Sanity is gone ! | Page 4 | Vital Football

Sanity is gone !

The great weakness of us "outers" -the intellectual case is built around the free movement of the factors of production (including labour), while the fuel for the campaign was provided by people who actually want the operating principles of the EU -simply on a British scale.

Buy British? Jags for the plebs, Astons for the respectable middle class, and McClarens for cool people (WK can have a Morgan). South America builds scads of V Dubs BTW.

I can't help but think the ex pat issue is a non-issue. When they live abroad long term, most people establish residency and then many of them go on to acquire nationality (and joint nationality). True, it will be harder for those still at home to head off to the EU to find work (damn, I was going to Greece to be a quantity surveyor but Brexit ruins everything), but I suspect it will not be hard for them to go off and invest or retire, bringing their assets with them.
 
Buy British ? Just had a quick scan around my worldly goods and not a lot British to be honest

Korean car (made in the EU though - Slovakia)
Japanese car - made in Swindon - to be be fair despite that, its been a cracker

Korean TV and Fridge
German washing machine and dishwasher
Irish computer
Wine rack is full of mainly Australian and German Red.
Korean phones and tablets.

I think the carrots maybe British (but they were pulled and packaged by an immigrant)


I think we need to forget the position of strength and go into the negotiations with a view to building
bridges and finding a way to live and trade together.

If we do limit the number of EU migrants coming in (and I am not against that) then I hope the outters have a plan to motivate the Jeremy Kyle brigade to fill the gaps in our workforce.

My gut feel is that the terms of our relationship won't be that different to what we have today and won't that please Farage :-)


 
Oi Wayne that's 154 now our lot are here. :7:
Australia and China are by far our largest markets. We've been trying to get a trade agreement with the EU . I assume Brexit will have an effect on that but have no idea which way.
There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking from the Breixteers.
Britain looks shockingly weak and divided from here.
 
'Meanwhile I love your optimism on buying British. Where is Britain going to get the raw materials to make the British goods?'

Nothing wrong with British water, hops, barley and malt!
 
Razor, I think most of the water and energy suppliers are owned by the French and Germans.
 
Archiepoptart - 5/7/2016 07:24

There seems to be an awful lot of wishful thinking from the Breixteers.
Britain looks shockingly weak and divided from here.
Click to expand...

But we are nowhere near as weak as what the Remain camp wants to believe. From a trade perspective, the EU and UK need each other for different reasons. We will still buy goods from the EU and they will still buy goods from us without either side needing to bend over for the other. Some items may have tariffs on them, but we may be able to get things cheaper from other countries who haven?t been able to sell to us due to EU tariffs etc. There are plenty of economies around the world who would love to enter the UK market without going through the EU.

We really aren?t anywhere as weak as people think. We don?t have to go to the EU and beg to be allowed to buy their goods etc. And as I said on a prior post, the Single Market is shrinking in terms of global size and importance. It has only partly maintained its size as it keeps letting in new countries.
 
Whatever you say about trade agreements there are a few simple truths. There is virtually nil chance of getting full access to the single market without free movement of labour. European politicians continue to reiterate this point. Boris continues to be in denial as per his latest article. Secondly a lot of you speak as if tariffs is the only issue. It's only part of the problem. At the moment if you're a company exporting to Europe there is absolutely no bureaucracy involved. Sending goods to Sweden is the same as sending goods to Yorkshire. Outside of the single market then exporting to Sweden becomes the same as exporting to the USA which involves an awful lot of form filling for every transaction. Companies are as worried about this issue as they are for the potential for tariffs. I go back to a point I have made before. There are between 12 and 20 experts on negotiating trade deals in the UK. That's because we haven't needed to do it. Trade deals have been struck on our behalf in Brussels who have several hundred people involved in this activity. They are part of the thousands of "faceless bureaucrats" that people complained of. If we need to strike new trade deals we have an immediate problem of expertise. People love talking in glib generalities. I have lived in the real world where I know that problems are rarely solved through glib solutions.
 
Wayne.Kerr - 4/7/2016 21:13

Sh!tshy.
Click to expand...

Incredibly mature Wayne. Why are some people completely unable to have a rational discussion without resorting to insults? That's why a lot of the Country is now getting fed up with the Remainers. Their belief that they are correct and that anyone who disagrees with them is worthless.
 
Agree with Waldo here, as usual.

Those that imagine we can bargain from a position of strength are deluded. Do the maths. Trade with the EU is more important to us that we are to them. Obviously they will still want access to our markets but they know we are in a position of weakness. Analogous to how smaller clubs are ripped off by the more powerful in the transfer market. I know which side I'd rather be on when negotiating trade deals.

There were genuine reasons to vote Brexit but I agree with Wayne in that many voted as a protest. That Wales voted out is sheer lunacy on their part.

Should never have been a referendum in the first place (and I was saying this before the result when I expected Remain to win).

Those that voted out for reasons of sovereignty should surely be launching a campaign to reform our present so called democratic system which is not serving the public. Ruled by a remote elite, for EU commission, read civil service. First past the post now out of date (many of us effectively disenfranchised) etc, etc
 
Gills1958 - 5/7/2016 10:41

Should never have been a referendum in the first place (and I was saying this before the result when I expected Remain to win).
Click to expand...

Well, if you are of the remain persuasion, it's pretty obvious that it's in self interest not to want a referendum as denying a referendum maintains the status quo and fits with your position.

It does make me laugh the Remainers squeaming, worming and making excuses. Tony Blair best exemplified this on Sky News the other day. What a weasel. He was pretty much blaming every one apart from the EU and remain campaign for his beloved bureaucrats defeats - it was the lies of the leave side (obviously there was none from Osborne, Cameron, Corbyn and co), it was purely a protect vote etc etc. And what's worse, he was desparately trying to set up grounds for not following through with the people's wish or another referendum - i.e. the "people may change their mind".

The remainers need to wake up and smell the roses. You lost. OK there may have been lies on the leave side (but there were just as many on the remain side). Yes, it may be that some people voted as a protest for leave without knowing what thet are doing, but at the same time there are just as many clueless twonks who voted "remain" for reasons that are nothing to do with the EU (see link below - not sure how to do links on here?) and there were also plenty of people, like my dad, who idealogically is against the EU, but doesn't know enough about it and is comfortable in life so didn't want to rock the boat and voted "remain".

Let's not forgot, whilst 52%-48% looks close, it was over 1.4m people which is a lot all in - remainers really need to suck it up and show a bit of grace in defeat and stop making excuses and finding ways to worm out of it a la Blair, David Lammy and co, and let demoncracy be enacted whether you like it or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn_6sU7O43w
 
SteveTreacle - 5/7/2016 11:13

Remainers really need to suck it up and show a bit of grace in defeat
Click to expand...

Problems with what you said above.

1.4m is not a lot of people, that's less than the Chris Evans top gear viewer ratings ffs.

Second problem is your attitude that one side won and the other lost is missing the point entirely afaic.

Given that most of the leave campaign's promises are already being backed out of (ie the electorate was lied to), and it turns out that the remain campaign's well researched concerns regarding the impact of leaving on the economy were in fact not mere "scaremongering" (ie the electorate were lied to again), the simple fact is that almost everyone in the country is going to do very badly out of this.

Given the above, I'd wager the result would be 60/40 remain if it were to be re-run with a much greater turnout. I certainly think it should NOT be re-run however, as referenda are an apalling method of governance.

IMO given the amount of lies told to the economy, every the legal and paliamentary step to treat the vote as what it was "not legally binding" should be taken in the interests of future of the country as a whole.

All I want is what's for the best for the country as a whole. Frankly this should be our last referendum on any topic that is not related to ongoing membership of the United Kingdom.
 
Problems with democracy:

1) Alienation - Democracy does nothing but maintain the existence of alienated power, since it requires that our desires be separate from our power to act, and any attempts to engage in that system will only serve to reproduce it. Democracies of any type make decisions via elections, the very essence of which transfers one?s will, thought, autonomy, and freedom to an outside power. It makes no difference whether one transfers that power to an elected representative or to an elusive majority. The point is that it?s no longer your own. Democracy has given it to the majority. You have been alienated from your capacity to determine the conditions of your existence in free cooperation with those around you.

2) Decontextualisation - Democracies require that laws, rules, and decisions be made separate from the circumstances that people find themselves in; thus forcing individuals into predetermined and reactive roles, rather than allowing for free-thinking individuals or groups of individuals to make decisions in various contexts at various times as they see fit.

3) Opinions - Democracy also demands the singular importance of ?opinions.? Voters become spectators in a process where they are presented with opinions to choose from, while in reality those who create the agendas are really in control. We?ve all seen the sloganeering and reductionism that occur when representatives or speakers reduce ideas down to sound-bite opinions to be chosen from.

The reduction of ideas to opinions for selection has a polarizing effect on those involved. When ?selection? is the only method available, and there?s nothing to do but choose from ?A? or ?B?, the parties on either side of an issue push themselves apart and strengthen their mutual certainty of ?rightness? ? rather than acknowledging the complexity of issues, coming together for compromise, or seeking to find a common solution.

4) Majorities - By always accepting the will of the majority, democracy allows for majorities to have an absolute tyranny over everyone else. This means that in the winner-take-all context of democracy, minorities have no influence over decisions that are made. This is even worse than it seems, since the ?majority? in any given situation is usually not even the majority of a population, but actually just the largest group of many minorities.

For a stable and consistent minority, this ever-present scenario means that democracies provide no more freedom than that of despotism or dictatorship.

By providing the illusion of participation for everyone, democracy allows majorities to justify their actions, no matter how oppressive. Since democracy makes the claim that everyone can participate in the political process, there is no harm in providing suffrage for groups with minority opinions, since their losing votes will only justify the contrary actions of a majority. Likewise, if individuals choose not to participate in a vote, their actions are still interpreted as a consent of the majority opinion, since they could have voted against it if they?d wanted to. There is no escape.

Also, the one-person-one-vote model of democracy can not account for the strength of individual preference. Two voters who are casually interested in doing something against my dire opposition to it will win.

5) Demagoguery - All forms of democracy fall prey to demagogues eager to seize any opportunity to advance their own aims by manufacturing consent from the momentary fear, hope, anger, and confusion of the general public.

6) Lobbying - Special interest groups send extremely well-paid people after elected representatives to persuade, threaten, barter or bribe them into delivering legislation, government funding, or other favors for their group. Because elected officials frequently come from industries, business sectors, religions and the upper class, they thus have many vested interests beyond the will of the people when they take office. Lobbyists can be quite successful in getting what they want.

7) Corruption - The whole process of democracy is open to out-and-out corruption. In the words of Stalin, ?those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.?



Democracy has very serious problems and falls far short of the freedom that it claims to represent. These are not problems with various ways that democracy is implemented, but are endemic to the democratic process itself.
 
SteveTreacle, it is possible to have an opinion on the use of referendums (sic?) irrespective of whether one wants to maintain the status quo on a particular issue. Once we start using them, where do we stop? To use an extreme example, how about a referendum on the pay that the England "footballers" receive? Obviously they'd get slaughtered and I'd love them to be, but I still wouldn't agree with the method of decision making. A referendum on MP's pay? Again they'd be slaughtered but actually don't receive all that much compared to those with similar responsibilities in society. We elect a Parliament to decide these things. Any referendum is likely to be a snapshot of how people feel about their lives at the time and not be wholly focussed on the issue at stake. Labour voters were being asked to back a campaign being led by a Conservative Prime Minister. My objection is certainly not based on whether it suits my personal preference. There are some of us that vote on principle rather than pure self interest.
 
MedwayModernist - 5/7/2016 12:48

SteveTreacle - 5/7/2016 11:13

Remainers really need to suck it up and show a bit of grace in defeat
Click to expand...

Problems with what you said above.

1.4m is not a lot of people, that's less than the Chris Evans top gear viewer ratings ffs.

Second problem is your attitude that one side won and the other lost is missing the point entirely afaic.

Given that most of the leave campaign's promises are already being backed out of (ie the electorate was lied to), and it turns out that the remain campaign's well researched concerns regarding the impact of leaving on the economy were in fact not mere "scaremongering" (ie the electorate were lied to again), the simple fact is that almost everyone in the country is going to do very badly out of this.

Given the above, I'd wager the result would be 60/40 remain if it were to be re-run with a much greater turnout. I certainly think it should NOT be re-run however, as referenda are an apalling method of governance.

IMO given the amount of lies told to the economy, every the legal and paliamentary step to treat the vote as what it was "not legally binding" should be taken in the interests of future of the country as a whole.

All I want is what's for the best for the country as a whole. Frankly this should be our last referendum on any topic that is not related to ongoing membership of the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...

Your response seems to sum up a lot of the Remainers argument - opinion and opinion masquerading as fact. You are entitled to your opinion, but not portraying your opinion as fact:

1.4m is a lot of people in my opinion, but not in yours.

"most of the leave campaign's promises are already being backed out of (ie the electorate was lied to), and it turns out that the remain campaign's well researched concerns regarding the impact of leaving on the economy were in fact not mere "scaremongering"" - again, a biased opinion. Have you any evidence to provde "most of the leave's campaign are being backed out of" and "the remain campaign's well researched concerns.. were in fact not mere scaremongering"? I am still waiting for Gideon's punishment budget and, obviously, the short term effect was for the markets to plummet bit things stabilised fairly quickly and it's much too early to say one way or t'other.

The referendum isn't legally binding - every one know that. However, it would be a brave and/or manipulative leader to go against the will of the people. We have seen from Blair and others (and the likes of you and the moronic largely clueless muppets marching on Westminster) that there is some appetite for resisting it, but I tell you now, there will be a far higher number of people protesting if the will of the people is resisted (I would be one of them and I've never felt an inclination to march or protest in my life).

"Given the above, I'd wager the result would be 60/40 remain if it were to be re-run with a much greater turnout." I don't. You may have a few people swing to remain, but having another referendum, which would basically be on the basis that the elite and ruling powers lost the first one and hoped to get public endorsement for their position by having another one, would get a lot of people's backs up, and I'm sure there would be plenty of people who didn't vote that would come out for leave. Also, I have heard a lot of sensible remainers say that they were disapppointed with the outcome but we should accept the democratic will of the people - I am sure some of them may switch to leave too. I do agree - let's hope we don't find out.
 
Yer wasting your time, Buddha, and you are still stuck with the problem of identifying the wishes of large numbers of people in a complex society into some sort of concrete action. The alternatives to synthetic majorities presented as the general will always seems to be worse -eg the ideas of actual minorities presented as the general will. Check your mail.
 
I often waste my time, jokerman. Especially when I'm getting paid to do so!!!!

Yes, you're right about the problem of identifying the wishes of large numbers of people in a complex society into some sort of concrete action. I suppose the answer might lie in breaking down the large complex society into much smaller groups which can more easily convert their desires into concret action. This would require some kind of federation of local groups, organised along horizontal lines of societal structure.

I don't pretend that there is a simple solution but it fucks me off when people talk about 'democracy' as if it were some kind of perfect system or even near perfect system of government.. Even direct democracy (which clearly we do not have) has its limiitations. No system of government can be perfect, only society without government has the potential to achieve perfection. And note that I said, 'potential'.

I saw your message and have replied. :35:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.