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.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
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.

Exactly. The single market is the lifeblood of the EU. I voted to leave the EU, and as far as I'm concerned, that included the single market.


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.

Farron's defence of Alistair Carmichael is also nauseating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 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?

I'm going on my own experiences here and a large dose of anecdotal evidence. But IMO, and I'm not saying this about every Remain voter, Remain voters were more concerned about losing money due to economic uncertainty, rather than the defence of a Grand European Project.

Leave voters I met banged on about democracy, Brussels judges etc etc

I agree to a degree there whrilwind but thats not what farron wants he wants a referendum on the final deal. But what would the question be as the deal would/could cover everything from movement of people and their rights to safty regs on matchsticks or potatoes.

That is going to be one hell of a ballot question. And of course what happens if some items are passed but others arent or only just will there be court cases and calls for a rerun. Plus are people all that clued up on international trade rules/regs.

To me it seems just another way to stall and pull out the 'you wanted democracy you got it' in spades. As has been said the uk is a parlimentary democracy and only the very biggest of things go to referenda and even then rarely this move is heading for a direct democracy ala 1984. Though given his pledge to stop brexit i'm not really suprised at this move.

Hopefully the people in parliment who deal with this stuff will sort it out, after all thats what they will be getting paid for. Brexit will never be easy but its what the majority of those who voted wanted for the united kingdom.

Skullhammer wrote:
I agree to a degree there whrilwind but thats not what farron wants he wants a referendum on the final deal. But what would the question be as the deal would/could cover everything from movement of people and their rights to safty regs on matchsticks or potatoes.

That is going to be one hell of a ballot question. And of course what happens if some items are passed but others arent or only just will there be court cases and calls for a rerun. Plus are people all that clued up on international trade rules/regs.

To me it seems just another way to stall and pull out the 'you wanted democracy you got it' in spades. As has been said the uk is a parlimentary democracy and only the very biggest of things go to referenda and even then rarely this move is heading for a direct democracy ala 1984. Though given his pledge to stop brexit i'm not really suprised at this move.

Hopefully the people in parliment who deal with this stuff will sort it out, after all thats what they will be getting paid for. Brexit will never be easy but its what the majority of those who voted wanted for the united kingdom.

As I've said before, people like Tim Farron forget there are two parties in this negotiation.

They can bang on about Parliamentary sovereignty until the cows come home, but if the French and Germans say NEIN and NON, then British Parliamentary sovereignty, which carries no water with France or Germany, ain't worth a bucket of horsegak.

And even if they do agree a deal, there's no guarantee that some 2 man devolved Parliament in outer Estonia won't Veto the agreement

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Exactly. The single market is the lifeblood of the EU. I voted to leave the EU, and as far as I'm concerned, that included the single market.

Yet for some (ancillary evidence from someone I know) there are people that voted to Leave to reduce some specific types of paperwork but still want access to the Free market and EU workforce. This is part of the problem that you now have. There is no consensus on what leaving the EU should be. For some it's anti-immigration; some anti some form of paperwork; and so on.

I'm going on my own experiences here and a large dose of anecdotal evidence. But IMO, and I'm not saying this about every Remain voter, Remain voters were more concerned about losing money due to economic uncertainty, rather than the defence of a Grand European Project.

Leave voters I met banged on about democracy, Brussels judges etc etc

So they wanted out because they felt they had less control, isn't that still voting on the basis of self-interest?

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Exactly. The single market is the lifeblood of the EU. I voted to leave the EU, and as far as I'm concerned, that included the single market.

Yet for some (ancillary evidence from someone I know) there are people that voted to Leave to reduce some specific types of paperwork but still want access to the Free market and EU workforce. This is part of the problem that you now have. There is no consensus on what leaving the EU should be. For some it's anti-immigration; some anti some form of paperwork; and so on.

I'm going on my own experiences here and a large dose of anecdotal evidence. But IMO, and I'm not saying this about every Remain voter, Remain voters were more concerned about losing money due to economic uncertainty, rather than the defence of a Grand European Project.

Leave voters I met banged on about democracy, Brussels judges etc etc

So they wanted out because they felt they had less control, isn't that still voting on the basis of self-interest?

Yes, technically, it is self-interest.

But when I campaign for what I believe to be the preservation of British democracy, I'm also trying to protect your democratic rights as well.

National self interest trumps individual self-interest in my book.

I'm not accusing you of this, but say you voted Remain because you were worried about your mortgage. Well, your mortgage is only of use to you, not me, therefore I judge my motives to be 'superior' in a sense, as I'm thinking of the 'greater good.'

YMMV.

Naturally, it's all subjective, but I hope that makes sense!

Skullhammer wrote:
I agree to a degree there whrilwind but thats not what farron wants he wants a referendum on the final deal. But what would the question be as the deal would/could cover everything from movement of people and their rights to safty regs on matchsticks or potatoes.

That is going to be one hell of a ballot question. And of course what happens if some items are passed but others arent or only just will there be court cases and calls for a rerun. Plus are people all that clued up on international trade rules/regs.

No you would never put all the options on a ballot paper; just three:- Stay In; Accept the deal as agreed; Don't accept the deal as agreed and go full WTO.

That would allow the populace to decide between the options and at least have a more reasoned argument (though I have no doubt Farage will pull the Nazi poster back out). One of the fundamental arguments against what happened during the summer was that the Leave proponents completely failed to provide any realistic expectations of what Leave meant. Having this referendum would at least mitigate this argument.

And I ask again. If Leave is so confident that people want to Leave the EU then a second referendum should not make any difference should it?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Yes, technically, it is self-interest.

But when I campaign for what I believe to be the preservation of British democracy, I'm also trying to protect your democratic rights as well.

National self interest trumps individual self-interest in my book.

Naturally, it's all subjective, but I hope that makes sense!

It's fine, it does!

But then did you ask me what I understood as my democratic rights? What makes your decision for me the right one. As far as I am concerned I think my democratic rights are better protected by being in the EU along with environmental and legal and freedom of expression. [Note the following is not meant as a personal attack, more of questioning of the implications if you see what I mean] What gives you the right to determine what is best for me? Surely that is for me to make a decision on? Otherwise are we not just saying that some people should just have the right to determine that their views are right on behalf of everyone; and where does that lead us? Did you simply vote on the principle that it was best for everyone, how did you know this, did you ask? Is this just not enforcing your world view on others; where does this end? At what point do people start deciding that gay conversion therapy is best for a proportion of the population (note I'm not accusing anyone of this apart from a certain vice president who supports it!) because they believe that is in the best national interest? Surely the best thing is to only vote on behalf of yourself and your views (and maybe minors) rather than try and do it 'for the people'.

A bit daft to say that Leave should have had a had a defined position when it was a disparate collection of individuals as opposed to the status quo position.

The fault here is squarely with David Cameron who deliberately engendered a disorganised Leave opponent for himself and should have defined or at least outlined alternatives.

As for the rest: no do overs!

 Whirlwind wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
I agree to a degree there whrilwind but thats not what farron wants he wants a referendum on the final deal. But what would the question be as the deal would/could cover everything from movement of people and their rights to safty regs on matchsticks or potatoes.

That is going to be one hell of a ballot question. And of course what happens if some items are passed but others arent or only just will there be court cases and calls for a rerun. Plus are people all that clued up on international trade rules/regs.

No you would never put all the options on a ballot paper; just three:- Stay In; Accept the deal as agreed; Don't accept the deal as agreed and go full WTO.

That would allow the populace to decide between the options and at least have a more reasoned argument (though I have no doubt Farage will pull the Nazi poster back out). One of the fundamental arguments against what happened during the summer was that the Leave proponents completely failed to provide any realistic expectations of what Leave meant. Having this referendum would at least mitigate this argument.

And I ask again. If Leave is so confident that people want to Leave the EU then a second referendum should not make any difference should it?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Yes, technically, it is self-interest.

But when I campaign for what I believe to be the preservation of British democracy, I'm also trying to protect your democratic rights as well.

National self interest trumps individual self-interest in my book.

Naturally, it's all subjective, but I hope that makes sense!

It's fine, it does!

But then did you ask me what I understood as my democratic rights? What makes your decision for me the right one. As far as I am concerned I think my democratic rights are better protected by being in the EU along with environmental and legal and freedom of expression. [Note the following is not meant as a personal attack, more of questioning of the implications if you see what I mean] What gives you the right to determine what is best for me? Surely that is for me to make a decision on? Otherwise are we not just saying that some people should just have the right to determine that their views are right on behalf of everyone; and where does that lead us? Did you simply vote on the principle that it was best for everyone, how did you know this, did you ask? Is this just not enforcing your world view on others; where does this end? At what point do people start deciding that gay conversion therapy is best for a proportion of the population (note I'm not accusing anyone of this apart from a certain vice president who supports it!) because they believe that is in the best national interest? Surely the best thing is to only vote on behalf of yourself and your views (and maybe minors) rather than try and do it 'for the people'.

We can tie ourselves up in knots about this, so let's agree to disagree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
A bit daft to say that Leave should have had a had a defined position when it was a disparate collection of individuals as opposed to the status quo position.

The fault here is squarely with David Cameron who deliberately engendered a disorganised Leave opponent for himself and should have defined or at least outlined alternatives.

As for the rest: no do overs!

Didn't Cameron say he would active Article 50 on June 24th?

Instead, and true to form, he abandoned ship.

But when I campaign for what I believe to be the preservation of British democracy, I'm also trying to protect your democratic rights as well.

National self interest trumps individual self-interest in my book.

And global self interest trumps national self interest surely? The weakening/humiliation of Germany after the First World War was in the national interests of the Triple Entente. The result of this was an even bigger war twenty years later.

Conversely when national interest isn't taken into account or is at least partially ignored in favour of a common good we can see a distinct lack of conflict in Europe over the last sixty years which has befitted us all.
Now I'm not saying that there would be a third European war because of Brexit, but a European commonwealth that Britain is part of and that is actually quite democratic (contrary to popular media opinion) makes it even less likely.

I'll get off my soapbox now lol.

 notprop wrote:
A bit daft to say that Leave should have had a had a defined position when it was a disparate collection of individuals as opposed to the status quo position.
The fault here is squarely with David Cameron who deliberately engendered a disorganised Leave opponent for himself and should have defined or at least outlined alternatives.

I see, do you actually make any proper decisions in life or do you just make it up as you go along? I'm glad to see that you are happy to let politicians determine that things are best for the country on soundbites and misinformation. Your argument makes no sense. With this thinking the Tory party should write the Labour manifesto so they can outline the alternative

As for the rest: no do overs!

Yes a sound argument. I congratulate you on providing such a reasoned and rationale argument for why, as a Leaver, you think there is no reason for a second referendum to determine the best approach. Why don't you apply for a civil servant job for Brexit negotiations as I'm sure the UK government will consider "no do overs!" to be a sound negotiating strategy.

Magister wrote:

But when I campaign for what I believe to be the preservation of British democracy, I'm also trying to protect your democratic rights as well.

National self interest trumps individual self-interest in my book.

And global self interest trumps national self interest surely? The weakening/humiliation of Germany after the First World War was in the national interests of the Triple Entente. The result of this was an even bigger war twenty years later.

Conversely when national interest isn't taken into account or is at least partially ignored in favour of a common good we can see a distinct lack of conflict in Europe over the last sixty years which has befitted us all.
Now I'm not saying that there would be a third European war because of Brexit, but a European commonwealth that Britain is part of and that is actually quite democratic (contrary to popular media opinion) makes it even less likely.

I'll get off my soapbox now lol.

Naturally, we have the benefit of hindsight, but WW2 was not inevitable IMO. It could have been prevented by a number of factors, and small events going the other way. But that's all academic.

As for your other point, ironically, a United States of Europe, even with goals of peace and justice, could paradoxically led to trouble, if people think they are cut off from the decision making process.

I don't doubt the genuine desire of the EU founding fathers to preserve peace and prevent another war. It is a noble aim, but ultimately, it was a good idea that was badly executed.

An old cliche, but sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 notprop wrote:
A bit daft to say that Leave should have had a had a defined position when it was a disparate collection of individuals as opposed to the status quo position.
The fault here is squarely with David Cameron who deliberately engendered a disorganised Leave opponent for himself and should have defined or at least outlined alternatives.

I see, do you actually make any proper decisions in life or do you just make it up as you go along? I'm glad to see that you are happy to let politicians determine that things are best for the country on soundbites and misinformation. Your argument makes no sense. With this thinking the Tory party should write the Labour manifesto so they can outline the alternative

As for the rest: no do overs!

Yes a sound argument. I congratulate you on providing such a reasoned and rationale argument for why, as a Leaver, you think there is no reason for a second referendum to determine the best approach. Why don't you apply for a civil servant job for Brexit negotiations as I'm sure the UK government will consider "no do overs!" to be a sound negotiating strategy.

Go easy on Notprop. Newspapers are saying the building trade is slowing down a bit. That's going to impact on his champagne supplies

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


We can tie ourselves up in knots about this, so let's agree to disagree.

OK lets keep it simple. You were arguing that you were doing it on my behalf. Why and what makes it you think you need to do that when I had my own vote?

Instead, and true to form, he abandoned ship.

Whilst whistling as he knew he'd just divided and damaged the country for a generation.

 Whirlwind wrote:

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).

There are broadly speaking two possible styles of negotiation. One is the negotiation you have with your local off-licence, where you go several times a week to buy drinks, and know the staff and they know you, and as a loyal customer you and they expect to have many more mutually satisfactory transactions in the future. In this kind of negotiation there is a mutual understanding and a give and take so that both parties are satisfied and want to continue with more similar negotiations in the future.

The other style of negotiation is with a car salesman. You probably aren't ever going to see him again in your life so you don't give a feth about how pissed off he might be by the results, and you rip the feth out of him at every opportunity. Go near the end of the month when you know he is likely to be hurting to complete a sale and hit his target numbers. Get every possible bit of benefit, then wait until you are about to sign, then ask for the new car to be handed over with a full fuel tank. Etc, etc.

Brexit and Trump in an historical context....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-stone/history-tells-us-what-will-brexit-trump_b_11179774.html

I can certainly see the historical cycles coming around. A humiliated, and defeated Russia, working towards rebuilding it's national pride, a divided, fracturing West and an appeaser in Trump. Music to Putins ears. A westward movement from the Russians is practically guaranteed.
All the time Trump is winding up the Chinese as the new real threat. I see a shift change in real world politics and conflict in the next few years.

Also, this article is particularly interesting to me....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election

Just like Labour, it seems that traditional socialists have lost their way. I hesitate to say it, but I think it's down to the new breed of politicians of the last few decades. The Tories and republicans have always been toffs, Eton educated and the like, but socialist, working class politicians should come from working class backgrounds, most are now over-educated, career politicians, or ex-jurno students.
That's OK if you believe in the fantasy trickle down policies of the Rees-Moggs of the world, but if you want to represent the working class, you should, at the very least, have actually worked for a living before entering the political arena and have an understanding of the people you claim to represent.
It feels like the left has been hijacked by an elite intelligentsia, and the recent drubbing the left has received is a response to this.
The tories knew what they were doing when they destroyed the unions, that was the traditional entry point to politics for the working classes. We need to find an alternative, or bring the unions back. Otherwise barking dog shitehouses like Farage are going to continue to sweep up, and the working class are going to continue to be represented by middle class boggle eyed chancers, or well meaning, but ultimately drippy liberals.

Does that argument really work out considering Theresa May is currently Prime Minister, with the additional efforts she has been making to diversify the cabinet?

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 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....

You might want to read my post again. I wasn't saying the EU will endure, I was saying that pointing to the past as an argument as for why claiming the EU will collapse with certainty doesn't work.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 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.

I don't know why I'm bothering responding to someone who clearly doesn't want people disagreeing too much with him, but I'd very much like to know how China and France (especially historically!) are states that have "shared cultures, languages and identities developed gradually over a millennia". China's got a silly amount of different cultures and languages, and France still can't decide on what should count as "official" French. The argument that nation-states have to be homogenous for stability clearly isn't true. If nothing else, the US is still kicking after more than 200 years.

For that matter, the Roman Empire lasted for a few hundred years, the East Roman Empire for a millennium, and the Holy Roman Empire, despite being made up by a hodge-podge of smaller states, lasted for almost 900 years. You're cherry-picking historical examples to argue that the EU is doomed.

Except the Roman Empire went through several massive issues for hundreds of years. Actually it was killed off by excessive immigration. And both of them had centralised governments which were built from the ground up, not several states that decided to work together.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Except the Roman Empire went through several massive issues for hundreds of years. Actually it was killed off by excessive immigration. And both of them had centralised governments which were built from the ground up, not several states that decided to work together.

Which would destroy my argument if I were arguing that history tells us that the EU will be just fine. That's not what I'm doing though; I'm arguing against the argument that history teaches us that every centralized power is doomed to collapse under its own weight, because it absolutely doesn't. The Aztec and Mayan empires, for instance, certainly didn't collapse under their own weight; they were eradicated by the Conquistadors. If anything, history teaches us that when faced with crises centralized powers sometimes feth up and collapse and sometimes don't.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Except the Roman Empire went through several massive issues for hundreds of years. Actually it was killed off by excessive immigration. And both of them had centralised governments which were built from the ground up, not several states that decided to work together.

Yes, the Huns under Attila invaded Europe, which drove the Gothic tribes into the empire which eventually resulted in the sacking of Rome. Now it's wrong to say that this was the end of the empire there and then, but it was definitely a mortal blow it never recovered from.

Is history about to repeat itself with the EU? I don't know. I do know that Merkal and the EU's stupidity with regards to the refugee crisis isn't endearing anyone to the project.

Lets also not forget that the Romans settled large numbers of "barbarians" very successfully for hundreds of years, in large part by negotiation and spreading their settlement thinly across many different lands. The problem came when they had big groups come in that they didnt split up and treated like total garbage.

Then of course there were the issues of native romans/italians not wanting to do any of the fighting themselves anymore and increasingly outsourcing that, coupled with major land and wealth inequalities internally that had caused major strife for centuries (nothing like doing your 20 years only to come home and find your farm repo'd and bought by a large patrician landowner who then *generously* offers to rent it back to you) and huge labor issues caused by gluts of slaves driving down labor costs.

 r_squared wrote:
Brexit and Trump in an historical context....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-stone/history-tells-us-what-will-brexit-trump_b_11179774.html

I can certainly see the historical cycles coming around. A humiliated, and defeated Russia, working towards rebuilding it's national pride, a divided, fracturing West and an appeaser in Trump. Music to Putins ears. A westward movement from the Russians is practically guaranteed.
All the time Trump is winding up the Chinese as the new real threat. I see a shift change in real world politics and conflict in the next few years.

The similarities with the 1920 and 30s are definitely there to see. Even down to papers calling judges 'enemy of the state'. Maybe this time there will be enough people that recognise the historic similarities that we stop before we go far, but I fear it might not be the case. Maybe it is excessive fear and I do hope it is. However it would start making some tentative plans as to where you might go if it all goes to hell. Europe, America and Russia or China are all likely to be radioactive wastelands so Africa or South America might be the best bet! As one of the liberal educated people it refers about id prefer not to have an early grave!

On the other hand maybe Star Trek got it right after all!

 Compel wrote:
Does that argument really work out considering Theresa May is currently Prime Minister, with the additional efforts she has been making to diversify the cabinet?

Because being the middle class daughter of a vicar from oxfordshire who worked for the bank of England before entering politics in the mid 80's makes her representative of the working class?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/who-is-in-new-prime-minister-theresa-mays-cabinet/

Her cabinet isn't much better, a nice selection of career politicians, ex-investment bankers, company directors, journalists, financiers, corporate communications workers, solicitors and lawyers.

Only one member, Patrick McLoughlin was a manual worker, being an ex-agricultural worker and miner in the late 70s and early 80s.

I'm not sure that's a diverse representation of the population.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


I don't know why I'm bothering responding to someone who clearly doesn't want people disagreeing too much with him

Welcome to the world of being pro-EU in Wrexit land!

 Whirlwind wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


I don't know why I'm bothering responding to someone who clearly doesn't want people disagreeing too much with him

Welcome to the world of being pro-EU in Wrexit land!

I don't think that's a fair argument. There's been plenty of feth-ups on the remain side as well, generalisations won't bring anything useful to the thread.

I think you're right, however, FWC doesn't like to hear things that don't fit his worldview, including from his own family.

Apparently he believes that you can learn much more from hearing your own beliefs reflected back at you and amplified, than from debating with other people.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 notprop wrote:
A bit daft to say that Leave should have had a had a defined position when it was a disparate collection of individuals as opposed to the status quo position.
The fault here is squarely with David Cameron who deliberately engendered a disorganised Leave opponent for himself and should have defined or at least outlined alternatives.

I see, do you actually make any proper decisions in life or do you just make it up as you go along? I'm glad to see that you are happy to let politicians determine that things are best for the country on soundbites and misinformation. Your argument makes no sense. With this thinking the Tory party should write the Labour manifesto so they can outline the alternative

As for the rest: no do overs!

Yes a sound argument. I congratulate you on providing such a reasoned and rationale argument for why, as a Leaver, you think there is no reason for a second referendum to determine the best approach. Why don't you apply for a civil servant job for Brexit negotiations as I'm sure the UK government will consider "no do overs!" to be a sound negotiating strategy.

Blimey, are you upset feller?

Whatever my point it seems to have distracted you from long winded pontificating. I call that a win!

In other news Nicola Sturgeon has called for a re-run of this evenings football game on account of Scotland not getting the result they wanted in the face of unfair English opposition. Jeremy Corbyn wasn't avaiable for comment.

 Whirlwind wrote:

But again, it's all anecdotal.

Of course. That goes without saying, but I'm discussing my view of my society as I understand it through my continual interactions with it. Hence the 'we'. You are, as I keep saying, free to disagree, but as the lone voice in my sensory input with that opinion (out of many, many Remain voters and articles read), you'll forgive me if I allocate that opinion the appropriate weight.

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.

I hate to say this, but I understood every word I just read there, and it sounds like the biggest load of pseudo-scientific backtracking I've heard this month. You're trying to cover up with about eighty five different metaphors/vague allusions to science the simple fact that you quite literally have written a determinist account.

To quote your previous statement again:-

The principles of yesterday are not going to be as useful for tomorrow

Says who? Who determines that? International relations and politics/circumstance are not DOS; they have completely different and varying input/output in any given real life occurrence of it, be it in the same year or a hundred apart. The only way to claim that the vaguely formulated principles/philosophies of the past will not be as useful tomorrow, is if you know precisely what will occur tomorrow and the chain of results which could occur from any given infinite outcome of applied actions.

Claiming you were just saying that they need to change and adapted to be most 'efficient and effective' to meet the way 'the world is currently', is not only a cop-out, it just raises further problems.I mean, to look at another of your statements

However the way our mentality evolved is no longer fit for the modern global world.

Why does the 'modernity' of the global world factor into the equation as opposed to the 'modernity' of the 1980's, the 1960's, or the 1890's? Or even the 'modernity' of 2050? What, when you get down to it, even is the 'modern' or 'current' world, ? The world of right now? The world of five years ago? The world of five years hence? Not only that, who determines the criteria as to what is 'fit' and what the desirable outcomes are? That's a pretty subjective view of things to begin with. I daresay Putin's ideal view of the world and the most 'efficient' outcome is a damn sight different to yours.

Everything you have written is tainted with determinism and a whiggish perspective. You see the world evolving down a specific route, you judge everything by a 'modern' perspective, and believe as many, many did before you, that your position atop culture, superior morals, and technology allows you to see further than those before you. You'll deny it, but it's implicit in absolutely everything you write.

The only certainty about the future that you and I possess, is that we haven't a clue what will and won't happen, what is and is not the most 'effective' or 'efficient' solution to any future problem, and that there ultimately is no 'correct', 'less correct' or 'incorrect' solution, because what actually is a 'solution; changes depending on the person considering it.

I'll leave this one regardless of your response, because if you can't or won't see what's in your own words, and the motivations behind them, no essay of mine will convince you otherwise.

 notprop wrote:
...In other news Nicola Sturgeon has called for a re-run of this evenings football game on account of Scotland not getting the result they wanted in the face of unfair English opposition. Jeremy Corbyn wasn't avaiable for comment.

I'm not worried, let them have another go if they like.

It's weird how confidence in your position means you don't mind letting your opponents have another try. Only those holding onto a tenuous position have anything to worry about.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


I don't think that's a fair argument. There's been plenty of feth-ups on the remain side as well, generalisations won't bring anything useful to the thread.

I can definitely get behind this. The continual generalisations thrown by both sides irritates me no end. Exalted.

Catching up on the last couple of pages, and I'm confused as feth. One moment people are comparing current events to the 1920's and 30's and the rise of Nazi Germany*. And then the next minute,the same people are saying the principles of the past are no longer relevant.

*I actually agree with the comparison to the 20's and 30's.