Actually there's not really more incentive to stay in the EU because of wage. And in fact the correlation between wage and vote is less strong than between education and vote



This suggests that this correlation is caused by the relationship between income and average education - rather than the other way round.

The fact is there isn't a valid argument to leave the EU, and the propaganda has literally been horrendous lies along with some patriotic chest-beating and it has fucked us over

I really didn't want to have any involvement with this horrible thread. -_-

"Higher education" simply means they have A levels or equivalent - in other words it fits within the free education you could get until you hit 19.
Formal qualifications can not only be acquired within a person's free education at colleges if you decide to not go down the A level -> university route; you can also gain them during work based training and other such things.
Basically the graph shows that a large portion of the leave voters come from areas where the majority of the population sat on their arse after finishing their compulsory education (providing they actually did complete it) and did nothing to better themselves, including avoiding training schemes that would've gained them qualifications as well as a bit of extra money while doing them.
They could've also gone down the route of getting qualifications as part of "back to work" schemes designed to help people with poor education get things they my have missed a chance of getting previously, be it GCSE level or college.

There's no excuse for being poorly educated here. If you're old enough to vote, then you're old enough to have had a chance at getting a better education.

Money =/= a good education. It's down to how much effort you're willing to put in, even if it means working to pay for it.
I paid for mine despite having an affluent background so I fail to see any excuse when the "poor little rich kid" did something that others refused to.

You could say they're the same people complaining that foreign workers are stealing their jobs, but spend their lives sponging off everyone else and only put effort into declaring their hate for everyone that's obviously to blame for their problems...
But that would just be conjecture wouldn't it?

I put my vote on stay. Why? Because I have far more respect for my income & I'm not an idiot that falls for the tabloid level "facts" that are being tossed around by the pro leave neo-nazi party Sorry, we're not allowed to call them that are we. ¬_¬

I agree with pretty much everything here but higher education is the next step after a level, a level is not included. This can be uni, apprenticeship or other, the points made remaim very much the same though


And @money=/= a good education, of course - the reason there is correlation between the 2 is that people from more fortunate backgrounds are likely to get more support at home as their parents (being affluent) have likely gone through education and see it as important, so this is passed on to their children. Of course not all cases fit this but thats why there is a weak correlation between household income and levels of education

I wrote this last night, it is a bit ranty, but it took me a lot of time, it probably doesn't acknowledge how fast the petition has now started getting signatures since I was not aware of that last night anyway:

Ok, this is going to be a very long post, initially simply asserting that mallymkun lives in a fantasy dream land of hypocrisy and under informed delusions where he is somehow able to extrapolate definite outcomes when even professional experts in those fields are unable to. I would also like to assert that he should feel like a very silly sausage indeed, along with a lot of the leave campaign, but that would be very off topic and would take a lot of time.

So, you start your argument congratulating Nigel Farage on dedicating 10 years to bettering Britain by leading us to vote leave. Bearing in mind that when he promised to leave UKIP if it didn't win, as a way to better his own political standing (and by extension career prospects), he came back after a Summer long "break", I don't think we should trust him to properly think out what would happen if his promise to get Britain to leave the EU ended up actually happening, as they have. The promise to leave the EU was a fantastic way to improve his career as well. I am not saying he was only doing to help himself, he could well believe that this is the best thing for the country, I just don't want him to start campaigning to rejoin the EU after the summer has ended, and in general I trust his word less than other politicians.


All politicians could qualify as liars, and he obviously has a shit tonne of charisma, even people who hate him should be able to see why he is currently relevant politically. Look how well Hitler did (not implying there is a similarity in character at all in any way, only leave campaigners would use Nazi Germany and a politically relevant parallel to this referendum, and I clearly am not them. It is just an example of someone being liked for their scare mongering (oh no the Jews and communists vs. oh no the greedy job stealing immigrants), their oppositional patriotism, and their ridiculous quantities of charisma).


Useless post, what he was asking was obvious and explaining something you asked about was a move to speed up the discussion which you used to hold back the conversation with redundant pedantry.


That is what the leave campaigners want, it is an area which inspires emotion rather than rationality. Although, to be fair, the main merits of the remain campaign were avoiding the fear of the unknown, but in general, caution makes sense when fear of the unknown is what will drive the majority (as has been demonstrated by the drop of the pound) of potential investors now.


Slippery slope fallacy (I am linking, because, even especially with you accusing other people of it, I still am not persuaded you have any idea what it actual means/applies to), (as has been argued throughout the thread) Turkey is not definitely going to join in a few years, I don't know how likely it is and I am not going to pretend to, but you shouldn't either. So even at the first step in this, actually pretty long, chain of events, your assertion is much less certain than you would imply. Next is everyone else leaving EU, and Britain with it, I couldn't find any really useful articles on how prominent these campaigns were before Brexit happened (because, obviously, all the media outlets have "leave" and "EU" as keywords for all of the articles on Brexit itself, so articles on anything completely disappear), but I feel like that probably means you didn't either, and are assuming that these countries would have done the same as Britain is we ourselves hadn't left, because your delusion demands that you forget that the vote was close in Britain was reasonably close, that other countries in Europe are different enough from England for their actions to be predictive of each other, and that, in general, when it is old verses young demographic of voters, the vote is much less predictable, as stuff like whether it is raining could sway a vote (young people are more likely to not bother voting as a result of something small and unpredictable, because their risk reward system is in favour of taking larger risks for less reward, so they are likely to assume that the reward of getting to stay at home and play video games or w/e is worth the risk of feeling like an idiot when the vote goes differently to how they wanted, especially bearing in mind that the polling predicted the vote to be very close, and the historical evidence of Scotland's referendum switching from appearing to be similarly very close to strongly in favour of staying, both point towards a decent majority on the remain side. Combine this with the fact that young people will have been less likely to have had something like this happen before (not voting for something because they didn't think it would count, and then being proven wrong), it is clear that one side of the vote will be very unpredictable and be effected by stuff like whether any football matches are on the TV ect.). Essentially, your assumption that other countries would have left anyway is genuinely offensive to me as someone who actually thinks about their views before asserting them as the obvious, victorious, unassailable and perfect truth. You can't assert that another country would have left, and although it is obviously possibly, this is already relying on Turkey joining, which you also can't assert.


What? The fact that we are allowed to leave, and chose to enter, means it can only be undemocratic in a way which only damages representation rather than actual freedom. Bear in mind that I am not questioning the lack of representation part of democracy, partially because I don't know a lot about the specifics of the system itself, so am avoiding making conclusions based on them, and partially because that line of argument has been being discussed by other people for a while without my involvement and I don't have much to add. Also remember that if you make democracy more representative, you will inevitably end up with a frankenstein of policies, where every nut job is represented (I don't want to make Hitler a recurring theme, but it is the only example of a more representative election system that I have been taught. I admit that it may qualify as anecdotal if it is the only example of this happening). In terms of the freedom thing, we democratically opted into a system which the populace of the country at the time believed would be the best option, either for themselves, their country or the world in general. We have been quite content with this system until now, so we have voted to leave. Just because you are free to do something, doesn't mean it is bad that you can't do it. You make some sacrifices for other countries and they make some for you, kind of like a marriage. I feel like at this point you might strawman this argument as me assuming that this relationship works, and that I have an issue with the suggestion that it might not, but I have not, at any point, criticised you specifically for arguing that the positives of the EU outweigh the negatives, because that is the only thing you should be arguing about (and to be fair you actually have been). What I am not at all ok with is you arguing that the ideals of democracy count as one of the advantages of leaving the EU, because complete democracy has no inherent advantage in and of itself. Democracy may lead to advantages for the the people within it in certain situations, and arguing about the material manifestations of these advantages, as a result of escaping the manacles of underrepresentation, is completely ok, but you didn't you just stated that there is more democracy if we leave the EU and left it there, because in your fantasy world all that matters is how free you are. I would rather be forced to have a shit tonne of profitable trading agreements than be free to try to make the most of many fewer available deals while trying to survive our currency plummeting in value. This might not be true to the situation, but the point is that you should've been talking about these trade deals rather than your silly freedom malarky. SO STOP TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRACY AS AN OBJECTIVE, NON SITUATIONAL ADVANTAGE TO THIS.


There is a lot of hyperbole on the internet, but please believe me when I say that I literally feel like crying right now. HOW IS A COUNTRY CHANGING OVER A 20 YEAR PERIOD HARDER TO BELIEVE THAN THAT COUNTRY GOING FROM NEARLY HAVING FREE VISAS TO BEING A MEMBER OF THE EU, AND THEN EVERYONE OTHER THAN ENGLAND ABANDONING SHIP BECAUSE OF IT


Every argument finishes with democracy, because in your delusions that is "what is right" but again, is it right that when we leave there is a fair chance a massive body of laws protecting workers rights, or the environment (I'm talking global warming and smog stuff, I don't give a fuck about how many animals we kill), will just disappear? Again, this maybe it is, I don't know, I haven't looked into it, but the point is that you don't care if decent working conditions are the right thing to do, all you care about is whether those workers a suffering because of democracy. Fucking over the working class with freedom still counts as fucking them over, and you didn't even consider that as a possibility.


That is what people do when they believe the person they are talking to is either an idiot, or is not listening. Even if you are not an idiot and you were listening, him covering himself in case you were, in a way that would prevent the discussion going in circles, is not something you should try to use as a counterargument (the rest of this post was fine tbh).


There are still international conventions though, we should start campaigning against them. Like mallymkun explained, we don't need any more reasons than freedom right? What's wrong with using chemical weapons if you are using them with your freedom?


It doesn't have to be as far-fetched as he was making out, the probability of this happening combined with the probability of a knock on effect of long-term, unavoidable economic stability in the EU is by no means clearly more probably than economic change happening to a country in turmoil over 20 years.


Don't you mean FREEDOM DEMOCRACY trading verses evil baby murdering dictatorship trading? I know this argument is blatant hyperbole on my part, and probably a strawman as a result, but my point is that there is no intrinsic moral or material advantages to particular ways of doing things, it is the things that they manage to and aim to achieve that are important, and only those things. Communism is genuinely a beautiful idea, and true communism doesn't actually involve a dictator because they expect everyone to just organise themselves eventually, after they realise how great sharing it. What happens when you apply to the real world? Its just a new type of dictatorship with more poverty and less individuality. Ideologies are not what feed people, and feeding people should be a focus for your morality system if you have one (as in I would assume that it is, rather than I think it would be better if it was, I don't judge morality).




Oh no, America seeing EU as an extremely beneficial trading partner and subsequently following some of its policies in return? How 'dread'ful! This is how agreements work, America does favours for them, and in return a (supposedly) mutually beneficial deal is made between both involved parties. To be fair, I would be willing to believe you that America's concerns that we shouldn't leave the EU might be genuine, other than the fact that America (apparently not so free after all aye?) is literally trying to get involved in the EU, so obviously do not think it is a sinking ship.


Refusing to do something because of the possibility that it might be taken advantage of, rather than waiting until something is actually being taken advantage of first. I believe this counts as a slippery slope fallacy due to its conviction, but either way, no evidence has been prevented that they would take advantage of us when clearly us leaving will make their collapse much more likely. I mean, sure they stand their ground on their policies when asked for reform, but that is because they assumed people wouldn't vote leave unless those policies were actually taking advantage of them. Unfortunately people like you exist so whether they abused us or not was irrelevant all along, because apparently evidence isn't a thing we need, just the existence of a possibility of abuse.


Nobody is trying to say they are mutually inclusive, and they really don't need to be, but Mallymkum praised him as a hero, he was the person who is probably most responsible for the referendum happening (he raised the issue leading to pressure for other parties to comply with would be UKIP supporters and promise a referendum), and one of the most active campaigners leaving the EU, so he became relevant. He obviously isn't the only thing to be discussed, but you seem to be the only person who thinks it is the only thing being discussed.


That is the opening statement of an argument, not the conclusion of one. This lacks qualifications even more severely than the demographic who voted to leave.


You really think that is a good thing? I mean the alternatives aren't massively better, and PMs swapping over unexpectedly is bound to be damaging, suddenly policy will no longer be focussed on actually improving the economy, and will be focussed on achieving arbitrary promised which were used to gain the trust of people who's views they would of most likely never agreed with if it wasn't to gain power. Political terms are too long as it is without them playing pass the gosh darn parcel with our entire country because you are too embarrassed to keep leading.


I also like to base historic political decisions on if I am bored with someone, and even if I don't make my decision entirely on that, its important to keep it in mind.


Yes, both campaigns claimed that estimates were facts, but not to this degree, at least the remain campaign showed that their figures were from a probabilistic equation (as all economics tends to be as far as I care), and the fact that he mentions it now is really not that forgivable, if it had come to light a few weeks or a month down the line it would be fair enough, but it feels a lot like all that is happening is that he doesn't need to lie to get us to leave the EU anymore because we already did it. I would be very amused that it transpired that with the petition to redo the referendum people's minds have been changed by this video. I mean a lot of people feel very cheated at this point, but maybe that's just wistful thinking on my part.


He has been responding to you points fluently and even asking questions to try to better understand where your views are coming from, he is not the brick wall here.
While SmallBowl phrased it as "not going to" in the end what happens now in the EU does not have an exact bearing on what would of happened if we had stayed. France are now very likely to leave, because we are one of the stronger economies in the EU and we have just left, I don't drive my car through the wall of my garage into my living room and then, after the garage collapses say "This was probably a good idea, if I had left it in there it would of been crushed when the garage collapsed", we have damaged the EU and possibly ourselves, it is collapses now it is entirely our fault, not Turkey's or the fault of their lack of democracy, or anything else.



If the trades are completely identical then obviously it is nice to feel like I have bargaining space so I would avoid restrictions. The actual situation is more like (again, it might transpire that this was economically sensible, it doesn't change the fact that half your arguments are complete codswallop) 'let me ask you this, would you rather trade with restrictions, or trade with fewer people but without restrictions and with a currency in free fall? It really feels like you are living in a fantasy without consequences right now, and I am honestly concerned for you.




Yes, the EU gives us cheaper travel in Europe and more generous trading agreements within Europe than we would have otherwise, I also think they share information with us, and in return (because trades don't just involve us getting stuff, they need something in return) we abide by laws that are enforced by the EU, some of which help our country and some of which don't, and pay a yearly fee, a lot of which wouldn't have actually been available to the NHS otherwise apparently, even though the leave campaign promised as much.




When a political leader changes, all trade policies don't completely cease, that isn't how it works. There is a reasonable chance that the newly elected leader will, when faced with exactly the same evidence as Obama was, decide to go through with the policy, for the sake of gaining favour with the EU, there is also a reasonable chance that the EU will collapse as a result of us leaving, and America will give up on them and decide that England is a better trading partner. My point is that we have no idea at this point, because neither of us has provided evidence for either one or the other being more likely, but in your fantasy, literally everything goes to plan and nothing goes wrong with us leaving the EU, so the less profitable of to arbitrarily likely possibilities will ALWAYS be the ONLY possibility that is worth acknowledging.


If you find this discussion boring, then honestly just leave, preferably forever, everyone arguing against you wants you to.



Acknowledging that there are other things to consider than your illusion of freedom and patriotic pride as a nation that makes its own decisions, is not the same thing as pretending they do not exist, if we have something to add to one of your points, we may choose to bring it up, otherwise we move the conversation forward by talking about new stuff by not just circle jerking the same comments to gratify our own egos the whole time. Your feelings being hurt because you don't feel independent enough is not a big enough reason to end the discussion only on that, you need to keep looking at new points, and not just bring up old ones. I am honestly revolted by the fact that you accused someone of being like a brick wall earlier.




if they are good but with some problems, it is better than being bad, with most likely more problems.


We don't, why would we? We are clearly just insulting you because we don't like you, there is no mutual expectation of a flame war here.

I love how you talk about this organisation as supporting reform, rather than referring to it in terms of the fact that they specifically concluded in a massive essay that we should not leave. They are very different and directly contradict in logic, the remain campaign wanted reform too. Everyone wants reform, the only difference is that the remain campaign don't want to burn the entire house down because they are angry about it.
Yeah, my marriage wasn't perfect, and my wife was being really stubborn, so I immediately filed a divorce, despite it being a much more time consuming, stressful and financially draining process than the marriage itself.

I dealt with this earlier.

You sure do wind me up, I am in quite the huff about this right now. Also, you can quote things for a reason, I don't know which part of his argument you are talking about, please explain.

Well gee, the reason people discuss things, and continue discussing things, is because they can't always exactly comprehend each other's logic, if you explained your logic perfectly, and I understood it perfectly, there would be no difference to work out, I could immediately see exactly why our views differ and we would have no reason to disagree, as our logic would have been broken down as far as possible and there would be nothing else to explore. Unfortunately, either you are not as good at explaining yourself, or all of the three people arguing with you are not good enough at interpreting it, to understand your logic. That isn't an insult btw, that is what you expect to be happening until a discussion is concluded. Admittedly personal attacks should be avoided, but I consider you voting to put my currency in free fall and obliterate my travel plans as a personal attack, and that isn't enough for me to claim you can't understand logic (instead I imply that you can't understand logic in general for a wide ranging variety of reasons, like you should try to do with other people, rather than equating feeling butt hurt to being objectively correct).



Yeah guys, get out of your fantasy world and listen to this fountain of down to earth realism.
-----
In terms of who was likely to vote what, it isn't particularly relevant, people are likely to be swayed by those around them and it could still simply just be a case of David Cameron appealing to those who, like him, have had an expensive education, rather than people actually being divided by intelligence, but either way, an idea should be judge on its own merits, not the merits of those who support it, especially when so few people actually knew what they were supporting (I think this applies to a certain extent to both sides).

shit dude i just didnt understand what the the image was trying to show, not contradicting what it was showing.
Besides I voted stay, mate.

Okay, let me elaborate on what I considered to be common sense.

Politically, the UK simply is not compatible with the leaders of the EU. Being part of the EU as a country essentially means consigning yourself and your citizens to the decisions of the most powerful countries in the pack. This, for very obvious reasons which you really shouldn't require me to point them out is a bad thing.

Socially, britbongistan basically everywhere outside of London is not progressive nor should it be forced to be. You simply cannot shoehorn people into a label and force them to abide by legislation enacted by unelected representatives.

Economically, the EU will always be in decline. Providing incentives to weak countries, such as what happened with Greece previously is not sustainable. Let Greece fail. If Greece cannot run a government, then it does not deserve to do so. Scared of the Russians muscling in? What are they gonna do, prop up a failing government and drive themselves bankrupt paying $10,000 a month Greek pensions?

What benefits does britbongistan get from staying in the EU? A constant money-drain, following legislations set by unelected officials who may or may not have the countries best interests at heart, and forcing a majority of people to act in a certain way. There is nothing beneficial about it.

1. Why is the UK not compatible with the other EU members? What is that even supposed to mean ._.? No it does not mean consigning yourself to the most powerful EU members, EVEN IF IT DID the UK was the 3rd biggest economy in the EU so it was one of the most powerful countries in the pack. Also thats not how the EU works, its a democratic system, noone is consigned to follow Germany's every whim.

2. Speak in leymans terms so you can get your point across, this is a load of drivel followed by a lie. The representatives are elected.

3. Stop contradicting yourself, according to you, we are all following the big economies and just doing whats best for them and at the same time its only good for the failing economies. As I have answered the first point I guess I'll answer this too, the UK did not pay a huge amount of money to bail out Greece, the UK is what is relevant to this discussion. If it had continued for an unsupportable amount of time Greece would have had to leave the EU, get its own currency and devalue it. This would have stopped affecting the EU and allowed Greece to sort out its problems more effectively.

4. They get the vast majority of the money they get back, as well as a huge amount of additional trade taking the UK well over break-even point for "whether the EU is worth it economically", again the officials are elected and in general the laws that they implement are quality of goods and quality of life laws which are beneficial to pretty much everyone in our society, how are laws about labeling high fiber foods going to negatively affect the UK?






Even if the representatives werent elected, which they are, why would this be an issue as long as they had the interests of the country and were directed by the government? Which they also are

So in the event of another eurozone crisis, do you think the UK would be better off in or out of the EU?


What are the benefits of the EU to a strong economy?

Are you aware that many if not all countries outside the EU have trade deals with other countries? If you are focusing only on the trade aspect, then surely you can see that simply having trade agreements would give you as much if not more benefits compared to being in the EU, and you can ignore any downside of being in the EU too (eg traders often cite the EU paperwork as being a downside lol).


It has always been a serious problem in politics that the vocal minority of the city in which policies are made dis-proportionally affect the entire country. In every western country you can observe leftist agitators peddling agenda, perhaps they are completely oblivious to the obvious parallel between themselves and Jewish Bolsheviks in Europe, and we all know how that turned out - needless to say that the opinions of the majority are not represented by the voices of the minority...

If they were self evident truths then you would have no reason to make a post, and the discussion would have ended a lot sooner. I'm not saying you are wrong about the EU, just that your attitude towards discussions seems kinda off. Also, sense is not really that common if it only applies to 52% of a population. By definition the understanding of something must be widespread for it to be common sense, and this clearly isn't.

This might seem pedantic, but just lost the reasons for your point first time around next time.
-----
Even if you are arguing that the EU was bad for Britain, you must admit that the Brexit campaign should've had a plan first, since it is such a massive economic change.

Ah yes I saw this come up on my feed as "Faisal Islam, Sky News Journalist, Says Pro-Brexit MP Told Him ‘Leave Campaign Don’t Have A Plan’" It was as reliable then as it is now that I watched the clip as it was when I read the headline.

"He said she said that the people I don't like are dumb" - if that's not proof I don't know what is!

You shouldn't trust sources based on whether or not they agree with you.