incredibly, there is always an cpt america, one goes another comes[/quote]Steve James wrote:
Trick wrote:incredibly, there is always an cpt america, one goes another comesSteve James wrote:
GrahamB wrote:Parliament is a separate issue that I'll come back to, but your post is exactly what I just don't get about this whole Brexit thing - or maybe I mean I just don't understand so many British people and their attitude to others. I keep seeing this same vibe from you (and Middleway) - this lack of concern for other people.
"But sure, I really don't know either why I should care if a bunch of Irish want to massacre eachother."
I mean, do you really not care if Brexit means the end of the Good Friday agreement and the Irish go back to bombing and murdering each other? Thats what you just said. Do you really just think, ah well, fuck 'em, it's their problem? I presume you're old enough to remember 'the troubles' like I am, but you might remember that the bombs were not restricted to Ireland - plenty of bombing in England. It took years to achieve the Good Friday Agreement to end it. Do you really not mind going back to all that and doing it all again? Just "why I should care"?
Sure it's your right to not care, but I don't know if you are just saying that, or you really don't give a shit about other people apart from your own 'tribe'?
"Well who says a smaller population can't lead to better things?"
This is also something I've heard a lot said by people. Normally it's to do with Climate Change - a 'thinning of the herd'- won't be a bad thing.
But I wonder people really understand what that means in reality. Have you really thought that through, about how we achieve a 'smaller population'. How do you think it happens?
Am I just some sort of softie that I don't want to see people get their lives ruined because a lot of old British people don't like Polish people working in Tesco?
If that's what hardening the fuck up means, I don't think I want to harden the fuck up.
Giles wrote:My take on this sorry story:
The original referendum led to a tight but clear result. But more than 3 years later the situation and the options have changed significantly. In retrospect the binary referendum question, simply ‘yes’ or ‘no’, was flawed. Before the referendum, leading persons on the Leave side confidently predicted that a ‘positive’ negotiated Brexit deal was a certainty, plus other statements and claims since shown to be false (= lies). Hence it is justifiable to say that while a narrow majority of 17.4 million British citizens voted ‘leave’ in the referendum, not all of these imagined, supported or wanted the ‘leave with no deal whatsoever’ which is now looming. Quite probably a considerable proportion didn’t envisage or want that. On the other hand, simply cancelling Brexit – although personally I wish for the UK to stay in the EU – could indeed arguably be seen as ‘undermining democracy and the will of the people’ and would certainly widen the gulf in British society even further. Maybe at some point it wouldn’t just be ‘those Irish’ who might start working to create ‘a smaller population’. It could be the mainland citizenry as well. Sounds kinda crazy but Western, and British, society really is changing at the moment. And when it comes to political culture and consensus, not in a good direction.
Hence I think that a second referendum really is the best option, offering at least 3 choices that at least approximately reflect current reality in the UK and Europe.
A general election in the UK is held every 5 years. No one says there: the majority elected Party X to run the country, so you can’t go back 5 years later and ask them again, just because the situation has changed. That’s exactly what you do. After more than 3 years and with such a different reality than the one predicted at that time by the Leave campaign, I think a new referendum is the least worst option.
About this Event
Brexit -- the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union -- is an event that will have immense economic and political importance on the entire course the world is taking in this century. But the deep historical roots of this event are poorly understood and almost never make it into media coverage. What really is Brexit? How did Britain get into the EU in the first place? What is the EU? What's a "Eurosceptic?" What lessons can we draw from Brexit's past that might help us understand how it will affect the future?
This webinar is designed to deliver a brief but deep understanding of where Brexit came from and what the stakes are.
Take-aways:
Understand what the European Union is and why it was created.
Understand why the UK's relationship with the EU has been contentious since the beginning.
Appreciate the historical issues Brexit implicates, including the Irish border, common market, and economic divisions in the UK and Europe.
Understand how and why Brexit almost happened 25 years ago.
Connect Brexit to larger current issues including climate change and globalization.
Appreciate how geography is key to comprehending Brexit.
This webinar is historical, not political or partisan. It is not merely a static lecture; with Dr. Munger's "geohistory" approach you will see the places where key events took place and visit them virtually. It is also interactive. Written materials will be distributed by email.
The main presentation is scheduled to last one hour, but may run over especially with Q&A.
Trick wrote:Can’t they go back to Britain for the care ?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests