I trusted it based on the fact it was sky news. It also would make sense, since the Brexit campaign weren't expecting David Cameron to resign and leave it to them.
"Some of the key Conservative figures in the Leave campaign – Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Chris Grayling and Iain Duncan Smith – have said they want to see Cameron stay on even if we vote to leave. Cameron himself has pledged to see out the job, to carry out the will of the British people."
But fair enough, maybe I should be more skeptical of such things.
"Some of the key Conservative figures in the Leave campaign – Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Chris Grayling and Iain Duncan Smith – have said they want to see Cameron stay on even if we vote to leave. Cameron himself has pledged to see out the job, to carry out the will of the British people."
But fair enough, maybe I should be more skeptical of such things.
Originally Posted by SmallBowl
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
1. Why is the UK not compatible? I don't know, does shoving the formerly broadest empire in the world into a group with other mostly poorer countries and forcing it to play nice seem like a good idea? Too much pride, they simply aren't ready yet. I shouldn't even have to say this because you should be able to gauge that yourself, I mean, there was a referendum about it not even a week ago. As for the whole "not following Germany's every whim" thing, this is a result of it, which is pretty hard to miss given how vocal people are about Merkel's role in the refugee crisis, which was the straw that broke the camel's back.
2. The EU representatives in every country other than Germany, Italy and Poland use the STV method for electing their reps in the EU parliament, because it entirely disregards "sure losers" and tips the scales in favor of certain candidates. I would prefer not to get into why that's a shit voting system and doesn't represent the public's decisions in the slightest, but that's another can of worms.
3. It's terrible for the small economies. The money given to them by the EU fuels a cycle of corruption(SEE: Greece, Poland, etc...) that prevents them from failing while still leaving them economically vulnerable, which is a bad thing. Failing states are being propped up for purely economic purposes, which benefits the interested countries. Greece should have gone down, it simply does not deserve to be a state for instance. The only "contradictions" you seem to be coming across in my argument are those composed of your lack of understanding of the situation.
4. Purely down to precedent. If another entity other than one unanimously elected by your people(see: referendum) are in control of what your country can or can't trade, something is wrong.
5. Greeting SmallBowl, I am now the godking emperor of wherever you live. No one voted me in obviously. Looking like you is now illegal and you must get plastic surgery or risk life imprisonment. Precedent, foot in the door, etc..
Originally Posted by NotZelda
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.
See: flat earth society. You'd think by now that the existing model of the universe would be a universally accepted and self-evident truth, but no, there are always people that simply don't think logically.
I'm not saying you are wrong about the EU, just that your attitude towards discussions seems kinda off.
Me being a grumpy asshole has nothing to do with my argument.
Also, sense is not really that common if it only applies to 52% of a population.
See: first argument. I'd also like to suggest national scale stockholm syndrome and greed, trend voters, etc... but i'm in no position to psychologically evaluate slightly less than half of all britbongs.
By definition the understanding of something must be widespread for it to be common sense, and this clearly isn't.
It's kind of an ironic term. Make of that what you will.
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. -snip-
Never did I suggest that ukip and their ilk is smart. That said, the state really shouldn't be left to responsibly evil people.
Last edited by Hyde; Jun 27, 2016 at 10:10 PM.
Hoss.
Originally Posted by Hyde
4. Purely down to precedent. If another entity other than one unanimously elected by your people(see: referendum) are in control of what your country can or can't trade, something is wrong.
No one else was controlling who the UK could trade with, we just happen to be run by dumbasses that never set up any individual trade agreements.
We did trade with countries without agreements, and will continue to do so. However losing the EU trade agreements means we lost "free trade" with 52 countries.
It's a pretty big hit for consumers since the fees will be passed onto them, by the time VAT and other financial garnish have been popped on top the result is less than favourable. Nothing better than an impending raise to the cost of living for motiving you to get a 2nd, 3rd... 12th job.
Successfully arranging an agreement with the EU would bring things back to normal in that regard, providing they decide to let the traitors rejoin the market.
But yeah, no one was telling anyone who they could & couldn't trade with.
<Erf> SkulFuk: gf just made a toilet sniffing joke at me
<Erf> i think
<Erf> i think i hate you
Originally Posted by SkulFuk
No one else was controlling who the UK could trade with, we just happen to be run by dumbasses that never set up any individual trade agreements.
We did trade with countries without agreements, and will continue to do so. However losing the EU trade agreements means we lost "free trade" with 52 countries.
It's a pretty big hit for consumers since the fees will be passed onto them, by the time VAT and other financial garnish have been popped on top the result is less than favourable. Nothing better than an impending raise to the cost of living for motiving you to get a 2nd, 3rd... 12th job.
Successfully arranging an agreement with the EU would bring things back to normal in that regard, providing they decide to let the traitors rejoin the market.
But yeah, no one was telling anyone who they could & couldn't trade with.
Couldn't that problem simply be solved by cutting back spending to what it was pre-1970 and strengthening relations with the anglosphere solve all of that, at least in a few years?
Also, afaik while EU countries can still take part in trade agreements with nations outside the EU, there is a lot of internal pressure not to do so.
Hoss.
Originally Posted by Hyde
See: flat earth society. You'd think by now that the existing model of the universe would be a universally accepted and self-evident truth, but no, there are always people that simply don't think logically.
Good job picking an example of something that would not last very long as a discussion thread here because of how self evident the answer to it is to us.
Me being a grumpy asshole has nothing to do with my argument.
Just for future reference, it was a complaint as someone trying to keep discussions fluent (I can't actually get into my main account because of reasons), but I will concede that I honestly really shouldn't of complained about it, since it was very unimportant. I genuinely apologise for this.
Originally Posted by Hyde
It's kind of an ironic term. Make of that what you will.
I think I just got pranked.
Originally Posted by Hyde
Never did I suggest that ukip and their ilk is smart. That said, the state really shouldn't be left to responsibly evil people.
I feel like I should bring up environmental policies, and policies on human rights, but I don't know much about them. I still figured I should throw it out there that the EU seems to have quite a few policies based on improving the world in general rather than just on economics, which seems somewhat less than evil.
Originally Posted by Hyde
Too much pride, they simply aren't ready yet. I shouldn't even have to say this because you should be able to gauge that yourself, I mean, there was a referendum about it not even a week ago.
So are you arguing that we were deterministically bound to leave? I think there is a difference between whether a decision was made, and whether it was the right one. In fact, I would argue that our pride is what makes the voters' choice to leave harder to trust as an indicator that it was the right decision to make, as it was largely based on pride/nostalgia rather than what the actual consequences might be.
Originally Posted by Hyde
5. Greeting SmallBowl, I am now the godking emperor of wherever you live. No one voted me in obviously. Looking like you is now illegal and you must get plastic surgery or risk life imprisonment. Precedent, foot in the door, etc..
This is so far from any sort of coherent argument that I hardly even want to acknowledge its existence. The reason the EU does not need to be as representative and democratic as a country's government is because it is something we democratically entered into, and can democratically leave. It is an option that european countries can take if they want to.
I feel like this is all I should have to say about that in terms of democracy, but I fear you might argue that if we shouldn't leave then we might as well not have the option to. The reason you exit out of something like the EU is because it is beneficial for you to do so, not to prove that the option is there. You have made some good arguments (tbh I can't really tell, I'm not knowledgable about this sort of thing) as to why it would be beneficial for us to leave, but this democracy stuff is silly. The reason the EU does not ban everyone who looks a certain way (or whatever, less extreme equivalent you want to use) is because if they did that, all of these representative democratic countries would either go through the 2 year exit process, or just refuse to cooperate. Am I missing something here?
Originally Posted by Hyde
Also, afaik while EU countries can still take part in trade agreements with nations outside the EU, there is a lot of internal pressure not to do so.
There was a lot of internal pressure not to leave as well, internal pressure is pretty useless imo. Or am I misunderstanding internal pressure?
-----
Boris' lack of willingness to be held responsible for whatever happens next (not taking part in the leadership race, when he would have otherwise had a pretty decent shot) is quite worrying to me.
-----
Originally Posted by Hyde
Couldn't that problem simply be solved by cutting back spending to what it was pre-1970 and strengthening relations with the anglosphere solve all of that, at least in a few years?
The ability to make budget cuts to solve problems caused by something is irrelevant to those problems being caused (unless the EU was preventing us from cutting our own budgets that low or something, which I could have easily of missed, making this argument relatively void). Having to make budget cuts (or increase taxes) is the usual result of economically poor decisions (in the short term, which is all governments tend to think about). Also 'yeah just try harder with international relations' isn't a fantastic remedy for the problems caused by Brexit.
Again, not saying I can prove Brexit was the wrong move, just that you should not have acted like it was obviously the right one.
What do people make of Boris not standing for leader now?
Last edited by NotZelda; Jun 30, 2016 at 11:02 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
