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.

Mario wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


But Britain? We don't worry about these things because of that faith in the system. We don't feel the need for the EU to 'protect' us, or to make desperate shows of unity to try and avoid a return to the 'bad old days'. Because for us, Britain was here a century ago, and we have faith it'll still be trundling along well enough in another hundred or so. Therefore we feel we have far less to lose by leaving it. To us, it's just another one of those hodgepodge Continental organisations/politics that spring up every thirty to forty years, and crumble again in as short a space of time.

And who knows? It might well be. Time will tell.

Britain has only recently found an island of stability (on the scale of human civilization). Before that it was all a bit more complicated (like everywhere else). Just assuming that Britain is somehow special because it found a system that works a tiny bit earlier than the rest seems illogical. With Brexit it looks like parts of the UK have lost faith in the system. Maybe Britain just peaked early and is now slowly crumbling? After all, nothing lasts forever.

I stopped listening as soon as he said the Norman's were French. They were actually Norse. Norman being the short hand for Norse Man.

But the Tory party is over 200 years old, and we've had a parliamentary for nearly 500 years. There aren't many countries in Europe who have such a continuous system of government.

 Ketara wrote:


I suspect your amendment is more inaccurate than what it replaced. I know few who voted remain that /love the EU or what it represents or even hold views as to its longterm durability. They generally just view it as the best possible choice of the two, as opposed to enthusiastically waving a blue star spangled banner around, so to speak.

That's just anecdotal evidence and could be easily symptomatic of a bias (such as humans natural tendency to congregate with people of similar views). All we can say is that about approximately 50% of the people in the UK that voted (and were allowed to vote!) could hold the view it is a temporary structure and 50% of it being at least supportive of it being a long term structure given it already has been around for 40 years in one form or another (even if they acknowledge some issues with it). The argument that by saying 'us' you are referring to the UK populace as a whole and that is going to be incorrect given the current divided mood of the country. I'm fairly confident that there will be approx. 4 million or so (and almost certainly more) of the UK populace and UK citizens that do not think this way or that weren't even allowed to influence the direction of the country (being EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU).

What precisely are you saying here? The moat has certainly contributed to enabling the circumstances for certain mentalities to develop, but it's hardly a primary cause of a national archetype (which is what you appear to be implying).

That depends on how you consider cause and effect. If the last ice-age hadn't worn down the English channel and the end hadn't caused a huge flooding event then we would still be connected with the mainland and the 'politics' that swept Europe over time would have washed backwards and forwards over the UK as well. We could even go further back to when North Atlantic ridge developed, or the types of rock were deposited on the south east coast and so on. A multitude of small and large things have allowed the UK to develop how it is today, but the moat has kept to us relatively protected and prevented the UK being more affected by the 'melting pot' of Europe. No, the moat (which was subject to 4.5 billion years of other geological and biological processes) doesn't tell people how to think or act, but it's presence ensured that we were more isolated and that allowed such mentalities of 'we can go it alone' could develop. However the way our mentality evolved is no longer fit for the modern global world. Those barriers that helped evolve this mentality are no longer there. It is the equivalent of the Panda; it has evolved into a dead end, there is only one inevitable conclusion for this species - extinction. The UK as a nation still has the ability to evolve out of an out dated mentality, if it doesn't it might get helped along by a few kind 'souls' but it is still an evolutionary 'dead end' because of globalisation.

I don't think anyone wants to see a return to the days of splendid isolation (or even thinks it feasible). But it's a far cry from being aware of that fact and associating the future as being with the EU.
It's a bit like religion. Nobody denies that something (event, person, whatever) has to have made everything, but it's a massive jump from that to the God of classical theism. Acknowledging one doesn't presuppose the necessity of the latter.

I think you are missing the point...The argument was this is who we are because of what has happened in the past and hence who we should be in the future. But the world has changed dramatically even in the last 30 years (never mind 60). The principles of yesterday are not going to be as useful for tomorrow because the ability of the UK to be self supportive is no longer viable unless we go back to the Steam age. China, Russia and now the US even more so are all looking at their self interests first. The EU will also do the same. With a global population that is likely to peak in the 2050's and potentially a global demand of food, water, metals and minerals that exceeds what the Earth can provide by an order of magnitude at least (never mind the impacts of global warming) then being outside of any 'club' is only going to see us become whittled down relatively to these other 'superstates'. As resources become even more finite priorities will change within the 'clubs'. Maintaining a 'we can do better on our own' mentality is only going to result in doing much worse in the medium to long term (and will result in selling out to one of these big clubs, such as we did over the Hinkley Point Nuclear power plant rather than being an active player which we were in the EU).

 Whirlwind wrote:

That's just anecdotal evidence and could be easily symptomatic of a bias (such as humans natural tendency to congregate with people of similar views). All we can say is that about approximately 50% of the people in the UK that voted (and were allowed to vote!) could hold the view it is a temporary structure and 50% of it being at least supportive of it being a long term structure given it already has been around for 40 years in one form or another (even if they acknowledge some issues with it). The argument that by saying 'us' you are referring to the UK populace as a whole and that is going to be incorrect given the current divided mood of the country. I'm fairly confident that there will be approx. 4 million or so (and almost certainly more) of the UK populace and UK citizens that do not think this way or that weren't even allowed to influence the direction of the country (being EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU).

Opinion. No more or less valid than my thought there, I'm afraid. I know many, many people who voted remain though (the majority of my acquaintances actually) from just about every walk of life and profession, and I can count on one hand the number who actually like the EU. Based on that input, I'll maintain my own view there, I'm afraid.

That depends on how you consider cause and effect. If the last ice-age hadn't worn down the English channel and the end hadn't caused a huge flooding event then we would still be connected with the mainland and the 'politics' that swept Europe over time would have washed backwards and forwards over the UK as well. We could even go further back to when North Atlantic ridge developed, or the types of rock were deposited on the south east coast and so on. A multitude of small and large things have allowed the UK to develop how it is today, but the moat has kept to us relatively protected and prevented the UK being more affected by the 'melting pot' of Europe. No, the moat (which was subject to 4.5 billion years of other geological and biological processes) doesn't tell people how to think or act, but it's presence ensured that we were more isolated and that allowed such mentalities of 'we can go it alone' could develop. However the way our mentality evolved is no longer fit for the modern global world. Those barriers that helped evolve this mentality are no longer there. It is the equivalent of the Panda; it has evolved into a dead end, there is only one inevitable conclusion for this species - extinction. The UK as a nation still has the ability to evolve out of an out dated mentality, if it doesn't it might get helped along by a few kind 'souls' but it is still an evolutionary 'dead end' because of globalisation.

I think you are missing the point...The argument was this is who we are because of what has happened in the past and hence who we should be in the future. But the world has changed dramatically even in the last 30 years (never mind 60). The principles of yesterday are not going to be as useful for tomorrow because the ability of the UK to be self supportive is no longer viable unless we go back to the Steam age. China, Russia and now the US even more so are all looking at their self interests first. The EU will also do the same. With a global population that is likely to peak in the 2050's and potentially a global demand of food, water, metals and minerals that exceeds what the Earth can provide by an order of magnitude at least (never mind the impacts of global warming) then being outside of any 'club' is only going to see us become whittled down relatively to these other 'superstates'. As resources become even more finite priorities will change within the 'clubs'. Maintaining a 'we can do better on our own' mentality is only going to result in doing much worse in the medium to long term (and will result in selling out to one of these big clubs, such as we did over the Hinkley Point Nuclear power plant rather than being an active player which we were in the EU).

Blimey mate, text wall? It's too early for gobs of text like that!
*sips tea*

Regardless, that's a very nicely whiggish view of history, mixed with a thoroughly deterministic view of the future. I disagree absolutely I'm afraid. Globalism could well crumble next year and spend the following fifty years being academically dissected and shown why it was impossible to be sustainable long term. God only knows the number of political/economic systems that thought they were the endpoint/climax of human development (something about a thousand year reich springs to mind...)

History has repeatedly shown that eventually all big centralised concentrations of power always collapse under their own weight in the end.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
History has repeatedly shown that eventually all big centralised concentrations of power always collapse under their own weight in the end.

It's a bit more complicated than that. One of the primary reasons for that occurring (communications) is no longer a factor. It remains to be seen though, whether or not the EU can survive the other equations that tend to contribute to that outcome. It is possible Whirlwind is correct and we're on a march towards the inevitable triumph of globalism, capitalism, and a slightly modified form of Uncle Sam's Apple Pie. Alternatively, we may find we were the first rat off a sinking ship, and he's completely wrong. Or the EU might survive for a hundred years but all the other big partners break down in revolution prior to that.

One of the most fascinating things about history is that you get to see that events never go how the people in charge think it will.

I'd also like to thank all the people who nodded in my direction last page, nothing makes typing a long post out feel more productive than knowing somebody enjoyed reading it. It happens less often than you'd think in niche history.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
History has repeatedly shown that eventually all big centralised concentrations of power always collapse under their own weight in the end.

Depends on how you define "collapse" (and "big" AND "centralised", for that matter). China, despite a quite tumultuous history, is still around over 2000 years after Qin Shi Huang's death, for instance. Closer to home France, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have all existed for roughly a millennium (and France more than that), depending a bit on when you count foundation dates for the respective states. Further, something happening in the past is not proof of the same event happening in the future. I'd posit that you're cherry-picking history to allow you to predict the downfall of the European Union.

We're going round in circles here, but IMO, Remain's message was: yeah, the EU is crap, but change is risky. No wonder they lost.

Clinton tried to pull a similar stunt with Trump, and was roundly defeated for it.

In all my years, I've yet to meet any Remain voter/EU supporter who was anything more than lukewarm about the EU.
Yes, I know there are 1 or 2 exceptions on this thread, but in my experience, EU support on June 23rd was born more out of self-interest (academics, business etc etc ) than any real passion for the European project.

I don't agree with it, but I can respect people with idealism, people who are passionate about building a United Sattes of Europe, but I have nothing but disdain for those whom supported the EU out of naked self-interest. Yeah, I'm looking at you Nick Clegg

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
History has repeatedly shown that eventually all big centralised concentrations of power always collapse under their own weight in the end.

Depends on how you define "collapse" (and "big" AND "centralised", for that matter). China, despite a quite tumultuous history, is still around over 2000 years after Qin Shi Huang's death, for instance. Closer to home France, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have all existed for roughly a millennium (and France more than that), depending a bit on when you count foundation dates for the respective states. Further, something happening in the past is not proof of the same event happening in the future. I'd posit that you're cherry-picking history to allow you to predict the downfall of the European Union.

So England will endure then....

 Ketara wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
History has repeatedly shown that eventually all big centralised concentrations of power always collapse under their own weight in the end.

It's a bit more complicated than that. One of the primary reasons for that occurring (communications) is no longer a factor. It remains to be seen though, whether or not the EU can survive the other equations that tend to contribute to that outcome. It is possible Whirlwind is correct and we're on a march towards the inevitable triumph of globalism, capitalism, and a slightly modified form of Uncle Sam's Apple Pie. Alternatively, we may find we were the first rat off a sinking ship, and he's completely wrong. Or the EU might survive for a hundred years but all the other big partners break down in revolution prior to that.

One of the most fascinating things about history is that you get to see that events never go how the people in charge think it will.

I'd also like to thank all the people who nodded in my direction last page, nothing makes typing a long post out feel more productive than knowing somebody enjoyed reading it. It happens less often than you'd think in niche history.

It was a good post

But you forgot to mention that the biggest threat to the UK is not external, but internal.

People like me who are actively working to bring about the end of the UK.

In a peaceful, democratic fashion of course.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


But you forgot to mention that the biggest threat to the UK is not external, but internal.

People like me who are actively working to bring about the end of the UK.

In a peaceful, democratic fashion of course.

In all honesty, I think some minor attention by the British Government will remove Scottish independence from the board at some point. Westminster is slow to react to pressure, but has a good track record of taking the kettle off the stove just before it reaches boil, and I think that point was the last referendum. Barring a major upset, I actually don't think it'll happen again. But we'll see.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Depends on how you define "collapse" (and "big" AND "centralised", for that matter). China, despite a quite tumultuous history, is still around over 2000 years after Qin Shi Huang's death, for instance. Closer to home France, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have all existed for roughly a millennium (and France more than that), depending a bit on when you count foundation dates for the respective states. Further, something happening in the past is not proof of the same event happening in the future. I'd posit that you're cherry-picking history to allow you to predict the downfall of the European Union.

Now normally I wouldn't have seen your post because I've got you on ignore but I've seen it in Mr Burning's quote so I thought I'd reply just this once for the hell of it.

First of, thanks for pointing out that individual nation states with shared cultures, languages and identities developed gradually over a millennia are capable for lasting so long. Far longer than 'artificial' political constructs (like the EU) which can usually be measured in mere decades at best.

And yes, you're right. What happened in the past is not proof of the same event in the future. But similar patterns can lead to similar results. I see the EU, like all the centralised political constructs before it, straining under its contradictions and depending on the elections in various European countries next year I predict it collapsing within a decade.

 Ketara wrote:
Opinion. No more or less valid than my thought there, I'm afraid. I know many, many people who voted remain though (the majority of my acquaintances actually) from just about every walk of life and profession, and I can count on one hand the number who actually like the EU. Based on that input, I'll maintain my own view there, I'm afraid.

*Sigh*. Well at least you are validating my point. Opinion is anecdotal evidence (i.e. it's based on one's personal experiences on the assumption that they hold valid across the data set as a whole), but because of the small *relatively* sample size could be subject to all sorts of selection and bias affects. Anecdotally everyone I work and plenty more with are very pro-EU and want it to work and continue to develop for the betterment of its population. That doesn't mean that I then use references such as 'us'

To us, it's just another one of those hodgepodge Continental organisations/politics that spring up every thirty to forty years, and crumble again in as short a space of time.

when I refer to the UK as a whole as I am aware that this is my own anecdotal evidence and I am casting views on everyone else. Hence the use of the best data point (the referendum within the error) we have available rather than a personal, biased (in terms of scientific evidence), opinion. Using 'us' is not valid I know my own mind and that statement doesn't apply to me (and assuming people aren't lying to many others I know as well).

Blimey mate, text wall? It's too early for gobs of text like that!
*sips tea*

Definitely not early for me, I've been up since 6am!

Regardless, that's a very nicely whiggish view of history, mixed with a thoroughly deterministic view of the future. I disagree absolutely I'm afraid. Globalism could well crumble next year and spend the following fifty years being academically dissected and shown why it was impossible to be sustainable long term. God only knows the number of political/economic systems that thought they were the endpoint/climax of human development (something about a thousand year reich springs to mind...)

I'm not sure I made any judgement on the past or that there was an inevitability of progression and improvement? Unless of course you are saying that geological processes don't progress, then I'd just guffaw, point and laugh! . So I'm not sure what you are getting out here. Either that you can't be bothered with a proper debate this early and is just using a bit of mud slinging? Yes globalism could collapse next year, or in the next 50 years or it may never collapse or it may evolve into something else. Right now though we *do* have globalism (and I'm not sure I ever said it was an end point only?) and that means having an introverted view is not going to help to adapt to the *current* time. If globalism collapses next year then we would need to go out and change how we approach and influence the world again. Yes, we could get lucky by keeping a stagnant view of the world and whatever the future holds might result in it benefiting the UK, but as per nature, except in a few rare cases stagnation in most cases generally means extinction. Unless of course you are actively promoting that we try and cause a global collapse?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

In all my years, I've yet to meet any Remain voter/EU supporter who was anything more than lukewarm about the EU.
Yes, I know there are 1 or 2 exceptions on this thread, but in my experience, EU support on June 23rd was born more out of self-interest (academics, business etc etc ) than any real passion for the European project.

So are we saying most pro-EU people voted on the basis of self interest and that anti-EU didn't vote on the basis of self interest?

 Whirlwind wrote:

*Sigh*. Well at least you are validating my point. Opinion is anecdotal evidence (i.e. it's based on one's personal experiences on the assumption that they hold valid across the data set as a whole), but because of the small *relatively* sample size could be subject to all sorts of selection and bias affects. Anecdotally everyone I work and plenty more with are very pro-EU and want it to work and continue to develop for the betterment of its population. That doesn't mean that I then use references such as 'us'

To us, it's just another one of those hodgepodge Continental organisations/politics that spring up every thirty to forty years, and crumble again in as short a space of time.

when I refer to the UK as a whole as I am aware that this is my own anecdotal evidence and I am casting views on everyone else. Hence the use of the best data point (the referendum within the error) we have available rather than a personal, biased (in terms of scientific evidence), opinion. Using 'us' is not valid I know my own mind and that statement doesn't apply to me (and assuming people aren't lying to many others I know as well).

I'm quite surprised actually, because it's not entirely a matter of personal acquaintanceships, but also the media, overheard conversations, books, political talk shows, discussions on places like this, and so on. In all of that wide digestion of input, I very rarely hear anyone British espousing the sort of thing you do, and that's why I feel qualified in applying the 'we'. As ever, you are free to disagree, but to have so little overlap, we really must move through entirely different worlds. Isn't it funny that they only seem to overlap in the OT section of a wargaming forum?

I'm not sure I made any judgement on the past or that there was an inevitability of progression and improvement? Unless of course you are saying that geological processes don't progress, then I'd just guffaw, point and laugh! . So I'm not sure what you are getting out here. Either that you can't be bothered with a proper debate this early and is just using a bit of mud slinging? Yes globalism could collapse next year, or in the next 50 years or it may never collapse or it may evolve into something else. Right now though we *do* have globalism (and I'm not sure I ever said it was an end point only?) and that means having an introverted view is not going to help to adapt to the *current* time. If globalism collapses next year then we would need to go out and change how we approach and influence the world again. Yes, we could get lucky by keeping a stagnant view of the world and whatever the future holds might result in it benefiting the UK, but as per nature, except in a few rare cases stagnation in most cases generally means extinction. Unless of course you are actively promoting that we try and cause a global collapse?

You immediately class 'introversion' as 'stagnation', that the 'principles of yesterday are not going to be useful for tomorrow', that the mentality evolved is a 'dead end', and so forth. There's an extremely strong strand running through your comments that the principles of government and interaction with the outside world from the past are now obsolete (thereby implying that certain more 'modern' ones are not). You literally stated that it is 'no longer fit for the modern global world'. And so forth.

You're assuming that the principles and systems that currently dictate international affairs are either set in stone or will continue to evolve in such a way that past principles no longer apply. That's deterministic, you're only perceiving the flow of future events happening in one specific way (you literally used the word 'inevitable' for one of your predictions). You're also categorising past practices as 'not being useful', a 'dead end', and so forth, lending an extremely strong flavour to your interpretation of the past as something backwards. Hence the historical whiggism comment.

 Whirlwind wrote:
You are also fighting a tide that you can't win. No change means stagnation. The Architecture we see today arose because of waves of migration bringing new ideas across the different countries and how these mingled together in different proportions resulted in the different architecture today. It will continue to happen.

And stagnation itself is change. Anybody trying to prevent change is indeed fighting against windmills. Change is part of everything.

You love current architechture? Enjoy while it lasts. Won't be same in future. Finnish architechture has changed quite a bit over just the time I have been alive. For my parents even more. My grandparents? Their grandparents? Would those even think Finland looks like Finland? Doubtful.

Speak for yourself. I know plenty of people from different countries, religions and I get on with them fine and they get on with me fine. I think the comment should be "Some people from different cultures aren't willing to get on". All scientific evidence points to the fact that once people get to know each other they work and play together just fine. It's when different groups of people isolate themselves and "echo chamber" untruths that the situation changes. If you skinned us all/used an electronic voice and stood us in a room then no one would be able to tell anyone apart on the basis of their origin.

Humans are at the core quite similar. All have similar sense of right/wrong even at an infant age.

Getting along with each other is quite possible. Even harder goals like no crimes/violence is possible(albeit very hard). Why would easier goal be impossible when harder ones are possible...

tneva82 wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
You are also fighting a tide that you can't win. No change means stagnation. The Architecture we see today arose because of waves of migration bringing new ideas across the different countries and how these mingled together in different proportions resulted in the different architecture today. It will continue to happen.

And stagnation itself is change. Anybody trying to prevent change is indeed fighting against windmills. Change is part of everything.

And should be resisted, on principle, until it's absolutely certain that it's a net improvement.

 malamis wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
You are also fighting a tide that you can't win. No change means stagnation. The Architecture we see today arose because of waves of migration bringing new ideas across the different countries and how these mingled together in different proportions resulted in the different architecture today. It will continue to happen.

And stagnation itself is change. Anybody trying to prevent change is indeed fighting against windmills. Change is part of everything.

And should be resisted, on principle, until it's absolutely certain that it's a net improvement.

Resisting just for sake is stupid as you only get suffering out of that.

Besides change isn't good or bad. It just is.

tneva82 wrote:

 malamis wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
You are also fighting a tide that you can't win. No change means stagnation. The Architecture we see today arose because of waves of migration bringing new ideas across the different countries and how these mingled together in different proportions resulted in the different architecture today. It will continue to happen.

And stagnation itself is change. Anybody trying to prevent change is indeed fighting against windmills. Change is part of everything.

And should be resisted, on principle, until it's absolutely certain that it's a net improvement.

Resisting just for sake is stupid as you only get suffering out of that.

Besides change isn't good or bad. It just is.

I can appreciate English isn't your first language, so i'll re-emphasise the "until it's certain to be a net improvement" part.

 malamis wrote:
I can appreciate English isn't your first language, so i'll re-emphasise the "until it's certain to be a net improvement" part.

You resist change, you fail. Change is inevitable.

Also change isn't good or bad. It just is. Therefore labeling "good change" and "bad change" is just leading yourself to suffering.

tneva82 wrote:

 malamis wrote:
I can appreciate English isn't your first language, so i'll re-emphasise the "until it's certain to be a net improvement" part.

You resist change, you fail. Change is inevitable.

Also change isn't good or bad. It just is. Therefore labeling "good change" and "bad change" is just leading yourself to suffering.

Incorrect;

The systematic elimination of the indigenous greenlanders due to a choice to apply the then-modern concepts of eugenics - which have since been disproven - directly and lastingly damaged their reproductive ability and economic stability, arguably until the present day. This, I would suggest from any perspective except Scandinavian imperialism, is a 'bad' change.

The politicising of vaccination ethics in the US and gradually abroad has given rise to a higher rate of preventable diseases which in turn have weighed down on an already overtaxed medical infrastructure has both directly and indirectly caused numerous deaths and extended or suspended medical treatment for individuals who may have otherwise contributed to the local/state/national/international economy. This is 'bad' for the US and arguably 'good' for the rest of the world as it could chip into the value of US exports, reducing their market share by like 0.1% in some areas.

History has indicated anyone who insists on change being either objectively good or amoral, should immediately be investigated as to their motives. Change is harm by it's very nature, and no-one can ever predict the full effects of even the slightest adjustment to *anything*. No-one has the right, though many have the authority, to carry it out on a population that can't resist it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37944473?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

And the politicos are at it again trying to delay brexit. This time by blackmail.

We need a general election pronto. That scumbag Timmy Farron is arguing that we didn't know what we voted for and we need to be asked again. It's such a typical europhile response to an answer they don't like it's almost laughable, if it wasn't so disgustly insulting and slightly dangerous too.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
We need a general election pronto. That scumbag Timmy Farron is arguing that we didn't know what we voted for and we need to be asked again. It's such a typical europhile response to an answer they don't like it's almost laughable, if it wasn't so disgustly insulting and slightly dangerous too.

Are there any organised movements towards a vote of no confidence yet?

What did leave vote for, I was told earlier in the thread, that because there were so many differing opinions on what leaving the EU meant, they couldn't have put together a plan on what to do when we voted to leave.

We were given a binary choice of stay in the EU yes/no.

Not, Yes/No, but remain in the common market/No, out completely/No, other option.

 Ketara wrote:


I'm quite surprised actually, because it's not entirely a matter of personal acquaintanceships, but also the media, overheard conversations, books, political talk shows, discussions on places like this, and so on. In all of that wide digestion of input, I very rarely hear anyone British espousing the sort of thing you do, and that's why I feel qualified in applying the 'we'.

But again, it's all anecdotal.

-Why did you listen to that media or read that article.
-Are those overheard conversations a true reflection of the ones you remember or the ones your brain remembers (there's evidence to show that the brain can remember facts incorrectly based on what the persons perception is as well);
-How was the panel determined on the political talk show (for example the BBC on climate change here is a good example, usually when they debate these issues they put one climate change denier, who may not even be qualified in the area on against one climate change scientist and give them equal air time - that gives the impression of a balanced debate when the evidence is overwhelming evidence of climate change).

I'm more vocal about and supportive because I fear that it is the climate change argument all over again. Where those that support it happily discuss what they think from their perception needs improvement (I'd be quite content to say that CAP needs looking at) but is then used by Brexiters to argue that Remainers aren't fully behind the EU; hence I take the very pro approach because doubt is 'jumped on' as evidence that I'm not really behind the EU (when the opposite is true). It's the same as arguing that I am not fully behind using Dwarfs in 8th Edition because I would like the Anvil of Doom to have been improved. It's nonsense but the black/white view can be much easier to ram down peoples throats than a considered discussion.

As ever, you are free to disagree, but to have so little overlap, we really must move through entirely different worlds. Isn't it funny that they only seem to overlap in the OT section of a wargaming forum?

That's not really a surprise, our principles are obviously different so we likely live in different circles; on the other hand you could be the person that walks the dog down the road for all I know!

You immediately class 'introversion' as 'stagnation', that the 'principles of yesterday are not going to be useful for tomorrow', that the mentality evolved is a 'dead end', and so forth. There's an extremely strong strand running through your comments that the principles of government and interaction with the outside world from the past are now obsolete (thereby implying that certain more 'modern' ones are not). You literally stated that it is 'no longer fit for the modern global world'. And so forth.

Ah, I see your issue. You are applying the human interpretation and positivity and negativity on words that I am using from a scientific perspective. I suppose it's partially my fault because I forget that interpretation can be key and that scientific way of using these words can be interpreted with a negative or positive spin on things:-

So to introversion and stagnation is just referring to that the UK is looking more to being concerned with itself and it's current desires with a lack of desire to change the current status quo (so introversion and stagnation) neither of which have either a 'positive', 'backward' 'progressive' or 'negative' interpretation with it.

The comments on principles of yesterday are not going to be useful for tomorrow refer to the fact that there are probably millions of different ways to 'operate' in the world (albeit likely lots of slight variations on the similar themes) and there are likely to millions of ways you can approach the world. Statistically speaking the method of working yesterday evolved to manage the circumstances of yesterday. Because there are so many statistical possibilities and combinations it is almost infinitesimally small that what was designed to work for yesterday will be the most effective way of working tomorrow - as a more practical example it's like using DOS (a mentality of working) with tomorrows computers (the way the world operates). Yes you can do it, but it's not likely to be the most efficient thing in the world! Hence why I am saying the "principles of yesterday are not going to be useful tomorrow" and that they are "no longer fit for the modern global world" is that simply they need to evolve and be changed to meet the way the world is currently to be most effective and efficient. It makes no assertions as to what these may be or whether they are progressive or not because simply the Universe doesn't care what happens, as it's all just a slow increase in entropy.

An evolutionary 'dead end' is scientific term. It refers to a situation and an animal that evolved together that find themselves in circumstances where they cannot evolve out of the niche they have found themselves in. Statistically there are vastly more circumstances where the a situation is unviable and only a few where the situation is viable. Hence any change of significance in the status quo (and statistically it will happen at some point) means those creatures become extinct ('the dead end'). So the comparison would be that a method of thinking can be that we become stagnant in an evolutionary dead end (ie. not change); and is a viable choice. But we don't know what will happen tomorrow and statistically there are is a much higher chance that the situation will change enough that this method of mentality simply dies off overnight. The alternative is that the method of thinking evolves which making it more adaptable to change whatever that might be. Neither are positive or negative, they both involve change eventually. It will be more dramatic for one, but there is obvious resistance to the other. However you are inferring that 'dead' is a negative connotation when it is just a state of being.

You need to stop reading the comments with a human head on I'm afraid and take them a bit more scientific literally, otherwise you interpreting things that are simply not there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 malamis wrote:
Incorrect;

The systematic elimination of the indigenous greenlanders due to a choice to apply the then-modern concepts of eugenics - which have since been disproven - directly and lastingly damaged their reproductive ability and economic stability, arguably until the present day. This, I would suggest from any perspective except Scandinavian imperialism, is a 'bad' change.

The politicising of vaccination ethics in the US and gradually abroad has given rise to a higher rate of preventable diseases which in turn have weighed down on an already overtaxed medical infrastructure has both directly and indirectly caused numerous deaths and extended or suspended medical treatment for individuals who may have otherwise contributed to the local/state/national/international economy. This is 'bad' for the US and arguably 'good' for the rest of the world as it could chip into the value of US exports, reducing their market share by like 0.1% in some areas.

History has indicated anyone who insists on change being either objectively good or amoral, should immediately be investigated as to their motives. Change is harm by it's very nature, and no-one can ever predict the full effects of even the slightest adjustment to *anything*. No-one has the right, though many have the authority, to carry it out on a population that can't resist it.

Sorry change happens. It's a fundamental law of physics. The universe is naturally increasing in entropy over time (called disorder). All physical processes result in a the change of energy from a high 'useful' state to a low 'useful' state simply because the low 'useful' state can be arrived arranged in much larger number of ways (take a sand castle, there is only one way to build the castle, but billions of ways of turning it into a pile of sand). From our perspective that means the person we were this morning is not the same as the one we are now. A few brain cells might have died off, a few more might have been grown and so on. That means we all fundamentally change over time and all these tiny little changes eventually build into bigger changes, views and perceptions.

Denying change is like denying that your light bulb or mobile phone works because it all works on the same principles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
We need a general election pronto. That scumbag Timmy Farron is arguing that we didn't know what we voted for and we need to be asked again. It's such a typical europhile response to an answer they don't like it's almost laughable, if it wasn't so disgustly insulting and slightly dangerous too.

Wouldn't you want to know what you are getting and a choice on it? Isn't that what people were espousing a Direct Democracy (or is it only when convenient?) What happens if May's final agreement favours just the banks whilst screwing over everybody else or requiring them to increase VAT to 30%. Yes you might be able to kick them out at the next GE (assuming you are in a Tory held area anyway) but you are still stuck with the agreement. Wouldn't you want the option of deciding whether you stay in, accept the agreement or just go WTO?

Or is it you just fear that the populations perception might have changed and then vote to stay in?

 Whirlwind wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 malamis wrote:
Incorrect;

The systematic elimination of the indigenous greenlanders due to a choice to apply the then-modern concepts of eugenics - which have since been disproven - directly and lastingly damaged their reproductive ability and economic stability, arguably until the present day. This, I would suggest from any perspective except Scandinavian imperialism, is a 'bad' change.

The politicising of vaccination ethics in the US and gradually abroad has given rise to a higher rate of preventable diseases which in turn have weighed down on an already overtaxed medical infrastructure has both directly and indirectly caused numerous deaths and extended or suspended medical treatment for individuals who may have otherwise contributed to the local/state/national/international economy. This is 'bad' for the US and arguably 'good' for the rest of the world as it could chip into the value of US exports, reducing their market share by like 0.1% in some areas.

History has indicated anyone who insists on change being either objectively good or amoral, should immediately be investigated as to their motives. Change is harm by it's very nature, and no-one can ever predict the full effects of even the slightest adjustment to *anything*. No-one has the right, though many have the authority, to carry it out on a population that can't resist it.

Sorry change happens. It's a fundamental law of physics. The universe is naturally increasing in entropy over time (called disorder). All physical processes result in a the change of energy from a high 'useful' state to a low 'useful' state simply because the low 'useful' state can be arrived arranged in much larger number of ways (take a sand castle, there is only one way to build the castle, but billions of ways of turning it into a pile of sand). From our perspective that means the person we were this morning is not the same as the one we are now. A few brain cells might have died off, a few more might have been grown and so on. That means we all fundamentally change over time and all these tiny little changes eventually build into bigger changes, views and perceptions.

Denying change is like denying that your light bulb or mobile phone works because it all works on the same principles.

Which is why we supply fuel rods to the nuclear reactor @ Hunterston B, decay and change does not automatically serve our purpose, only a continuation of an established order does it automatically, until acted upon by a harmful, external change. For the third time, it should be resisted on principle until it is certain that change serves to bring a net benefit, because since the established order was itself a change, itself harmful, and itself a reaction to decay none of which will necessarily go away just because there's something newer and shinier in play.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
We need a general election pronto. That scumbag Timmy Farron is arguing that we didn't know what we voted for and we need to be asked again. It's such a typical europhile response to an answer they don't like it's almost laughable, if it wasn't so disgustly insulting and slightly dangerous too.

But we don't. It's nearly 5 months later and we've still no idea what we've voted for. I don't agree that we should ask the question again, but there's no clear answer to "what is Brexit?"

 malamis wrote:


Which is why we supply fuel rods to the nuclear reactor @ Hunterston B, decay and change does not automatically serve our purpose, only a continuation of an established order does it automatically, until acted upon by a harmful, external change. For the third time, it should be resisted on principle until it is certain that change serves to bring a net benefit, because since the established order was itself a change, itself harmful, and itself a reaction to decay none of which will necessarily go away just because there's something newer and shinier in play.

That's an interesting comparison because regardless the uranium in those fuel rods are still decaying and changing even if you aren't using them. You can resist the need to use the power from those fuel rods but if you wait too long there might not be enough uranium left in them to be useful. Unless you are proposing that we can now control the weak force?

The point is that change happens. Resisting it is like trying to push water up stream, it will just go around you. You can either try and control and divert it to where you want it to go else it's likely just to sweep you away.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
We need a general election pronto. That scumbag Timmy Farron is arguing that we didn't know what we voted for and we need to be asked again. It's such a typical europhile response to an answer they don't like it's almost laughable, if it wasn't so disgustly insulting and slightly dangerous too.

But we don't. It's nearly 5 months later and we've still no idea what we've voted for. I don't agree that we should ask the question again, but there's no clear answer to "what is Brexit?"

I'm not sure May really wants to tell anyone. It's now becoming what May/Boris/Davis/Fox want rather than any real consideration of any other factors. Otherwise she might have to discuss and compromise rather than just do the best to maintain the Tory party's power base.

Its always going to be disscussed anyway in nagotiations, the point is if you set out (in public) your final possition your opposition will take that as his starting position.
You aim outragously high at the start then work though comprimise and negotiation to the final position which if done right will always be better than your bottom line. If your own side spill the beans so to speak even on a propsal it means theres more wriggle room for negotiation then your opponant will reject the deal and have to start again as he will know theres more to get. Its basic negotiation.
what hes asking for is public dissclosure of all the ins and outs of a deal that will not even be finalised, and remember the deals would have to be finilized by both partys, and as no trade deal has been made public by the eu to date(in detail) he is trying to shoot us in the foot (metaphoricaly)before things even start.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 malamis wrote:


Which is why we supply fuel rods to the nuclear reactor @ Hunterston B, decay and change does not automatically serve our purpose, only a continuation of an established order does it automatically, until acted upon by a harmful, external change. For the third time, it should be resisted on principle until it is certain that change serves to bring a net benefit, because since the established order was itself a change, itself harmful, and itself a reaction to decay none of which will necessarily go away just because there's something newer and shinier in play.

That's an interesting comparison because regardless the uranium in those fuel rods are still decaying and changing even if you aren't using them. You can resist the need to use the power from those fuel rods but if you wait too long there might not be enough uranium left in them to be useful. Unless you are proposing that we can now control the weak force?

The point is that change happens. Resisting it is like trying to push water up stream, it will just go around you. You can either try and control and divert it to where you want it to go else it's likely just to sweep you away.

Or, as I say, you can supply fuel to a reactor which will inevitably change to a shut down state otherwise. Thanks to current uranium mining methods and deposits this change can be resisted productively for the forseeable future, until a better change - i.e. fusion power, becomes commercially viable and of demonstrable and certifiable net benefit.

Or alternatively until the plant explodes. Since Hunterston is already the same age as Fukushima and has been extended several times because the change of introducing alternative energy was prematurly embraced with gusto in this country at the expense of new build nuclear plants.

Skullhammer wrote:
Its always going to be disscussed anyway in nagotiations, the point is if you set out (in public) your final possition your opposition will take that as his starting position.
You aim outragously high at the start then work though comprimise and negotiation to the final position which if done right will always be better than your bottom line. If your own side spill the beans so to speak even on a propsal it means theres more wriggle room for negotiation then your opponant will reject the deal and have to start again as he will know theres more to get. Its basic negotiation.
what hes asking for is public dissclosure of all the ins and outs of a deal that will not even be finalised, and remember the deals would have to be finilized by both partys, and as no trade deal has been made public by the eu to date(in detail) he is trying to shoot us in the foot (metaphoricaly)before things even start.

It's not the only way to negotiate. The above assumes that both parties are out to equally screw each over (and even when there is a settlement both sides will always be wondering whether they were). On the other hand I'm a proponent of 'open and honest' negotiations because it has always served me well in getting an agreement that both parties are happy with. Both parties come with a set of things they think should be suitable for the agreement (being realistic) in detail explaining why (and what benefits they think that brings to both sides). Then you take way each others ideas and reviews them assess the impacts on your side and go back and find which are mutually agreeable and which need to be worked on.

The idea that both sides need to go into negotiations suspicious of each other is a fallacy (and probably perpetuated by TV programmes) but you always get a much better less defensive relationship if you trust in the other sides integrity. Having a key set of principles is not a bad thing (a business plan of sorts) that is agreed by parliament but which government are allowed to negotiate around as long as it doesn't breach the fundamental conditions (e.g. say EU citizens should continue to have free movement).