Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

FUCK YES LET'S LEAVE GET HYPE YEY

Casual yes, let's leave and get independence done with

Meh, probably just scribble all over my vote ballot to spite tryhards

Casual no, let's remain and get integration done with

FUCK NO LET'S REMAIN GET CALM YEY

[Loud Whispers]

... to be honest, just after typing that I noticed the parallel between this and the USA default jousting. It's almost like the EU is playing the role of democrats that grew bigger balls >_>
E: "Oh, you want to bring economic ruin on all of us if you don't get what you want?" goes the EU, "Well alright then, y'bastards. Let's dance."

It's not really comparable. The UK is far older than the EU, and joined it of their own free will back when it was nothing more than a trade organization, and with an established way out. The majority of Britons, as we've seen from the referendum, don't want to be part of the political union it's becoming, but political bodies fight to preserve themselves. The EU (though they aren't the only cause) has deliberately done damage to scare eurosceptics in other countries back in line to preserve their positions, and maybe even bring the UK back in without their previous extras.

It is one glorious mess, wherein a United Europe must destroy the UK, not out of hatred, for neoliberals are enlightened and toleran is above hatred. Now is pure survival, their Empire needs to preserve itself no matter the cost, even if it brings blood to Europe, hence why when voters reject deeper integration, they push for deeper integration. Now the only question remaining to be seen is who will kill whom first? Shall the EU kill the UK before it kills itself?

I personally have been living in LWs basement for years. His taste in food is awful but I'm too lazy to get a job.

MY FANFICTION.
IT HAS COME TRUE

Absolutely horrifying

Anyways I'm tempted to give my writeup on what I think about this since ITT the only people trying to understand Brexit voters are people trying to say Brexit voters are racists who should be discounted, tactical voters who should be discounted, idiots who should be discounted, old people who should be discounted, poor people who should be discounted, uneducated people who should be discounted, regrexit voters who should be discounted e.t.c.
Should I bother? I don't think either side even wants to understand the other, and I think this is becoming a global issue

Why are so many of the most fervent brexiteers suddenly upset? They won.

Because now everyone is saying I didn't deserve to win, and are working towards rendering my victory meaningless, or a living hell, or render it nonexistent

No, no, at this point, the actual destruction of UK is a matter of time. The EU has declared UK to be its next victim, and it means that UK is done for, since now all secession movements in UK will have direct political and financial support of the entire 470 million strong EU. UK is fucking done. The best it can hope for a painless slide off into obscurity and irrelevance a la Argentina, and for the worst, well, it has been a long time since England fought Scotland & Ireland...

Are you a wizard high right now?
Because I've heard more coherent and believable arguments from a man who genuinely believes that the twin towers were brought down by wizards and/or aliens.

George Soros: European Union on the verge of collapse, 21 Jan 2016
George Soros: Brexit vote would make the collapse of the EU almost certain, 9 Jun 2016
George Sorors: European Union is heading for a disorderly disintegration, 27 Jun 2016

Heh

And from the Washington Times:

George Soros and his crocodile tears

The man who tried to bankrupt Britain says the U.K. will pay for Brexit

George Soros, like the rest of the international financial establishment, is mightily upset at the nerve of the British voter, who insists on having his say about his country and how it should be governed. Mr. Soros predicts dire economic consequences as the price of democracy, and professes to be thoroughly saddened by the prospect.

Mr. Soros learned to shed tears from a friendly crocodile. This is the same George Soros who single-handedly all but destroyed the British pound sterling in the 1990s, and made a billion dollars or so in doing it. It’s easy to see why Hillary Clinton admires him so. He covets other people’s money as much as she does.

The British no doubt find his present concerns touching, though a tad ironic. Mr. Soros, a serious Socialist, has made the billions he spends to subsidize left-wing causes in Europe and the United States largely from speculative currency manipulation, usually at considerable cost to the people whose currencies he manipulates. His assault on the British pound in 1992 won him the “honor,” such as it was, as “the man who broke the bank of England.” For an encore he brought down the currency of Malaysia, and the government of Thailand labeled him an “economic war criminal.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/george-soros-says-the-uk-will-pay-for-brexit/

Chiki briki

[SirQuiamus]

You say something that is clearly achievable and people say it's impossible because it would take effort.  Is taking effort impossible anymore?

Depends on the context, really: Killing people is worth the effort because it's profitable and moral, whereas helping people isn't because it's unprofitable and immoral.




...or at least that's the impression you'd get if you were an alien scientist studying human ethics on an empirical basis.

[Sergarr]

No, no, at this point, the actual destruction of UK is a matter of time. The EU has declared UK to be its next victim, and it means that UK is done for, since now all secession movements in UK will have direct political and financial support of the entire 470 million strong EU. UK is fucking done. The best it can hope for a painless slide off into obscurity and irrelevance a la Argentina, and for the worst, well, it has been a long time since England fought Scotland & Ireland...

Are you a wizard high right now?

Because I've heard more coherent and believable arguments from a man who genuinely believes that the twin towers were brought down by wizards and/or aliens.

Maybe. I think I caught some of that EUphoria from the other forum I've been on.

[Loud Whispers]

Depends on the context, really: Killing people is worth the effort because it's profitable and moral, whereas helping people isn't because it's unprofitable and immoral.
...or at least that's the impression you'd get if you were an alien scientist studying human ethics on an empirical basis.

On an empirical basis, it is more to do with trust. On killing, one does not have to trust in the cooperation of whoever you are dealing with - only in their capabilities, for they are then dead. Or you become dead, one or the other. In giving help, one places themself at risk in order to help another with little in the way for personal gain beyond the morality of helping others - such as the doctors who went to West Africa to help ebola patients, only to be hacked to death with machetes by irate locals. Much better to seek mutually beneficial outcomes so you don't end up like Sweden or Germany, where your trust place is trust abused. With mutually beneficial cooperation you don't need that much trust and things tend to turn out better than killing or aid

[Leafsnail]

Losing Scotland would be another economic blow but that's not what I'm worried about. A secession attempt by Northern Ireland is likely to lead to renewed rounds of violence, and the terrorism arising from that conflict has historically caused far more deaths in the UK than Islamic-inspired terrorism ever has.

[SirQuiamus]

Depends on the context, really: Killing people is worth the effort because it's profitable and moral, whereas helping people isn't because it's unprofitable and immoral.
...or at least that's the impression you'd get if you were an alien scientist studying human ethics on an empirical basis.

On an empirical basis, it is more to do with trust. On killing, one does not have to trust in the cooperation of whoever you are dealing with - only in their capabilities, for they are then dead. Or you become dead, one or the other. In giving help, one places themself at risk in order to help another with little in the way for personal gain beyond the morality of helping others - such as the doctors who went to West Africa to help ebola patients, only to be hacked to death with machetes by irate locals. Much better to seek mutually beneficial outcomes so you don't end up like Sweden or Germany, where your trust place is trust abused. With mutually beneficial cooperation you don't need that much trust and things tend to turn out better than killing or aid

Destroying a country is not what I'd call "mutually beneficial cooperation," though.

[Azkul]

On the matter of refugees, surely a government's duty is first and foremost to protect it's citizens, not humanity as a whole?
Refugees/immigrants should be turned away if their presence would be detrimental to the country they're migrating to.
We don't have the resources to help everyone on the basis of ethics/morals.

[BFEL]

There are no jobs in Sweden for non-swedish-speaking, skilless and/or educationless, and in many times analphabetic people. Those few such jobs there is would also be shared with the large population of Swedish speaking skilless and/or educationless people (of both eedieh and immigrant backgrounds) that are already in Sweden and unemployed.

Well obviously the two year assimilation process involves teaching them enough Swedish to get along in contemporary society.

As for jobs, I didn't know that the Swedish education system was so horrible that they have a huge glut of low skilled labor.  I am disappointed Sweden.

Well obviously every government has access to this magical technology that lets them pull teacher/translators out of their assholes while simultaneously keeping large numbers of immigrants in a magic pocket dimension for years where they can learn all this stuff and have their values changed to ours through our OTHER OTHER magic button.

It's so sad.  This isn't the country that went to the moon.  You say something that is clearly achievable and people say it's impossible because it would take effort.  Is taking effort impossible anymore?

It's so sad. This isn't the country that went to the moon. You say something that is clearly achievable and people say it's impossible because it would take a complete restructuring of our entire society and government in an unreasonable timeframe. Is a complete restructuring of our entire society and government in an unreasonable timeframe impossible anymore?


So yeah the point I'm trying to make is that our government, as well as literally every other government on the planet is just straight up fucking incompetent at sorting through this kind of thing.
You compared it to the moon landing. The moon landing was an extension of building rockets, you know those things that they were in a giant pissing contest about building for decades leading up to the challenge?
We were already GOOD at building rockets when we went to the moon.
We fucking SUCK SWEATY ASSHOLE at integrating large groups of people.
And now you want us to integrate the largest simultaneous group of people ever? And make it magically work because we have the room? As you noted, we can't figure out our homeless problem. Because turns out relocating huge groups of individuals and making sure everything works out is a lot more work then the sum of its parts.

[Frumple]

... we kinda' don't suck all that much at integrating people en masse, though. It's pretty much what the entire US was based on, for all there's been notable fuckups in the past. And we're still pretty damn good at it -- part of the tragedy wanting to be invoked by the people wanting to kick out immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, is that their children would go with them and are more often than not american enough to be indistinguishable from a native born and raised, save for sometimes skin color and maybe speaking a second language. So I'd kinda' call bullshit on that, just a titch. Just... I know you get a lot of your narrative from heavily right wing sources, B, due to exposure if nothing else. They are not exactly the best at accurately identifying the state of things vis a vis immigration in the US. At all. Left wing's not the most amazing either a lot of the time, mind, but still.

[palsch]

In any case, refugees are a red herring in the Brexit debate.

While the refugees were an EU issue, Britain and Ireland were not included as part of their exemption from the Schengen zone. The question of who and how many we took in was an open question for the British government, separate to any EU agreements. Cameron announced we would be taking in refugees directly from the camps in the middle east and an unspecified number of unaccompanied children who had arrived in Europe, but it was entirely his choice.

[BFEL]

Just... I know you get a lot of your narrative from heavily right wing sources, B, due to exposure if nothing else. They are not exactly the best at accurately identifying the state of things vis a vis immigration in the US. At all. Left wing's not the most amazing either a lot of the time, mind, but still.

Every source lies about everything, so I'm kinda at a point where any serious investigation into the truth of things would require conspiracy nut levels of commitment to turn up anything solid. I could literally be in North Korea, communicating with loyalty bots my entire life and not know it.

So basically I just get right wing shit from mom, left wing shit from here, bash together till something breaks.
It works for me. Probably.

Also I actually did think of the "its what our country is based on actually" argument, but every refugee/immigration wave turns into shitland every time so still stands I think (remember when the irish came over "in their potato boats" and everyone hated them and it was a hotbed of instability for years and years? Yeah, so good at integration)

[Frumple]

Yeah, we don't have a magic wand or scanning device or something to wave over people and rewrite their personalities and whatnot instantly. Usually takes some time. Any case, as palsch noted, it's fairly irrelevant to the UK discussion.

Anyway... folks that were paying more attention to the lead up. Any of you lot know of/would be able to give a summary of what the leave campaign promised as part of its go at things? Stuff like that NHS money, et al. Watching the shake out of this stuff and the leave politicians' reactions is making me wonder just how much of their campaign they've backpeddled on in the last few days, and it'd be nice to have a clearer picture of what it all was. Apparently they've backed on the NHS funding, they've backed on there being much change to immigration, some have backed on there being much change regarding general regulation, and I've just now noticed they're apparently backing on the assurances vis a vis the fishery management, too. It's getting kinda' farcical, really...

[Harry Baldman]

I'm not sure America managed to hate the Irish nearly as much as the English did. But to achieve English levels of hating the Irish you really need to be pretty committed to the idea, I guess.

[BFEL]

Yeah, we don't have a magic wand or scanning device or something to wave over people and rewrite their personalities and whatnot instantly.

Actually the point I was making was you would never know if we did

[mainiac]

God forbid we call anyone closeminded. It would just be rewriting society to let in immigrants. Sure our jobs and homes would be virtually unchanged and we would probably be wealthier but somehow it is rewriting society.