspire more on the economic left to not be marginalized. It is always referenced as though 97 isn't the past and nothing new could be needed from then....they are in fact less flexible and stuck in the past.
    Nobel winning economist Stiglitz backed Brexit and Corbyn and rejects TTIP and the Euro currency. Do you hear that in the BBC? Don't you ever question that you may be consuming a narrow spectrum of opinion?
    Oh, and I wouldn't back Smith because he portrays himself as the future and yet carps about second referendums....that is a joke right there. I wouldn't back him for PM, I mean, I'd actually be happy for him to get Labour leader and get trounced at the next GE.

    As for the first line-
    It wasn't all before the EU, and the Bosnian Genocide, one of the worlds worst atrocities, was on their doorstep.

    2)We are always told in abstract about things better under the EU 'a collective border force would be cheaper' is a perfect example. We can address wage under cutting together, etc. It doesn't actually happen. And btw I'm more concerned about British interest primarily, although I think separate currencies and foreign policies are definitely better for European nations. Our problem is we have succumbed to foolish globalism and zealotry and utopianism, and dispensed with sens, balance and a pragmatism in looking to our national interest and treating our own people with more of a conscience. The sickening sneering of remain, not to mention their complete uncritical acceptance of globalism and the EU as some utopia and all the economic factors accompanying it, plus their dangerous failure to see that this notion of obliterating binding tribes, identities and borders is doomed throughout history, is what angers many people.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    1)I'm not a fan in the sense I'd want his government. I just hate New Labour and I hate the media treatment of him that is so biased and untruthful,
    When have the MSM been untruthful abou corbyn?

    All media is biased.

    and I hate the fact that NuLab has been, and is trying to destroy all economic choice in elections for evermore.
    Are you referring to the so called Thatcherite consensus?

    [quote]
    I also hate how he could be attacked for something like immigration when every Blairite knows how much they and neo-liberals love mass immigration and inflicted it on this country. As for his bizarre view, I take smears about political associations with a pinch of salt- they happen to anyone who falls outside the media and political class's echo chamber consensus view of the world. They happened to Galloway about Iraq, they happend to Farage fro trying to even talk about limits on immigration, they happened to Miliband for trying to address inequality(the shame, for a Labour leader- they couldn't call him an anti-esmite, because he was actually Jewish, but they would have done for the sin of being economic left, if they could) and now they are happening to Corbyn.
    [/wuote]

    Farage and Galloway are markedly dodgy. Plenty of respectable politicians have raised those concerns. The only outlets that pilloried Ed Mikiband ere the ones that thought the EUvwas the fourth reach- Mail, expres et Al.

    This is the nation that is best friends with the Saudis, selling them arms- they fund Wahabbism, the most extreme sect in Islam, being preached in the UK.
    So as I say, it basically comes down to where power is that sways what's seen as right and wrong, it just comes down to a personal moral judgement, do you compromise and go with the tide of power and convince yourself you've done something right because you support a few token differences and tribal allegiances in a political orthodoxy, or do you stick to the conviction that democracy should represent the spectrum and that Labour should be on the economic left? I think there is a pendulum that always swings back and forth, it's inevitable.. Labour moving right economically was only about a leader who wanted election there and now. I don't resent the Tories like NuLabour becuase they are just doing their job in a democracy-Labour took away economic democracy by doing what they did.
    It's not really democracy when only one side wins is it? Additionally, times change and new ideas come to the fore. There needs to be a competive and challenging opposition to hold the government to account. Blair for all of his faults did that,


    As it happens, I wouldn't vote for nuclear disarmament ever. But this country desparately needs more democracy and more economic radicalism. It's fine to say Corbyns from the past, but history is cyclical some arguments still have a basis, and can at least stimulate fresh thought around them, and inspire more on the economic left to not be marginalized.
    And who decides what is Still relevant? Msybe Blair thought that clause 4 was no longer relevant?

    It is always referenced as though 97 isn't the past and nothing new could be needed from then
    Please give me one example of this.

    Nobel winning economist Stiglitz backed Brexit and Corbyn and rejects TTIP and the Euro currency.
    Ttip is finished and we weren't in the euro.

    Do you hear that in the BBC? Don't you ever question that you may be consuming a narrow spectrum of opinion?
    I'm a politics nut I read everything from Owen Jones to Peter Hitchens.

    Now, when was the last time British MSM ever reported any of the EUs achievements in any prominence other than the minority did at the last minutes of the referendum?



    Oh, and I wouldn't back Smith because he portrays himself as the future and yet carps about second referendums....that is a joke right there.
    I get the feeling it wouldn't be a joke if positions were reversed and we'd stayed IN . Referendums are bloody stupid though- they need a mandate from a general election.


    I wouldn't back him for PM, I mean, I'd actually be happy for him to get Labour leader and get trounced at the next GE.
    They're doomed regardless.


    As for the first line-
    It wasn't all before the EU, and the Bosnian Genocide, one of the worlds worst atrocities, was on their doorstep.
    But it want in the EU. Christ, can you imagine the response if the EU had tried to do something about it?

    As per your logic, why should anything have anything about the Bosnian genocide, when it's not in our national interest to do so? Or are you a filthy neocon like me?

    2)We are always told in abstract about things better under the EU 'a collective border force would be cheaper' is a perfect example. We can address wage under cutting together, etc. It doesn't actually happen. And btw I'm more concerned about British interest primarily, although I think separate currencies and foreign policies are definitely better for European nations. Our problem is we have succumbed to foolish globalism and zealotry and utopianism, and dispensed with sens, balance and a pragmatism in looking to our national interest and treating our own people with more of a conscience. The sickening sneering of remain, not to mention their complete uncritical acceptance of globalism and the EU as some utopia and all the economic factors accompanying it, plus their dangerous failure to see that this notion of obliterating binding tribes, identities and borders is doomed throughout history, is what angers many people.
    Pretty much the compete opposite of what you said .

    Every pro EU spokesperson eg Caneron to Clegg to Alan Johnson started most of their arguments with saying 'the EUs not perfect but...' Whereas seemingly most of the brexiters could find no positive with the EU. And made unsubstantiated promises which didn't last two days after the result.


    Again, find me someone of relative importance who has said that the EU today is perfect. Just one.

    You seem to have missed much of the criticism of the EU as being too protectionist, ie in farming or of enforcing workers rights and regulation ( or 'red tape'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Farage and Galloway are markedly dodgy. Plenty of respectable politicians have raised those concerns. The only outlets that pilloried Ed Mikiband ere the ones that thought the EUvwas the fourth reach- Mail, expres et Al.



    It's not really democracy when only one side wins is it? Additionally, times change and new ideas come to the fore. There needs to be a competive and challenging opposition to hold the government to account. Blair for all of his faults did that,


    Ttip is finished and we weren't in the euro.



    I'm a politics nut I read everything from Owen Jones to Peter Hitchens.

    Now, when was the last time British MSM ever reported any of the EUs achievements in any prominence other than the minority did at the last minutes of the referendum?





    Referendums are bloody stupid though- they need a mandate from a general election.
    I disagree. Miliband was not treated equally by the BBC, he only was when The Mail rain that story about his Dad hating Britain.

    Of course it is, that's what happens at elections.

    Blair did what? Move social mobility right down and inequality right up from under Thatcher, all under the premise of wearing something red not blue, and not being the awful stuffy Tories, and a trivializing media and gullible public bought it, his legacy is a disaster- The ME, faith schools, banning grammars, devolution then losing the core vote eventually in Scotland, civil liberties decimated, and he wanted into the Eurozone(GB, media bogeyman kept us out but of course got no credit, another Labour leader who didn't seem Tory enough-he was hardly economically radical left but see my point about media? Their judgements are entirely superficial)He made sure that the economic left was wrecked and the Tories moved over on social issues, whatever you individual views are we have near obliterated adversarial democracy because of this, the last 15-20years have felt like nominally different parties, but ideologically a one-party state. Clearly I'm not alone in this, the electorate have been maddened and alienated by this non-representative, non politics for so long now. I believe in the pendulum 100%, which is why all this nonsense about Labour having to be economically so much closer to Tories to get elected is wrong. It is only based on their current leaders personal short term ambitions, and if the press is Tory biased anyway, they should have the courage of their convictions and stay further economically to the left. Corbyn has tried to do this, I don't agree with all his policies, but at least he has tried to maintain integrity on this, and although the Beeb and Labour say one thing, why are record numbers joining Labour? They were totally wrong over remain so why not now? (Establishment in the US is wrong about Trump too...)

    Regarding TTIP and the Euro- i'm aware of that. But TTIP was wrecked with Brexit. It was stalled in Europe because one more aware, less pro-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist country rejected it....France. Obama then sent his Swedish lapdog to Paris to soften them up. This gave me a good insight into the EU future. And I do think had we remained, the march to federalism and the single currency was utterly inevitable and would have cause a lot of pain, and misery across Europe.


    You should read Hitchens more than Jones. Try Larry Elliott, or Tariq Ali. Or Daniel Hannan.

    When was the last time the BBC covered Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz backing Corbyn, and Brexit, and saying the Euro currency and TTIP were disastrous? When did they ever show an ethnic minority like Tariq Ali backing Brexit?

    There's something to that point, but put it in context of the political and media classes anti-democratic stitch up which has tried to stifle all debate and options for 15-20 years. You had a 72% turnout at 52% for something only 25% of MP's believe in. As Hitchens says, who could parties become so out of touch with their voters? If they has been responsive before, and representative, there would be a party to offer that in the fray. I don't think your being entirely honest here in saying you would have welcomed that? Weren't you happy for the disconnect to go on, and 'dissent' to be pushed down? I'm shocked that even quite open minded and objective people like in my family, seemed to even succumb briefly to the emotion, it really is quite heart wrenching for people who see themselves as more cosmopolitan, and there were mutterings of technical issues people don't understand etc....I think a lot are willing to subvert democracy to get something which they rather emotionally want on the behalf of their tribe that is more 'cultured'. It's this that makes them blind to the fact that anti-EU does not always equal anti-European, and the arguments.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    I disagree. Miliband was not treated equally by the BBC, he only was when The Mail rain that story about his Dad hating Britain.

    Of course it is, that's what happens at elections.

    Blair did what? Move social mobility right down and inequality right up from under Thatcher, all under the premise of wearing something red not blue, and not being the awful stuffy Tories, and a trivializing media and gullible public bought it, his legacy is a disaster- The ME, faith schools, banning grammars, devolution then losing the core vote eventually in Scotland, civil liberties decimated, and he wanted into the Eurozone(GB, media bogeyman kept us out but of course got no credit, another Labour leader who didn't seem Tory enough-he was hardly economically radical left but see my point about media? Their judgements are entirely superficial)He made sure that the economic left was wrecked and the Tories moved over on social issues, whatever you individual views are we have near obliterated adversarial democracy because of this, the last 15-20years have felt like nominally different parties, but ideologically a one-party state. Clearly I'm not alone in this, the electorate have been maddened and alienated by this non-representative, non politics for so long now. I believe in the pendulum 100%, which is why all this nonsense about Labour having to be economically so much closer to Tories to get elected is wrong. It is only based on their current leaders personal short term ambitions, and if the press is Tory biased anyway, they should have the courage of their convictions and stay further economically to the left. Corbyn has tried to do this, I don't agree with all his policies, but at least he has tried to maintain integrity on this, and although the Beeb and Labour say one thing, why are record numbers joining Labour? They were totally wrong over remain so why not now? (Establishment in the US is wrong about Trump too...)

    Regarding TTIP and the Euro- i'm aware of that. But TTIP was wrecked with Brexit. It was stalled in Europe because one more aware, less pro-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist country rejected it....France. Obama then sent his Swedish lapdog to Paris to soften them up. This gave me a good insight into the EU future. And I do think had we remained, the march to federalism and the single currency was utterly inevitable and would have cause a lot of pain, and misery across Europe.


    You should read Hitchens more than Jones. Try Larry Elliott, or Tariq Ali. Or Daniel Hannan.

    When was the last time the BBC covered Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz backing Corbyn, and Brexit, and saying the Euro currency and TTIP were disastrous? When did they ever show an ethnic minority like Tariq Ali backing Brexit?

    There's something to that point, but put it in context of the political and media classes anti-democratic stitch up which has tried to stifle all debate and options for 15-20 years. You had a 72% turnout at 52% for something only 25% of MP's believe in. As Hitchens says, who could parties become so out of touch with their voters? If they has been responsive before, and representative, there would be a party to offer that in the fray. I don't think your being entirely honest here in saying you would have welcomed that? Weren't you happy for the disconnect to go on, and 'dissent' to be pushed down? I'm shocked that even quite open minded and objective people like in my family, seemed to even succumb briefly to the emotion, it really is quite heart wrenching for people who see themselves as more cosmopolitan, and there were mutterings of technical issues people don't understand etc....I think a lot are willing to subvert democracy to get something which they rather emotionally want on the behalf of their tribe that is more 'cultured'. It's this that makes them blind to the fact that anti-EU does not always equal anti-European, and the arguments.
    With Ed and the BBC I think the problem is that the BBC knows it has bias so it tries to compensate by being over zealous when it comes to perceived biases.

    It's a one party state, which whilst in essence a democracy fails to function as one as the opposition are no threat.

    The traditional pendulum model is not in the interests of the left as they will virtually never win under fptp. The real issue is transferring to PR rather than fptp that way we can have genuine parties rather than loose alliances.
    In any case, the electorate are so raving mad with neoliberal blairites tgey continually reelect them. The reality is that labour is having to rely on rebel Tories and the House of Lords to oppose things too extreme for even some Tories.

    Why are record numbers joining labour? We know why. And we know who- champagne socialists that unconsciously know that having the Tories in office suits them fine: they can can keep their money, maintain their tendu views and have a go at the 'evil Tories'. Having a large fan base or/ and getting a majority in somewhere like Islington isn't enough to win a large chunk of the electorate, many of whom will be Tory voters.

    Peter Hitchens is a talented writer but he's an illiterate compared to his brother. It's also worth noting he's a religious nut who thinks the last two hundred years shouldn't have happened.

    You do realise that Dan Hannan is the poster boy for neoliberalism?

    I've seen a fair few ethnic minority panellists supporting brexit on the BBC actually.

    Again, I think this comes down to PR at the end of the day. Plenty if people could have voted labour purely because they hated the Tories more for instance. It could be thatcher people were misled about the EU just as they were on your view misled into voting for Tony Blair.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    1: 'Ought' is subjective. 'Is' isn't Whether or not somebody ought to suffer us disputable. The fact somebody is suffering isn't (for the most part. If certain human rights are proven to a large degree to be detrimental then we should investigate what they are and reach an informed decision based on reason and evidence rather than say instinct or superstition. 2: as we are discussing States at all levels it is relevant if we are witnessing a decline in conflict between certain states with the same ruling ideology, as this shows a measure of progress.3: the British people want lower taxes, better funded public services, cheaper energy and a cleaner environment despite the contradictions in these things. The British people want all sorts of different things. Your presumptive arrogance on speaking on behalf of the entire nation ( as I notice brexiters tend to do) is far more worrying and dangerous than having an idea as to what I think would be the best path for the country to take. 4: humans have very clearly managed to find ways to manage and control their baser instincts. Whilst no method is infallible, we know that some methods are better than others. 5: More broader. If we are still savages in your view who won't change, what is the point??6: I obviously can't guarantee they will but I think there is a very good chance they will do. I can't guarantee I'll be alive tomorrow, but I'm not going to go out and blow my savings on that possibility. Of course, i am also taking a risk in predicting and working towards a desired future- but as I see it, the risk is just as likely if not more so as part of independent states than as part of a collective. More so, in my opinion. Self interested states have no inclination to rescue those unfortunate souls in a 'sovereign' dictatorship such as North Korea. If we did have a multi state tyranny it is in every Everyone's interest to defeat it.
    1) If 'ought' is subjective which it is, then that defeats your notion of an objective scientific morality. You've tied yourself in knots with your own ideas. The basic point is that science can only tell us about the nature of reality, not what to do about any given moral question. You've failed to demonstrate how science can tell us what is the morally right thing to do on a given question. Your point on human rights sounds like weasel words, if science somehow discovers that human rights are wholly or mostly immoral or 'detrimental' as you put it, will you discard them? it's a simple question.

    2) No you simply inserted democratic peace theory into the debate when I mentioned nothing about the proclivity of certain states for warfare. What I mentiioned was the fact that all states are vulnerable to material and institutional decline whether they are liberal democracies or not. Democratic peace theory does nothing to affect that.

    3) Did I ever doubt that they wanted all this? Lets be honest the EU issue is a little more important than partisan squables over tax rates. Is it arrogant to assert that the EU is unpopular even among many who voted remain? is it arrogant to claim the British are against any further european integration? I'm sure that I can reasonably claim to speak for the nation in that regard. It might sound arrogant to you, but that doesn't change the fact that it is correct.

    4) Who is against controlling man's baser instincts? that aim is the basis of every religion and society in the world. Managing the baser instincts of man doesn't actually change them.

    5) The point is to establish and maintain institutions which fit human nature not change human nature to fit institutions, which is often the dream of utopian progressive like Communists, eugenicists, and transhumanists.

    6) What you decry merely as self-interested states are institutions that can better meet the interests of their respective populations than your imagined cosmopolitan government. "If we did have a multi state tyranny it is in every Everyone's interest to defeat it"--that is nonsense--even the most tyrannical regimes, as bad as they are, have sections of the population who's interests it is to support them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    1) If 'ought' is subjective which it is, then that defeats your notion of an objective scientific morality. You've tied yourself in knots with your own ideas. The basic point is that science can only tell us about the nature of reality, not what to do about any given moral question. You've failed to demonstrate how science can tell us what is the morally right thing to do on a given question. Your point on human rights sounds like weasel words, if science somehow discovers that human rights are wholly or mostly immoral or 'detrimental' as you put it, will you discard them? it's a simple question.

    2) No you simply inserted democratic peace theory into the debate when I mentioned nothing about the proclivity of certain states for warfare. What I mentiioned was the fact that all states are vulnerable to material and institutional decline whether they are liberal democracies or not. Democratic peace theory does nothing to affect that.

    3) Did I ever doubt that they wanted all this? Lets be honest the EU issue is a little more important than partisan squables over tax rates. Is it arrogant to assert that the EU is unpopular even among many who voted remain? is it arrogant to claim the British are against any further european integration? I'm sure that I can reasonably claim to speak for the nation in that regard. It might sound arrogant to you, but that doesn't change the fact that it is correct.

    4) Who is against controlling man's baser instincts? that aim is the basis of every religion and society in the world. Managing the baser instincts of man doesn't actually change them.

    5) The point is to establish and maintain institutions which fit human nature not change human nature to fit institutions, which is often the dream of utopian progressive like Communists, eugenicists, and transhumanists.

    6) What you decry merely as self-interested states are institutions that can better meet the interests of their respective populations than your imagined cosmopolitan government. "If we did have a multi state tyranny it is in every Everyone's interest to defeat it"--that is nonsense--even the most tyrannical regimes, as bad as they are, have sections of the population who's interests it is to support them.
    T1:.No knots. Harris explains it better here;,https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/...oral-landscape. As per your question, reluctantly but yes. But from our understanding it is highly doubtful skin to saying that lard is the optimum food type to eat for nutrition.


    2: all states are vulnerable to material and institutional decline. Most at risk are those at war. Clearly being at peace negates the chances of this. As far as I'm aware, No nation has been peacefully destroyed.

    3: yes and yes. Paying tax is often unpopular for instance, but it is still ;at least to some level) necessary and in our interests to do so. Additionally, Scotland , Northern Ireland and London voted to remain. So nice try.

    4; and some ways of managing it are patently better than others..

    .5: depends on the institution. For the most part I think they change each other.

    6: I: the national interest is merely what the elites of the day want it to be. Universal truths are eternal. II: I will concede your point on this, clearly it will be in some people's interest to maintain the status quo- but this also goes against your premise that you speak for the country regarding EU membership when just under half of fe population voted for it. The notion that the 48% secretly loathed the EU is absurd- hence tens of thousands of people demonstrating in London and the majorities in Scotland and NI. Your points on people's motives have no real barring- most people I spoke to regarding leaving didn't give s fame about EU regulation or integration but purely on immigration- whereas for others it was the opposite.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    T1:.No knots. Harris explains it better here;,https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/...oral-landscape. As per your question, reluctantly but yes. But from our understanding it is highly doubtful skin to saying that lard is the optimum food type to eat for nutrition.


    2: all states are vulnerable to material and institutional decline. Most at risk are those at war. Clearly being at peace negates the chances of this. As far as I'm aware, No nation has been peacefully destroyed.

    3: yes and yes. Paying tax is often unpopular for instance, but it is still ;at least to some level) necessary and in our interests to do so. Additionally, Scotland , Northern Ireland and London voted to remain. So nice try.

    4; and some ways of managing it are patently better than others..

    .5: depends on the institution. For the most part I think they change each other.

    6: I: the national interest is merely what the elites of the day want it to be. Universal truths are eternal. II: I will concede your point on this, clearly it will be in some people's interest to maintain the status quo- but this also goes against your premise that you speak for the country regarding EU membership when just under half of fe population voted for it. The notion that the 48% secretly loathed the EU is absurd- hence tens of thousands of people demonstrating in London and the majorities in Scotland and NI. Your points on people's motives have no real barring- most people I spoke to regarding leaving didn't give s fame about EU regulation or integration but purely on immigration- whereas for others it was the opposite.
    1) You still haven't demonstrated how science can give answers to particular moral questions in a way that is different to other moral theories like utilitarianism. Furthermore, given that you don't even know what kinds of moral conclusions science will come to what makes your so confident that scientific discoveries will vindicate your moral/political views? Since you subscribe to some vague notion of 'scientific morality' I would suggest that you suspend your moral judgements and wait for the coming of the next 'morally scientific' paper before you make a normative decision.

    2) Actually no. Being at peace does not negate the chances of material and institutional decline. If that were true Britain would be a dump and Malawi a paragon of civilisation. As I've noted before, history is not your strong point.

    3) Again, clearly you did not attempt to grasp the point. I clearly stated that the Europe Union is not popular even among those who voted remain. Simply stating that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted remain does not disprove that. Forget those who voted leave, their views are obvious. If you add the vast swathes of reluctant remainers to the Brexit voters you have an unassailable majority. If you took the time to notice, you would have seen that there are many eurosceptics who voted remain.

    4) "and some ways of managing it are patently better than others.." Not yours though. And that is a far cry from stating that human nature is malleable.

    5) "depends on the institution. For the most part I think they change each other." Therein lies the problem with utopian progressive like you, you think you can build insititutions to which human nature will confirm, only to be surprised when you discover that they don't work--why? Because they're against human nature.

    6) There are things which are better suited or completely inimical to some nations than others, regardless of what their elites think. Therefore the 'national interest' is not merely the product of transient elite thought. "Universal truths are eternal," and which truths are these? I did not claim that 48% of people secretly loathe the EU, my point is that a significant number of people in that percentage do not like the EU but voted remain anyway--the fear of leaving being the primary motivation. I didn't know that would be such a hard concept to grasp. Many remain voters acted like battered wives: I don't like my husband, but I can't face leaving him. For more info see http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06...voted-and-why/
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    1) You still haven't demonstrated how science can give answers to particular moral questions in a way that is different to other moral theories like utilitarianism. Furthermore, given that you don't even know what kinds of moral conclusions science will come to what makes your so confident that scientific discoveries will vindicate your moral/political views? Since you subscribe to some vague notion of 'scientific morality' I would suggest that you suspend your moral judgements and wait for the coming of the next 'morally scientific' paper before you make a normative decision.
    Question:

    If say an African population is at threat of increased HIV, which is the better solution:

    A: Increase education and awareness
    of HIV, access to contraception and more funding in medical research.

    B: Perform voodoo exorcisms and blood sacrifices.

    You don't have to be Stephen Hawkins to work out which one is the more logically sound solution.

    2) Actually no. Being at peace does not negate the chances of material and institutional decline. If that were true Britain would be a dump and Malawi a paragon of civilisation. As I've noted before, history is not your strong point.
    Ok. Tell me when the last time that the UK was colonised or had regional conflict?

    3) Again, clearly you did not attempt to grasp the point. I clearly stated that the Europe Union is not popular even among those who voted remain. Simply stating that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted remain does not disprove that. Forget those who voted leave, their views are obvious. If you add the vast swathes of reluctant remainers to the Brexit voters you have an unassailable majority. If you took the time to notice, you would have seen that there are many eurosceptics who voted remain.
    I have grasped the point. You just don't seemed to have looked at it from the other way round. I can just as easily make re same argument- plenty of people who voted to leave liked aspects of the EU and had their concerns been met, such as no more free movement would have quote happily stayed in the EU.

    4) "and some ways of managing it are patently better than others.." Not yours though. And that is a far cry from stating that human nature is malleable.
    See point one. No it isn't.

    5) "depends on the institution. For the most part I think they change each other." Therein lies the problem with utopian progressive like you, you think you can build insititutions to which human nature will confirm, only to be surprised when you discover that they don't work--why? Because they're against human nature.
    Unfortunately, your belief in the duptmacu of human nature is no more guaranteed than the inevitable triumph of communism. Both are as of yet unfalsifiable. Clearly humans are above acting beyond human nature at times. When we factor in that humans can realise that by cooperating at times we can better achieve our own interests or/and relalide our own ideas we can become better through civilisation. Case in point: the UK and the NHS.

    6) There are things which are better suited or completely inimical to some nations than others, regardless of what their elites think.
    Such as?


    Therefore the 'national interest' is not merely the product of transient elite thought. "Universal truths are eternal," and which truths are these?
    Eg Point one.

    I did not claim that 48% of people secretly loathe the EU, my point is that a significant number of people in that percentage do not like the EU but voted remain anyway--the fear of leaving being the primary motivation. I didn't know that would be such a hard concept to grasp.
    See point three. I could just as easily claim the opposite.

    Many remain voters acted like battered wives: I don't like my husband, but I can't face leaving him. For more info see http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06...voted-and-why/
    Sure. But many out voters acted like scam victims - I was sceptical at first, but then that nice Boris Johnson said we'd get 350 million for the NHS, and now they're saying it was just an estimate ....
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Question:

    If say an African population is at threat of increased HIV, which is the better solution:

    A: Increase education and awareness
    of HIV, access to contraception and more funding in medical research.

    B: Perform voodoo exorcisms and blood sacrifices.

    You don't have to be Stephen Hawkins to work out which one is the more logically sound solution.



    Ok. Tell me when the last time that the UK was colonised or had regional conflict?



    I have grasped the point. You just don't seemed to have looked at it from the other way round. I can just as easily make re same argument- plenty of people who voted to leave liked aspects of the EU and had their concerns been met, such as no more free movement would have quote happily stayed in the EU.



    See point one. No it isn't.



    Unfortunately, your belief in the duptmacu of human nature is no more guaranteed than the inevitable triumph of communism. Both are as of yet unfalsifiable. Clearly humans are above acting beyond human nature at times. When we factor in that humans can realise that by cooperating at times we can better achieve our own interests or/and relalide our own ideas we can become better through civilisation. Case in point: the UK and the NHS.



    Such as?




    Eg Point one.



    See point three. I could just as easily claim the opposite.



    Sure. But many out voters acted like scam victims - I was sceptical at first, but then that nice Boris Johnson said we'd get 350 million for the NHS, and now they're saying it was just an estimate ....
    1) I am sensing some intellectual desperation.

    What you've posed is not a moral dilemma because both option A and option B are in agreement, that HIV needs to be solved. Your HIV question isn't a moral one it is about how best to solve the problem of disease given what we know about the disease. It's technocratic. If I were a superstitious person who didn't know a thing about how HIV spreads and the most scientifically sound ways to prevent it, I would have all sorts traditional bogus medicine to try and prevent it given what little I know and understand about the disease.

    I'm still waiting for that great moral dilemma which only a 'scientific morality' can resolve...

    2) "all states are vulnerable to material and institutional decline. Most at risk are those at war. Clearly being at peace negates the chances of this." I proved you dead wrong on that claim stop trying to twist words. There are very few countries in the world today who have fought more wars than Britain in the last 300 years and yet here we are, Britain is more materially successful with stronger institutions than almost any other country in the world. You're just wrong.

    3) Given the fact that the issue of sovereignty is so interlinked with free movement I doubt that you are referring to many people. Had they voted to stay it would for much the same reason as the remainers, that they were simply scared to leave.

    4) What claim did I make about human nature that is unfalsifiable? What on earth does it mean to act above human nature? What makes you think I don't think human beings can or should coorperate? All institutions and associations of people require coorperation. The point is what context of coorperation is more useful more in tune with people's interests.

    5) Given that the main reasons voters chose to leave are because of sovereignty, immigration and the fear of the EU untrammeled growth it is unlikely that many voters based their decision soley on the £350 million figure. And how does that counter my view that the EU is not popular with the vast majority of people? I showed you clearly, that the biggest reason why remain voters swung that way was because of the fear of leaving, there was scant support for nonsense reasons like 'European solidarity' or support for further integration among remain voters.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 20, 2016
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.