Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
That depends on how people react to the a statement in that civil discussion. Stating for the purposes of an example only "This person on the forum is acting like a Brexit cultist" is to be opposed because it is a personal attack. Having a civil discussion as to whether Wrexit seems to be becoming more cult like is a reasonable debate to have because that bring awareness of what may be happening. It's only through such awareness that people can highlight there concerns. If you fail to do this, then if such circumstances are happening then silence allows it to grow and fester. It can also be used as a 'weapon' to silence dissidence on the issue because a statement is taken as a personal attack. Hurling abuse at each other isn't acceptable, stating concerns as to how an event is unfolding is OK even if it has bad connotations (for example a large part of the Jimmy Saville scandal and the fallout happened because people didn't discuss what was happening).
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
It's not a discussion at all when one side freely admits to having made their minds up a decade+ in advance regardless of how this turns out.
Facts be damned and all.
If one's mind is already made up and no evidence is going to persuade you otherwise what is the point in one posting ?
It's literally like arguing with a religious fundamentalist.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I've politely asked you several times to refrain from using insulting rhetoric tarring an entire movement and you're still persisting with it.
If you feel certain politicians are lying or are using the tactics of cult leaders , fine. Identify them and be specific in the people you are criticizing. Otherwise, please refrain from making big generalizations like "Brexit is a Cult" because its insulting to a lot of people in this thread.
If thats too much to ask, then you're going back on my ignore list because quite frankly I'm not inclined to listen to anything you have to say when you're using that sort of rhetoric.
It's not a discussion at all when one side freely admits to having made their minds up a decade+ in advance regardless of how this turns out.
Facts be damned and all.
If one's mind is already made up and no evidence is going to persuade you otherwise what is the point in one posting ?
It's literally like arguing with a religious fundamentalist.
I'm not contesting the evidence and the facts. I know Brexit may damage the economy. I simply don't care, I have different priorities to you. And as such, economic arguments do not sway me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/14 14:21:18
It's not a discussion at all when one side freely admits to having made their minds up a decade+ in advance regardless of how this turns out.
Facts be damned and all.
If one's mind is already made up and no evidence is going to persuade you otherwise what is the point in one posting ?
It's literally like arguing with a religious fundamentalist.
With all due respect, that cuts both ways. I won't deny for a single minute that the Brexit side doesn't have its share of nutters, but that goes for Remain as well.
My opposition to the EU is well known on these boards, I wouldn't vote Remain even if you paid me a million quid, but on the other hand, neither do I consider the EU to be the root of all evil in this world.
One charged that is often levelled against Brexit supporters like myself is that we don't listen to facts. That cuts both ways. The President of the EU Commission talks about an EU defence force. The President of France talks about an EU defence force, but the Remain response to this?
They don't really mean it, as though Macron was just some random guy in a pub with an opinion, and not the head of state of France.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/14 14:33:11
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
One charged that is often levelled against Brexit supporters like myself is that we don't listen to facts.
I'm not contesting the evidence and the facts. I know Brexit may damage the economy. I simply don't care,
...kinda spooky
...
The President of the EU Commission talks about an EU defence force. The President of France talks about an EU defence force, but the Remain response to this?
Well personally I'm all for it.
One more step towards a United Planet and one more step to us getting our collective acts together and going off into space to find things we ( probably) share no DNA with whatsoever .
... admittedly we'll then most probably either try to feth and/or kill -- maybe even both and not perhaps in that order -- them before swallowing them up into their own neat and tidy little ethnic subculture whose food and fashions we absorb into our mainstream culture but progress isn't always that even. Or swift.
They don't really mean it, as though Macron was just some random guy in a pub with an opinion, and not the head of state of France.
Indeed.
Might want to take a long hard look at the shower of witches who are leading the Pro-Brexit movement, most/many of which we've all thrown our hands up in the air about XX times before -- and will again in all probability.
Whilst it makes for a lovely moment of shared community when we all despair at Bojo or try to puzzle out how it is even vaguely possible Hannan is seen as smart in any way shape or form .. and then there's Farage -- if you want the Leave camp to actually A be taken seriously and B actually turn out a result that we can live with it'd be dandy if you'd get your acts together and actually find some competent people to do it,.
Because if that doesn't happen what will happen is the UK will be a lot worse off.
And the last time we were that badly off we wound up crawling cap in hand to the IMF and the proto EU community, begging for help and/or to be let into the club.
And if we do wind going back into the EU/similar then I really don't think there'd be any practical way to ever pull out again.
And that's what's so frustrating :
If we're going to leave then let's at least have an actual workable plan other than blind faith and/or some claim to mystical greatness due to, I dunno, the strength of Albion's bloodline etc etc etc
As it stands we're soon looking at an interest rate rise, which is really going to punish the worse off, whilst the rich get richer and just sink their claws into more and more of the land whilst Joe Public gets bent.
...
... he typed whilst being fully aware, of course, that no one on here has any sway or real say in any of the respective camps.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/14 14:56:14
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
It may be true that highly skilled workers find it easier to move around to different areas than lower skilled workers, so don't resent immigration as much, however the argument is that we've got too many lowly skilled Polish and Rumanian builders and so on coming to the UK, not that we've got too many professors and engineers. This does not seem to follow logically.
Of course, freedom of movement allows British builders and so on to go and establish careers abroad, as seen in TV programmes like Escape to the Chateu and New Life in the Sun.
It's not a discussion at all when one side freely admits to having made their minds up a decade+ in advance regardless of how this turns out.
Facts be damned and all.
If one's mind is already made up and no evidence is going to persuade you otherwise what is the point in one posting ?
It's literally like arguing with a religious fundamentalist.
With all due respect, that cuts both ways. I won't deny for a single minute that the Brexit side doesn't have its share of nutters, but that goes for Remain as well.
My opposition to the EU is well known on these boards, I wouldn't vote Remain even if you paid me a million quid, but on the other hand, neither do I consider the EU to be the root of all evil in this world.
One charged that is often levelled against Brexit supporters like myself is that we don't listen to facts. That cuts both ways. The President of the EU Commission talks about an EU defence force. The President of France talks about an EU defence force, but the Remain response to this?
They don't really mean it, as though Macron was just some random guy in a pub with an opinion, and not the head of state of France.
How bout a million quid and Scottish independence?
And I agree, it's an influx of cheap labour not highly skilled labour that tends to bug people. But someone posted a great example of this a while ago, a lot of these people cannot afford to leave their families behind to work here cheaply. And it's a persons family that is the expensive thing to move around.
Then again, nearly every optician I've seen in the last 10 years has been polish. Kind of an odd thing when you think of it.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
One charged that is often levelled against Brexit supporters like myself is that we don't listen to facts. That cuts both ways. The President of the EU Commission talks about an EU defence force. The President of France talks about an EU defence force, but the Remain response to this?
We've responded to this several times you draw this out. The EU force is not taking away countries powers to control their own armed forces. It will provide military support to any of the EU countries when they might need it. You are correct in your assertion that NATO is there to protect from Russian aggression if it ever should happen (but when we say protection we mean mutual annihilation). On the other hand NATO won't step in if there is volcanic eruption in Italy on scale of what happened to Vesuvius, or an magnitude 8.5 earthquake in Greece or Tsunami in the UK (has happened in the historical past). It allows for a co-ordinated response to a crisis where one individuals country may own resources may be stretched beyond its capacity to deal with it. Rather than having individual countries bumping into each other trying to help (e.g. all landing aid at the same airport with the affected country not able to transport it where it is needed) it allows a centralised effort to manage the event so that people are helped as effectively as possible by pooling resources. For example the Hurricanes in the Caribbean would have been far better served by islands under the jurisdiction of EU countries responded to in a co-ordinated way rather than each country sending the same thing to manage their own little area (of which the UK did several days later and then sent Boris the Clown instead of aid). I have however never seen an argument why it is a bad idea other than some nonsense about "the EU turning us into some superstate"
Well at least they should know how badly the population thinks they are making of the whole fiasco. Assuming of course they aren't just told to monitor the twitter feed "Brexit4ever" because the government don't want to hear anything bad about the process.
Tories can't win now. There is a growing momentum that Brexit is bad news and those that might have sitting on the fence and might have been persuaded one way or another are starting to realise the consequences of leaving and making a decision that it is best to be on the Remain side of the line. This means by the time they implement a full exit more than half the population will 'blame' the Tories and if the Tories backtrack then they lose the more fundamental supporters back to UKIP. That could perhaps but Tories out of government for 20 years or so. The only response I can say to this though is..."good".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/14 18:07:51
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I'm not contesting the evidence and the facts. I know Brexit may damage the economy. I simply don't care, I have different priorities to you. And as such, economic arguments do not sway me.
Then, like Whirlwind explained, you are not part of the Brexit cultists who believe in some magic pixie dust that will save the UK. You just share goals/opinions to a degree (like Whirlwind and the doomsday cult in that explanation). You don't have to feel included in that group (and attacked) just because it's a subgroup of Brexit supporters.
I don't want Brexit, you want it but in the end we both probably agree that now that it's going to happen it should also be done as quickly and painlessly as possible (for all sides). And even though we share that part we more or less completely disagree if it would be better for the UK to stay in the EU.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/15 23:26:35
Well, I care very much. For the future of my children currently starting their GCSE's, and for my friends, family and colleagues who've worked hard for decades to provide for their families and improve themselves.
If perhaps you'd invested yourself as well, or even felt you had some stake in the future, then perhaps you'd care too?
Statements such as yours are more likely to antagonise others, harm your credibility as a serious commentator, and turn people away from the validity of your argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whirlwind wrote: ... This means by the time they implement a full exit more than half the population will 'blame' the Tories and if the Tories backtrack then they lose the more fundamental supporters back to UKIP. That could perhaps but Tories out of government for 20 years or so. The only response I can say to this though is..."good".
This, to me, is perhaps the only upside. This whole episode has done what has been threatened to happen to the conservatives for the last 30 years, finally start to seriously fracture the party.
Whatever they do they know they're fethed, and they're thrashing around trying to save themselves. The only hope they have is that Brexit becomes an immediate, and palpable success thus vindicating their argument. Otherwise they are going to take a political beating for this for decades.
The other positive is that now I know for a fact who the bigoted gobshites are in my social circle. When they thought the tide was firmly in their favour they were crowing and mouthing off their rubbish all over social media. They've started to go quiet now, the tide is turning, and we all know the ones who've "liked" Britain First.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/14 23:56:17
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
The Tories will get away with it somehow; people will blame the EU.
Most of them are independently wealthy anyway so worst case is they give up politics and go back to their estates. They are on the whole well insulated from any repercussions; they ain't going to jail and they ain't going to become unemployed or have to rely on all of the support they've cut away.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I know Brexit may damage the economy. I simply don't care, I have different priorities to you. And as such, economic arguments do not sway me.
Why don't you care about the economy? Do you feel that you'll be unaffected by it? Somehow?
I very much care about the economy. It being healthy generates tax and jobs. We all rely on tax funded services and I want my kids to grow up in a country with jobs. If that has to be Germany then so be it.
I genuinely don't understand how someone can be so keen to get out of the eu they'll happily trash the economy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/15 06:14:57
Herzlos wrote: ...I genuinely don't understand how someone can be so keen to get out of the eu they'll happily trash the economy.
I think that such people fall into a few categories. Political ideologues, those who have no stake in the economy, or those wealthy enough to weather an economic shitstorm.
Any political ideologue that ignores the economy completely in favour of any other more vaunted ideals displays a pretty poor grasp of basic politics. You have to be able to persuade people of your argument, and ensure that it is realistic and not just wish listing. Telling people you are willing to destroy, or damage their livelihoods, and their children's prospects is unlikely to garner much support. Even Jeremy Corbyn, who is pretty much as ideological as they come, had to ensure the Labour manifesto was credible and costed, otherwise he'd have gotten no where.
Those who have no stake in the economy, I have sympathy for them if they're just starting out. The Tory Govt of the last 7 years has effectively disenfranchised anyone in there 20s, leading to a raft of those kids still living at home, in poorly paid jobs getting no where thinking what's the point? I imagine they maybe thinking that they might as well burn it down and start from scratch as they personally have nothing to lose. Not a great attitude, but understandable, if a little childish.
The wealthy, insulated non-carers are just pricks. But tbh, I doubt there are too many of them.
People have said they'll accept some damage, but we don't know how much that will be. If you have feth all anyway, it's no big deal. But, if like me, and others you've worked hard, invested, and built a life for yourself and your family, such glib, immature statements are going to get short shrift. Especially if you disagreed with the decision in the first place.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Plenty of political perspectives fundamentally oppose our entire economic system. Plenty of people would prioritise a wealth of other issues before economic success - aff boo they don't ask rely on economic success either - Cuba has excellent healthcare and Bhutan was the happiest place on earth until they got tvs, for instance. It really isn't difficult to place damage to a capitalist system very, very low on your list of political priorities. Stating this is neither glib nor immature. By contrast, calling it glib and immature is indicative of an inability to comprehend politics beyond the ultra-narrow centre-right system that you've been told is the only way. That's what's immature, I would suggest. At best, it's extraordinarily politically naive.
Herzlos wrote: ...I genuinely don't understand how someone can be so keen to get out of the eu they'll happily trash the economy.
I think that such people fall into a few categories. Political ideologues, those who have no stake in the economy, or those wealthy enough to weather an economic shitstorm.
Any political ideologue that ignores the economy completely in favour of any other more vaunted ideals displays a pretty poor grasp of basic politics. You have to be able to persuade people of your argument, and ensure that it is realistic and not just wish listing. Telling people you are willing to destroy, or damage their livelihoods, and their children's prospects is unlikely to garner much support. Even Jeremy Corbyn, who is pretty much as ideological as they come, had to ensure the Labour manifesto was credible and costed, otherwise he'd have gotten no where.
Those who have no stake in the economy, I have sympathy for them if they're just starting out. The Tory Govt of the last 7 years has effectively disenfranchised anyone in there 20s, leading to a raft of those kids still living at home, in poorly paid jobs getting no where thinking what's the point? I imagine they maybe thinking that they might as well burn it down and start from scratch as they personally have nothing to lose. Not a great attitude, but understandable, if a little childish.
The wealthy, insulated non-carers are just pricks. But tbh, I doubt there are too many of them.
People have said they'll accept some damage, but we don't know how much that will be. If you have feth all anyway, it's no big deal. But, if like me, and others you've worked hard, invested, and built a life for yourself and your family, such glib, immature statements are going to get short shrift. Especially if you disagreed with the decision in the first place.
But even if you have gak all, unless you are completely off grid, are still affected by the economy. Benefits, health care, council and emergency services are all a function if the economy. It's those at the bottom that will get shafted hardest if it tanks.
Then there's cost of living; brexit will probably push that up.
Even renters will be affected; if your landlord has to sell you can be kicked out. If they can't afford to maintain the place then you're affected.
Literally every factor of day to day life us affected by Brexit, and a bad deal could have serious consequences across the board.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nfe wrote: Plenty of political perspectives fundamentally oppose our entire economic system. Plenty of people would prioritise a wealth of other issues before economic success - aff boo they don't ask rely on economic success either - Cuba has excellent healthcare and Bhutan was the happiest place on earth until they got tvs, for instance. It really isn't difficult to place damage to a capitalist system very, very low on your list of political priorities. Stating this is neither glib nor immature. By contrast, calling it glib and immature is indicative of an inability to comprehend politics beyond the ultra-narrow centre-right system that you've been told is the only way. That's what's immature, I would suggest. At best, it's extraordinarily politically naive.
Sure, if we end off communist or without tvs we might be happier in the long term. But we're currently capitalist and rely on a certain level of economic function.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/15 11:03:46
I'm making no arguments (currently) about the viability of instituting or pursuing other systems. I'm only noting that if you find someone putting other things before the economy so incomprehensible it may well be you that's ignorant, not them.
Yes this could indeed be true, more study needed, but then are educated people more likely to use the internet and if not why should that then have an effect on peoples voting preferences by education level?
The implication would be that it has nothing to do with education. More young people voted to remain, and more young people have higher levels of education, but then again more young people are likely to listen to the Scissor Sisters and shop at Claire's accessories. There's not necessarily any more of a link between the first and second facts, than there has to be between the first, third and fourth. Pure correlation, with little to link them beyond the fact that young people are more likely to have done these things than older people.
My hypothesis would be that young people are more likely to use the internet extensively than an older generation, along with several other activities (such as being more likely to go on holiday abroad, indulge in virtual gaming worlds with international playerbases, and so on) which likely grant one a more multicultural outlook than someone born fifty or sixty years ago. Contemporary young people are also (I would further hypothesize) less likely to remember a time when many things that they take for granted, such as frictionless travel or international purchasing, did not exist, and thus resent many things they regard as the 'norm' being taken away whereas older people can conceive of life without such privileges. Young 'uns also less likely to have been subjected to the indoctrination/suspicion of certain foreigners pumped out during the Cold War, as well as less generally susceptible to concerns regarding the national entity of the country as a whole due to not remembering a time when Britain did take independent actions/stances on things.
This is of course, on top of more general concerns involving the economy, European nationalism, and suchlike, but I wouldn't regard any such factors as being the exclusive preserve of the young; and therefore not particularly relevant when considering why young people were more likely to vote one way or t'other. I've no evidence, but nobody else has any in general either, so it's as good a set of inferences as any.
The flip side of the above diagnosis of course, is that assuming Brexit passes with an average recession at worst (which hits every decade anyway), there will be diminishing pressure to rejoin as those extraneous factors become quiescent (people adapt to the new 'normal' state of affairs, the economy levels back off, Britain visibly begins to function independently again, and so forth). We shall see, I suppose, whether or not I'm on the mark a decade down the line.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/15 12:12:30
nfe wrote: I'm making no arguments (currently) about the viability of instituting or pursuing other systems. I'm only noting that if you find someone putting other things before the economy so incomprehensible it may well be you that's ignorant, not them.
That misrepresents what was said. The argument wasn't about putting the economy first before everything else, it was bemusement about being willing to trash the economy by not giving it any priority at all. That's two different things.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I know Brexit may damage the economy. I simply don't care, I have different priorities to you. And as such, economic arguments do not sway me.
Why don't you care about the economy? Do you feel that you'll be unaffected by it? Somehow?
I very much care about the economy. It being healthy generates tax and jobs. We all rely on tax funded services and I want my kids to grow up in a country with jobs. If that has to be Germany then so be it.
I genuinely don't understand how someone can be so keen to get out of the eu they'll happily trash the economy.
Because I have other priorities. Democracy, national self determination, small(er) Government. I'd rather be poor but free; than rich but not free living under the yoke of a foreign government that I have no democratic power to depose.
Can I vote directly against the likes of Jean Claude Juncker if I dislike his policies and decisions in office? Against Donald Tusk?
The purpose of Brexit is to improve the economy by:
1. Enabling the UK to make trade deals outside the EU.
2. Freeing the UK from EU regulations.
3. Preventing EU citizens from easily coming to work in the UK and use up UK national resources.
4. Reducing the payment of fees for membership and CAP, etc.
5. Restoring the UK fishing industry by freeing it from the EU quota system.
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of Brexit is to improve the economy by:
1. Enabling the UK to make trade deals outside the EU.
2. Freeing the UK from EU regulations.
3. Preventing EU citizens from easily coming to work in the UK and use up UK national resources.
4. Reducing the payment of fees for membership and CAP, etc.
5. Restoring the UK fishing industry by freeing it from the EU quota system.
For example,
the figure shows that in bilateral UK-EU trade, a tariff of 30-40% would be applied on wine and cheese
- two items for which the UK runs a significant deficit with the EU (net-imports of about 2,200 million
and 1,250 million euro respectively, see Figure 3.1). In addition, imports of several meat product
items would become subject to tariffs that could exceed 30% and might be even close to 70% or
90%, depending on the type of meat. All in all, the UK consumer will face higher prices for many items
that are imported, which will only alter, if the UK government negotiates preferential access with the
EU when leaving the Union.
However, under a hard Brexit, UK farmers exporting to Europe could face punishing tariffs despite continuing to meet the same strict rules. Skimmed milk exported into the EU from outside the single market attracts a tariff of 74 per cent, while butter is slapped with a 63 per cent tariff and cheddar an additional 43 per cent. A tariff of 53 per cent is levied on wheat exports. Red meat attracts the highest tariffs of all, with charges on frozen beef carcasses reaching 160 per cent of their value. “At those kinds of prices, it’s difficult to see many European customers being up for trade with the UK,” said Withers. He cited a working paper by economists at Trinity College Dublin which paints a bleak picture for food producers if the government fails to secure a trade deal or a transition towards one that takes effect the moment the UK leaves the EU. The paper, published by the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, warns that trade in some food products “comes close to being wiped out” under modelling of the potential impact of WTO tariffs. Exports of red meat and cereals could be expected to fall by 90 per cent, according to economists Martina Lawless and Edgar Morgenroth.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/15 12:41:04
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
nfe wrote: Plenty of political perspectives fundamentally oppose our entire economic system. Plenty of people would prioritise a wealth of other issues before economic success - aff boo they don't ask rely on economic success either - Cuba has excellent healthcare and Bhutan was the happiest place on earth until they got tvs, for instance. It really isn't difficult to place damage to a capitalist system very, very low on your list of political priorities. Stating this is neither glib nor immature. By contrast, calling it glib and immature is indicative of an inability to comprehend politics beyond the ultra-narrow centre-right system that you've been told is the only way. That's what's immature, I would suggest. At best, it's extraordinarily politically naive.
I was responding to a statement that the economy was not even a priority at all, that economic arguments are no factor whatsoever. Not that it's the lowest priority, which would indicate at least an understanding that the world needs an economy, and trade, to even function at all. You can't even have a working culture without a form of trade and economy, even if it is just bartering with pelts.
Someone who completely disregards such a fundemental part of society is akin to someone saying that justice, security, health care, schooling or any other of the essential parts of society are completely irrelevant in how the country should be run.
The economy is not a dirty word, like I stated earlier, even the most Left wing understand that a functioning economy is essential, it's just that they don't believe in neo-liberalism in order to construct that economy, but would rather run an economy based on socialism.
Ignoring it completely is utterly bemusing because it means that whoever is espousing an economy free society has probably spent a little bit too much time watching the Good Life, and getting toasted.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
nfe wrote: Plenty of political perspectives fundamentally oppose our entire economic system. Plenty of people would prioritise a wealth of other issues before economic success - and no they don't all rely on economic success either - Cuba has excellent healthcare and Bhutan was the happiest place on earth until they got tvs, for instance. It really isn't difficult to place damage to a capitalist system very, very low on your list of political priorities. Stating this is neither glib nor immature. By contrast, calling it glib and immature is indicative of an inability to comprehend politics beyond the ultra-narrow centre-right system that you've been told is the only way. That's what's immature, I would suggest. At best, it's extraordinarily politically naive.
I was responding to a statement that the economy was not even a priority at all, that economic arguments are no factor whatsoever. Not that it's the lowest priority, which would indicate at least an understanding that the world needs an economy, and trade, to even function at all. You can't even have a working culture without a form of trade and economy, even if it is just bartering with pelts.
Someone who completely disregards such a fundemental part of society is akin to someone saying that justice, security, health care, schooling or any other of the essential parts of society are completely irrelevant in how the country should be run.
The economy is not a dirty word, like I stated earlier, even the most Left wing understand that a functioning economy is essential, it's just that they don't believe in neo-liberalism in order to construct that economy, but would rather run an economy based on socialism.
Ignoring it completely is utterly bemusing because it means that whoever is espousing an economy free society has probably spent a little bit too much time watching the Good Life, and getting toasted.
I think you're really extrapolating a bit much from what people have said. Do you genuinely think anyone meant that they think the economy is totally and utterly irrelevant to life rather than just below other issues in their list of priorities?
nfe wrote: Plenty of political perspectives fundamentally oppose our entire economic system. Plenty of people would prioritise a wealth of other issues before economic success - and no they don't all rely on economic success either - Cuba has excellent healthcare and Bhutan was the happiest place on earth until they got tvs, for instance. It really isn't difficult to place damage to a capitalist system very, very low on your list of political priorities. Stating this is neither glib nor immature. By contrast, calling it glib and immature is indicative of an inability to comprehend politics beyond the ultra-narrow centre-right system that you've been told is the only way. That's what's immature, I would suggest. At best, it's extraordinarily politically naive.
I was responding to a statement that the economy was not even a priority at all, that economic arguments are no factor whatsoever. Not that it's the lowest priority, which would indicate at least an understanding that the world needs an economy, and trade, to even function at all. You can't even have a working culture without a form of trade and economy, even if it is just bartering with pelts.
Someone who completely disregards such a fundemental part of society is akin to someone saying that justice, security, health care, schooling or any other of the essential parts of society are completely irrelevant in how the country should be run.
The economy is not a dirty word, like I stated earlier, even the most Left wing understand that a functioning economy is essential, it's just that they don't believe in neo-liberalism in order to construct that economy, but would rather run an economy based on socialism.
Ignoring it completely is utterly bemusing because it means that whoever is espousing an economy free society has probably spent a little bit too much time watching the Good Life, and getting toasted.
I think you're really extrapolating a bit much from what people have said. Do you genuinely think anyone meant that they think the economy is totally and utterly irrelevant to life rather than just below other issues in their list of priorities?
I was just responding to that particular statement that it wasn't even a consideration. I've got no problem with people prioritising social justice, democracy and anything else they want over a healthy economy, but to disregard it as even relevant at all? I imagine such statements are just reactionary, and allow people who say such things to believe that they hold a higher moral authority, unconcerned with filthy lucre. Which, frankly, is bollocks.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of Brexit is to improve the economy by:
1. Enabling the UK to make trade deals outside the EU.
2. Freeing the UK from EU regulations.
3. Preventing EU citizens from easily coming to work in the UK and use up UK national resources.
4. Reducing the payment of fees for membership and CAP, etc.
5. Restoring the UK fishing industry by freeing it from the EU quota system.
