brexit - Page 3

[Agilemind]

Even if one's anger or frustration is justified that doesn't make it ok to scream abuse at strangers or burn down the neighbourhood. Politics is not some internet poll where the worst thing that could happen from voting for Boaty McBoatface is some international snickering. Brexit will affect generations to come, and the nasty anti-immigrant rhetoric has cost an MP her life. If Trump wins in the USA, it is potentially a serious threat to that country's democracy. "Burn it all down" is not an acceptable solution in a civilized society. Even historical revolutions that ended up largely as just futilely burning it all down (e.g. French Revolution) at least started with an actual vision for the future and specific demands they wanted met.

PS I just watched the same thing and I thought they were reasonably fair, it was clear they are voting against Hillary rather than voting for Trump, though it was unclear why they think Hillary is so bad and I was disappointed Jessica didn't do any follow-up about that. The few people I've argued the merits of Hillary with were very similar to the pro-Leavers I argued with, in that they have very few specifics to offer as proof of Hillary/EU being worse than the alternative, just a general sense of distrust.

PPS the few articles I've seen written about trolls make it seem as though trolls are an expression of deep seated frustration, anger and general unhappiness which finds solace in making others feel the same way.

[AssertNull]

Wrt USA/UK/Russia being unpopular. I didn.t mean to cause offence by that line

No worries Diafol. I didn't interpret it that way. No doubt that other countries think the UK and the US are throwing their weight around way too much.

I believe that this problem, like many problems, even most problems, comes down to deeply held feelings of fear, distrust, resentment, jealousy, hopelessness, feeling ripped off, feeling taken for granted, feeling disenfranchised.

Key point is that these are emotions and feelings rather than disagreements over the agreement or a pros vs. cons analysis of whether to stay in the EU. Those details can often be hammered out if people feel that the other side is acting in good faith, but only if good faith is assumed and people feel they are heard. What we have is a lack of good faith and a lack of a feeling that we're all in this together, sharing the same goal, and just disagree on the best, fairest method. The pro-Leave folks will never budge if they think that no one is minding the store as far as vetting immigrants and Merkel is just waving them in, nor will they budge if they think they're being falsely accused of being racists. The pro-Remain folks will never budge if they believe that the pro-Leave folks are all xenophobes and racists. The Bernie supporters don't trust Trump or Hillary to investigate white collar crime. I don't care what plan either of them puts on the table. It's meaningless because Bernie's folks don't think it will ever be enforced. Similarly, if you trust Bernie, he doesn't have to show you a plan. You just trust him, so you don't need any details. Ditto Trump. His supporters feel he is a smart, tough alpha male, a guy who knows what he's doing, so when he says that he's going to deport all the legal immigrants, they don't need any details. He'll just make it work through sheer willpower and brilliant deal-making. If he says he's going to waterboard and nuke his way to victory against ISIS, again, no details needed.

Logic always loses to emotion. In the Hierarchy of Needs, dignity and hope are more important than food, shelter, maybe even air to breathe. As far as "burn it down" goes, people all over the world are so pissed off, hopeless, distrustful, and polarized that I'm wondering if 2016 might make 1968 look tame. Hope I'm wrong.

[Reverend Jim]

Even if one's anger or frustration is justified that doesn't make it ok to scream abuse at strangers or burn down the neighbourhood.

I recall a story my older sister once told me about an incident that happenbed as a small girl at school during recess. She had brought a jump rope to school that day and she and several other girls were playing, taking turns. The other girls each got a turn but when it was my sister's turn they would stop that particular game and switch to another (still using the rope). Because it was now a new game they insisted on starting the rotation over. Thus, they played several games and everyone got a turn to skip but my sister.

So are you saying she would not have been justified in getting angry, taking the rope back and refusing to let anyone play?

RE Trolls. My experience with bullies (and I liken trolls to bullies) is that they do what they do because they enjoy the misery of others. I have a mother-in-law just like that. She was an only child and was doted upon growing up. I could see someone bullying/trolling to boost their low sense of self-worth but she has never had (that we can see) a low sense of self-worth. She's just a quim (my wife agrees with me on that).

[Agilemind]

So are you saying she would not have been justified in getting angry, taking the rope back and refusing to let anyone play?

A country is not the private property of one person or one subset of the population that is being loaned to others. It belongs to every citizen/resident, so the appropriate analogy would be the school's skipping rope in which case clearly she is not justified in taking it away from the other kids and cutting it to shreds just because she is angry. She should go find a teacher and ask them to make the other kids let her play with it too (i.e. elect a gov't which favours redistribution of wealth rather than keep voting in right-wing parties which demonstrably favour increased inequality).

Another issue with the analogy is responsiblity, in your example clearly the kids who are not letting her play are the only ones being hurt by her taking the rope away, this is not equivalent to Brexit/Trump where many of the people being hurt have nothing to do with the inequality etc... that the Brexiters are angry about, and many of them are actually the ones who vote for parties & policies which help reduce inequality etc... (including staying in the EU which is a net financial contributor to many of the most Brexit-supporting regions). So a better analogy would be that your sister deliberately forces recess to be cancelled for the entire school because she is angry at the kids who won't let her play, even though many other kids were supporting her in the argument. Again this is the sort of thing most elementary schools would rightly make your sister apologize for.

[Reverend Jim]

i.e. elect a gov't which favours redistribution of wealth rather than keep voting in right-wing parties which demonstrably favour increased inequality

I don't know about UK/EU but in the US (and to a much lesser extent in Canada) the system has been rigged so that anyone favouring a more fair system has little to no chance of attaining a position of power. True, Sanders had a shot, but the media (owned by those who benefit from the current system) ensured that his message got little to no exposure. As well, the Democrats managed to rig the system in Clinton's favour.

Everyone has to matter or no one matters.

[AssertNull]

True, Sanders had a shot

He may still. Hillary Clinton just spent 3 1/2 hours with the FBI. The FBI and the Department of Justice prosecutors should be making a decision on whether to indict her soon. FBI Director Comey is known as a pretty straight shooter and a man of convictions and a man willing to buck the system. Attorney Loretta Lynch has said publicly that she will defer to their recommendation. She is already under a magnifying glass for an innapropriate recent meeting with Bill Clinton, so that ties her hands too. If Comey recommends indictment and she is not indicted, he's not the type to just go away quietly if he thinks something shady is going on. So the FBI and DOJ might just play this one straight. If she's indicted, I would imagine she would have to withdraw from the race since running for president and defending yourself legally are both full time jobs. Can't do both at the same time.

If she withdraws, the Dems would be hard pressed not to give the nomination to Bernie.

[Agilemind]

I don't know about UK/EU but in the US (and to a much lesser extent in Canada) the system has been rigged so that anyone favouring a more fair system has little to no chance of attaining a position of power.

I used to think that, too. But now I don't think it's so simple:

Brexit passed despite something like 80% of economists & the banking industry being against it, in a country where the banking industry is as important/influential as the oil industry is in Canada.

The NDP made it to the Official opposition in Canada a few elections ago without watering down their message much. And Trudeau got to power by campaigning to the left of the NDP.

Jeremy Corbyn was elected the leader of the UK Labour party on a platform which includes re-nationalizing the railroads & energy industry.

Bernie Sanders was a serious challenger for the Democratic presidential nominee and Hillary/the DNC is adopting several of his policies.

It seems a confluence of two things have been happening: the right-wing fear machine is losing control of the monster it has created, and younger people are getting wise to media spin. If a leader emerges who can direct either (or both) towards effecting positive change I think we could see something on the scale of the New Deal happen.

PS Has Trudeau managed to do anything beyond dealing with refugees yet? He seems to be quite competent at shifting public opinion & unifying disparate groups and I think he has the right ideals, just need him to prioritize some of the more intellectually complex policy areas.

[Reverend Jim]

I would imagine she would have to withdraw from the race since running for president and defending yourself legally are both full time jobs. Can't do both at the same time.

It didn't stop Rick Perry from seeking the nomination.

Brexit passed despite something like 80% of economists & the banking industry being against it, in a country where the banking industry is as important/influential as the oil industry is in Canada.

The general feeling might have been "if the banking industry likes it then it can't be good for the rest of us."

Hillary/the DNC is adopting several of his policies.

They claim to be doing that. I doubt they are actually considering anything more than lip service.

PS Has Trudeau managed...

The one thing I want him to accomplish (and soon) is a reformation of the electoral system. The current system promotes strategic voting and allows the Conservatives to play the Liberals against the NDP to split the vote. Too many times this has resulted in a parliament that does not reflect the actual vote. Marijuana reform would also be welcome. He has to prove that he is more than just a pretty face.

Over on the side, Sanders is certainly the favoured candidate from my group of friends. I think the things many of us don't like about HC are:

awful debate answers - I mean shocking - I couldn't believe how vapid she appeared - dithered on many key questions
smell of underhandedness and the ongoing investigation
Bill in the background
she's not that clever
Bill in the background!

Sanders appeals due to the total opposite of the above. However, somebody tell the man to stop waving his arms around like a record breaking semaphorist. His left leaning policies are obviously more in tune with "us" than the far right Reps or right HC. However and unfortunately, I think Trump will walk it if Sanders is nominated.

[Reverend Jim]

I think the fact that she won't reveal the text of her talks to Wall Street says it all. What I'm hearing is that she's telling her backers one thing and the rest of us another. Publicly she says change, but slowly. I'm thinking glacial.

And if she wants to win she'll have to do better than "I know you hate me but at least I'm not as bad as that moron."

[ddanbe]

Like rats, leaving a sinking ship: David Cameron, Boris Johnson and now Nigel Farrage(Oh boy, he wants his live back)

[Reverend Jim]

But he still gets his paycheque, I see.

Anyone remember the Steven King movie, Needful Things? Max Von Sydow blows into town and opens a shop. Once he throws the entire town into utter chaos, he just leaves.

[ddanbe]

Yes, he even gets paid while not showing up in the European parliament.

Oh boy, he wants his live back

must of coarse be

Oh boy, he wants his life back

[AssertNull]

I'm perhaps a little confused about who the players are here, and I don't think I'm the only one who is confused. Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson were pro-Leave and they won, right? Why would the winners step down? Cameron was pro-Remain and lost, so he's stepping down so he won't have to implement something he strongly disagrees with, right? Cameron stepping down makes sense, but the other two?

Scotland says it wants to remain in the EU. Must it leave Great Britain to do so?

[Reverend Jim]

My (not that well-informed) understanding is that Cameron called the referendum figuring that a win was a sure thing. He lost which means he gets a big part of the blame, so his career is toast. I suspect those who backed the "leave" option were in it to raise their public profile, also figuring on a loss (thereby avoiding responsibilty for the current situation). Any PM who implements the leaving is toast. Any PM who finds a way to avoid leaving is toast.

Scotland has already had one (failed) referendum to leave the UK. I suspect that if they had another it would be successful.

[AssertNull]

Ah, the old "Let's pretend we want X when we don't actually want X so we can always claim that if the other side had been smart and patriotic like us and realized that X would make things wonderful, then this country wouldn't be in the mess it's in now" gambit. They bluffed so well that they accidentally convinced the voters it was a good idea. Oops.

[AssertNull]

Replace "X" above with "Trump". I can just see him getting elected in November and the next day everyone who voted for Trump, including Trump, says "Oops".

[JamesCherrill]

Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson were pro-Leave and they won, right? Why would the winners step down?

Farage knows he is not a credible leader, or even a credible politician - he claims he is just a patriotic citizen who wants UK out of EU and, with the referendum result, his work is done and he can go back to his normal life.

Boris on the other hand wanted desperately to win this and become the next Prime Minister. And he would have been, had his No 2 not stabbed him in the back, the front, and the side. He "stood down" because he was forced to, and is really bitter and angry about it.

[ddanbe]

Listened to a masterly covered version of Bob Dylan's "All along the watchtower" by Jimi Hendrix today on the radio.
The lyrics start with:

"There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief,
"There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.

Strange...history seems to be repeating itself

[Agilemind]

Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson were pro-Leave and they won, right? Why would the winners step down?

Boris didn't intend to win. His plan was lose by a small margin so that he could position himself as appealing to both Pro-Leave rural England and having support in London (since he is a former mayor of London) so that he could take over from David Cameron who was already planning to resign at the end of this gov't. Clearly that has backfired, so his new plan to is abandon his responsibility for dealing with Brexit so he can criticize the new Conservative leader (whomever that may be) over their handling of Brexit to maintain his profile. With the long-term hope that Brexit goes badly (which it probably will) or that they will take the blame for ignoring the referendum results and they will be forced to resign or are burned out by the end and he can again swoop in to take over for the next election.

Nigel Farage also didn't expect to win the vote and actually conceeded twice before the results were announced (hard to know if he really wanted to win or not). I think his resignation is him shirking responsibility for dealing with Brexit mostly because it would be a lot of work that he doesn't want to do. He is staying on as an MEP (Member of the European Parliament) a position he has had for 17 years, and for which he has a terrible attendance rate - though to be fair when he does turn up often he rudely insults EU officials and the other MEPs so it's probably better for the UK that he not show up. But it means what he means by "his normal life" is getting highly paid out of the public purse to do little work except call people names like a playground bully.

ETA:

And he would have been, had his No 2 not stabbed him in the back, the front, and the side. He "stood down" because he was forced to, and is really bitter and angry about it.

I don't buy that narrative, Boris would have easily beaten Gove for the leadership, unless the Conservative MPs forced him out of the race before going before the Tory membership (like it looks like they will force Gove out).

3 runners left for new PM : May, the other woman I've never heard of before, Gove. How jolly uninspiring.
Johnson had his trousers pulled down in public, but instead of standing up and being counted, his mincey little balls shrivelled up (to paraphrase Vinnie Jones in Snatch). Dick.

Farage and his odious UKIP party were given a ridiculous amount of airtime by the media. WTF? They were fringe idiots until thrust forward at every possible point by the media. He has no idea what he's doing, he's not a serious politician - a one-policy idiot. Why people are still talking about him is beyond me. It was the British media that blew his exposure out of all proportion and gave him the platform to spew his filth. Perhaps we should be looking at who the media are grooming next and what policies they are pushing. Once we know that, we'll have an idea about who to vote against.

[Reverend Jim]

The media will push whomever attracts the largest audience.

Yep the next freak show

[Agilemind]

Andrea Leadsome is another pro-Leave campaigner though one of the ones the media didn't give a toss about. I think she might have been in some debate and didn't embarrass herself so she has more support among pro-Brexit Tories than May. Though this is probably the best commentary of the leadership election out there: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/ken-clarke-caught-camera-ridiculing-tory-leadership-candidates-theresa-may-michael-gove

[ddanbe]

A new verb in the English language:

[Reverend Jim]

Better than what happened to Rick Santorum (google santorum urban dictionary).

[AssertNull]

Better than what happened to Rick Santorum (google santorum urban dictionary).

A real solid principled conservative who cares about his country and wants the best for everyone.
American really needs a santorum now more than ever.

The above is an actual quote from Urban Dictionary. I had to go to page 3 to find it, as all the other Santorum definitions would violate Daniweb's "Keep It Clean" rule. If you have a few hours to kill, just start entering famous names in Urban Dictionary's search bar. A lot of people clearly do not understand the concept of the Urban Dictionary and have turned it into yet another forum for arguing politics. Agree or disagree with Santorum, the above definition is not appropriate for an "Urban Dictionary".

[Agilemind]

I'm not sure what you think the purpose of the Urban Dictionary is but I have to commend it for coming up with "trumperbate"....

Though the "Behaving British" definition is an impressively accurate representation of the age-divide when it comes to Brexit.

[AssertNull]

I'm not sure what you think the purpose of the Urban Dictionary is

I generally think of an Urban Dictionary as containing words and phrases too risqué for the normal dictionary. Thus my point about having to go through two pages of "Santorum" definitions before getting to one I could safely post in polite company. Reverend Jim clearly was referring to the definitions on those two pages, not the one I posted. "Trumperbate's" definition fits in along those lines. I don't think it's actually caught on in the urban lexicon, but hopefully it will. Seems accurate to me.

[Reverend Jim]

@diafol: The last I heard was that the powers that be in London had decided that Brexit would not be official until it was ratified by parliament, and that parliament would still have the option of saying "no". Can you fill those of us on this side of the pond in on the latest?