UK Politics: And Brexit came swirling down

[Varysblackfyre321]

17 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

I'm not getting dragged into the eternal debate about ID cards.  Even if you are right that they do more harm than good, there are worse threats to democracy than ID cards.  

Also, deciding to take off people from the registration list if don't vote in 3 years because...something. Labour wanted to have automatic voter registration. That would imo be an actual victory for Democracy if implemented. But alas the the UK has a government that's hellbent deliberately making it harder for millions of it’s citizenry to vote, justified by basically non-existent evidence of mass-voter fraud. 

But at least Brexit is more likely to happen! 

And who knows may be these measures will be a massive success in curbing voter fraud. Maybe instead of couple dozens of instances of it at most, it'll be made into a dozen. Because out of millions, a couple dozen fraudulent votes votes literally make all all the difference.  

I mean in 2017 there was like 28 instances of it. That's really an epidemic that needs immediate and decisive action. 

I'm being sarcastic of course. 

There are far bigger threats to Democracy than voter-fraud. For example, government making it harder for people to vote. 

I believe millions shouldn't have to pay more to participate in their Democracy especially if they been doing it for years already. 

 

17 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

No, I said it was "supposed" or "meant" to be binding.  Which it was.  I am of course looking at it from the perspective of the Leave voters who were suckered by Cameron and the others who ran on Cameron's platform; and not from the perspective of those clever politicians who knew better, and had their fingers behind their backs when they made their promises.

This is really just seems like playing semantics at it’s worst.

Also, it doesn't seem to be a ”defeat” for Democracy if a none ”legally” binding referendum result wasn't followed. 

What people think they're voting for and what they want to happen in response to their vote isn't always the same thing. 

It’s no more a defeat for Democracy for let's say a governor, not signing x thing into law even if x thing was a thing a governor promised to make into law while campaigning, and a large reason for many to have voted for him.

 

17 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Can't parse that sentence.  Sorry.

You know what fair enough. I'll repeat myself here. Many people who did vote for Brexit probably wouldn't have had done so if they realized leaving would entail far more immigration from places outside of Europe. A lot of immigration of Muslims too. There are about 201 million Muslims in India.  I do agree with you people were mislead on what the consequences for their votes would be. Though, I think a lot of that blame falls squarely on politicians and media that fall on the more right-wing’s rhetoric on Brexit. 

17 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Okay man.  Be that way.  Stay in your bubble, and call everyone who disagrees with you a racist.  Or maybe step ourside of your bubble, and learn differently.  Your choice.  Just remember, there's all kinds of ways to be a bigot

 

To the bolded, sure there is. There are lots of types of bigotry, in this wide vast world, that should be called out. 

But saying a lot of people who voted for Brexit because of their racism/xenophobia clouded their reason, is not a form bigotry. It's simply an accurate statement. 

Not everyone who disagrees with me is a hardcore racist or a xenophobe. I've met plenty of people who were pro-unfettered capitalism, anti-abortion rights, and pro-death penalty, and I would call not them bigots(just for those stances at the very least)  even though I vehemently disagree with them. 

But, in regards to many of the people who voted for Brexit specifically to just the flow of immigration because of a desire to ”protect their culture.” meh I see people’s xenophobia getting the better of them. 

I don't think someone saying that they just want to protect their culture is all that convincing. 

I mean just saying ”I just want to protect my culture!” is one of the most trotted out excuses used to justify basically most things that were/are meant to oppress or attack certain pockets of society.   

There are Plenty Homophobes say they merely want to protect their culture by lets say criminalizing same-sex relations. But them just saying culture does not mean there's a greater amount of nuance in their stance. They're just being bigots. I contend anyone who says a person taking such a stance isn't being a bigot is also homophobe. I'm not sorry if you think such a stance makes me a bigot. 

If a person says they want Caucasians to be in the majority because they desire to preserve their country's culture, they're just being racist. 

A person spouting out things like wanting to protect their ”culture” or ”traditions” doesn't make their position on something less bigoted.

 If a person says they just want Brexit to clamp down on immigration I'm going to suspect basic xenophobia is driving their actions. Because the groups actually negatively affected by Brexit aren't  actually doing to threaten the culture that's being howled as needing protection. They simply do not, they simply cannot. Most Eastern Europeans by their second generation will have more in common culturally than their distant cousins who didn't emigrate from the homeland or whatever. 

It’s no less xenophobic than US citizens who used to loudly bitch about the flock Irish, Italian, Slavic immigrants coming over and dramatically changing/hurting America’s culture. They didn't really.

[Platypus Rex]

10 hours ago, mormont said:

Who is the foreign power in this sentence? It makes little sense as read.

I'm not sure if you are genuinely confused, or inviting me to a semantic debate about the meaning of the word "foreign".  But I'll try to elaborate.  All I am trying to say is that being answerable to the bureaucrats in Brussels is not the same thing as being answerable to UK voters.  It is not even the same thing as being answerable to European voters generally.  Being answerable to voters is more "democratic", according to the older, classic sense of that adjective.

There is always going to be a tension between globalistic and/or federalistic schemes on the one hand and democracy on the other.  The US constitution tried to balance these concerns in a manner that provided some minimal protection for democratic ideals, with some minimal success that is perhaps debatable.  But many of the safeguards that the US constitution provided are absent in the European Union.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

I'm not sure if you are genuinely confused, or inviting me to a semantic debate about the meaning of the word "foreign".  But I'll try to elaborate.  All I am trying to say is that being answerable to the bureaucrats in Brussels is not the same thing as being answerable to UK voters. 

Why is it that you think the EU = 'accountable to bureaucrats' and the UK = 'accountable to voters', when in fact, as I pointed out previously, the UK government is (given a decent majority) for all practical purposes not accountable to anyone for a five year spell? The EU performs much better than the UK on accountability, for all its faults.

It's also not a foreign power, or at least, it wasn't - it only becomes one on January 31st. Up to that point, it made as much sense to describe the EU as a 'foreign power' as it does for someone in, say, Aberystwyth to describe the UK as a 'foreign power'. People do that, of course, but it's just not accurate.

2 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

But many of the safeguards that the US constitution provided are absent in the European Union.

And all of them are absent in the UK.

[Platypus Rex]

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's also not a foreign power, or at least, it wasn't - it only becomes one on January 31st. Up to that point, it made as much sense to describe the EU as a 'foreign power' as it does for someone in, say, Aberystwyth to describe the UK as a 'foreign power'. People do that, of course, but it's just not accurate.

You knew perfectly well what I meant.  I am not interested in petty semantic bullying from the local word police,  Even in the United States, where the individual states have lost 90+% of their sovereignty, other States within the Union are still referred to as "foreign states" in legal documents.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

You knew perfectly well what I meant.

No, I didn't, I'm afraid.

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

 I am not interested in petty semantic bullying from the local word police

Good to know. If any of that happens, I will be sure to let the person responsible know of your disinterest.

In the meantime, may we take it you have no response to the substantial, non-semantic, politely expressed and pertinent points that I made?

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

Even in the United States, where the individual states have lost 90+% of their sovereignty, other States within the Union are still referred to as "foreign states" in legal documents.

Except of course this, which was presumably supplied as an example of the sort of petty semantics you aren't interested in.

[Platypus Rex]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

No, I didn't, I'm afraid.

Either way, the conversation is likely to be difficult.

Quote

In the meantime, may we take it you have no response to the substantial, non-semantic, politely expressed and pertinent points that I made?

I failed to see the pertinence, and am not interested in exploring the matter.  Judging from what I have seen so far, the exchange is likely to be unproductive.

Quote

Except of course this, which was presumably supplied as an example of the sort of petty semantics you aren't interested in.

See?  This is going nowhere.  You pretend not to know what I meant.  I clarified.  You tell me I am using the word incorrectly.  I show you that my use falls within the range of acceptable English usage.  Now, instead of just acknowledging that, you are throwing a strained "tu quoque" argument at me.  

Which is nonsense.  I never tried to impose my semantics on you.  I merely defended my own choice of word.  How about this:  You choose your own words, and you let me choose mine.  Is that not fair?

[mormont]

6 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

I failed to see the pertinence, and am not interested in exploring the matter.  Judging from what I have seen so far, the exchange is likely to be unproductive.

This does appear to be exactly what one would say if one did see the pertinence, had no answer, and wanted to run off quickly without admitting defeat.

But for the record, the points I made are highly pertinent. For one, it's the failure not only of UK voters but of successive UK governments to identify with an organisation that they are a part of, instead treating it like a unified foreign power, that got us where we are today. For another, it's extremely pertinent, when you try to criticise the EU for lacking some constitutional safeguards, that the UK completely lacks those safeguards. Ironically membership of the EU provided UK citizens with more safeguards than they will now have. Any moderately well informed person understands this as a fact.

 

[DMC]

15 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

I am not interested in petty semantic bullying from the local word police,  Even in the United States, where the individual states have lost 90+% of their sovereignty, other States within the Union are still referred to as "foreign states" in legal documents.

Surely you're including the commonwealths, not just states, if we're talking semantics correct?

[Platypus Rex]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

This does appear to be exactly what one would say if one did see the pertinence, had no answer, and wanted to run off quickly without admitting defeat.

Momont.  You are trying to pick a fight with me.  And you are trying to insinuate I am a coward if I do not care to engage.  Do you think I don't see your moderator badge?  You've got all the weapons.   It is not going to be a fair fight, and you know it.

5 hours ago, mormont said:

But for the record, the points I made are highly pertinent. For one, it's the failure not only of UK voters but of successive UK governments to identify with an organisation that they are a part of, instead treating it like a unified foreign power, that got us where we are today.

That's obviously your opinion and you're welcome to it.  

5 hours ago, mormont said:

For another, it's extremely pertinent, when you try to criticise the EU for lacking some constitutional safeguards, that the UK completely lacks those safeguards. Ironically membership of the EU provided UK citizens with more safeguards than they will now have.

What I said was that larger federations face stresses that smaller democracies do not have, and that the  USA had TRIED with debatable success to compensate for this with constitutional protections limiting the powers of the federal government.  Nothing about this highly nuanced statement is refuted by saying that the UK does not have the same constitutional protections that bind the US federal government.

[SeanF]

In practice, it's very hard for a non-binding referendum to work.  A party which tries to frustrate the winning side will get swept away.

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Momont.  You are trying to pick a fight with me.  And you are trying to insinuate I am a coward if I do not care to engage.  Do you think I don't see your moderator badge?  You've got all the weapons.   It is not going to be a fair fight, and you know it.

That's obviously your opinion and you're welcome to it. 

You used similar tactics before. When pressed into a corner you accused me of "policing your words." Not only are you accusing Mormont of doing the same, you're also saying that his points are merely his "opinion" and accusing him of... What exactly?
You're just avoiding whatever points are too complicated for you to address.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

Momont.  You are trying to pick a fight with me.  And you are trying to insinuate I am a coward if I do not care to engage.  Do you think I don't see your moderator badge?  You've got all the weapons.   It is not going to be a fair fight, and you know it.

What does me being a moderator have to do with anything? I'm not picking a fight, I'm politely discussing a topic with you. The insunuation that I would do so in order to entrap you or bully you in some way is absurd, and honestly, it (again) looks like scrabbling for an excuse. Moderators are as entitled to discuss topics as anyone else, and no-one is forced to engage with anyone.

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

What I said was that larger federations face stresses that smaller democracies do not have, and that the  USA had TRIED with debatable success to compensate for this with constitutional protections limiting the powers of the federal government.  Nothing about this highly nuanced statement is refuted by saying that the UK does not have the same constitutional protections that bind the US federal government.

These would be the protections that the US Republican party is currently ignoring, dismantling or undermining?

[Platypus Rex]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

You used similar tactics before. When pressed into a corner you accused me of "policing your words." Not only are you accusing Mormont of doing the same, you're also saying that his points are merely his "opinion" and accusing him of... What exactly?
You're just avoiding whatever points are too complicated for you to address.

Raise whatever points you want, and I will respond if I please.  Or not.  I don't owe you an argument and I don't owe you my time. 

[Liffguard]

I knew Zac Goldsmith had been made a peer after losing his seat (again). I hadn't known he was also keeping his job as a minister. He's the perfect avatar of anti-meritocracy, a peerless example of how being born with enough wealth makes it effectively impossible to fail, no matter how incompetent you are.

[Werthead]

 

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

In practice, it's very hard for a non-binding referendum to work.  A party which tries to frustrate the winning side will get swept away.

Indeed, as happened in the Republic of Ireland. Or, as actually happened, the concerns of the electorate were raised with the EU, modifications were made and a new referendum held in which the opposing side was then victorious, all without mass riots in the street or anyone getting swept aside.

[polishgenius]

21 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Momont.  You are trying to pick a fight with me.  And you are trying to insinuate I am a coward if I do not care to engage.  Do you think I don't see your moderator badge?  You've got all the weapons.   It is not going to be a fair fight, and you know it.

I've not always agreed with the way Mormont mods and I've not always agreed with the way he debates, but he's never ever used the one to support the other. You're just trying to leave the argument without admitting you're losing the argument. 

 

 

19 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Raise whatever points you want, and I will respond if I please.  Or not.  I don't owe you an argument and I don't owe you my time. 

No-one said you owe anyone anything but if you were really just not interested in talking you'd just not talk instead of drama-queening about how unfair it is that people dare respond to you.

On 12/21/2019 at 1:55 AM, Platypus Rex said:

Okay.  And who should he be more answerable to?  A foreign power?  Or his own voters?  Maybe if the EU had offered more concessions, fewer people would have voted to leave.

What concessions should or could the EU have offered? The UK were in a fucking cushy position as it was.

[Platypus Rex]

14 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

I've not always agreed with the way Mormont mods and I've not always agreed with the way he debates, but he's never ever used the one to support the other.

You might not know the whole story.  I suggest we drop it.

Quote

What concessions should or could the EU have offered? The UK were in a fucking cushy position as it was.

II don't necessarily think the EU should have made any concessions.  That's their business, as determined by their assessment of their own interests.  So that's up to them.  When I said "maybe", I really did mean "maybe".  And no matter what concessions the EU makes, it does not necessarily follow that the UK has to agree to remain.   The UK does not have to buy what the EU is selling, even if the EU slashes its prices to a point where the EU are no longer making a profit (metaphorically speaking).  There is no law that 2 sovereign actors must enter a specific kind of deal.

I was only responding to Rippounet.  Nor am I sure what concessions Rippounet was talking about, or what his point was.  Was he hinting that Cameron's motives in using the UK vote as leverage against the EU should somehow trump the promises he made to the UK voters?  If so, I don't agree.

Was there some other point you wished me to address?  (No promises, now).

[Platypus Rex]

On 12/21/2019 at 9:49 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There are far bigger threats to Democracy than voter-fraud. For example, government making it harder for people to vote. 

Like a said, some democratic victories are pyrrhic victories.  And I cannot tell the future.

But I've been hearing these sorts of arguments for 30+ years, and, though I cannot tell the future, I cannot help suspecting that your fears are exaggerated if you think a few ID cards and other so-called "anti-fraud" precautions presage the imminent rise of the next Hitler.  Even when only male 21+ landowners could vote, this "democratic" power served as a limitation on the power of kings and tyrants.

And I understand Cameron is deeply regretful that he made it so easy for the people to vote.  Because in his view they made the wrong decision.

On 12/21/2019 at 9:49 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This is really just seems like playing semantics at it’s worst.

Also, it doesn't seem to be a ”defeat” for Democracy if a none ”legally” binding referendum result wasn't followed. 

If more people agreed with you, the Tories would not have done as well as they did.

On 12/21/2019 at 9:49 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What people think they're voting for and what they want to happen in response to their vote isn't always the same thing. 

You're just arguing that democracy is bad (or at least dangerous), because people are stupid.  You may be right.  But that does not mean there is anything wrong with my semantics.  When the will of the people is applied and enforced, that is still meaningful to call it a "democratic victory".

On 12/21/2019 at 9:49 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’s no more a defeat for Democracy for let's say a governor, not signing x thing into law even if x thing was a thing a governor promised to make into law while campaigning, and a large reason for many to have voted for him.

When politicians routinely break campaign promises, and the public fails to punish them, because they feel they have no power to do so, then that is a sort of defeat for democracy, or a sort.  There is alot of that sort of cynicism among an apathetic public.  

On 12/21/2019 at 9:49 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You know what fair enough. I'll repeat myself here. Many people who did vote for Brexit probably wouldn't have had done so if they realized leaving would entail far more immigration from places outside of Europe. A lot of immigration of Muslims too. There are about 201 million Muslims in India.  I do agree with you people were mislead on what the consequences for their votes would be.

I really don't want to rehearse all the pro and anti Brexit arguments.  For whatever reason, the anti-Brexit arguments have not resonated with the public, as well as you think they should have.

On 12/21/2019 at 9:49 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But saying a lot of people who voted for Brexit because of their racism/xenophobia clouded their reason, is not a form bigotry. It's simply an accurate statement. 

It's a big country.  There are a lot of bigots on your side too; and probably quite a few pedophiles on each side as well.  And arguing that democracy is bad because people are racist (which I don't think is a fair characterization of the people of the UK) does not change the fact that this is a democratic victory.  But feel free to keep arguing smearing those who voted remain with the charge of racism.  You will make more and more enemies, and keep losing more and more elections.  Or maybe you can start wising up.  But that's up to you.

[Free Northman Reborn]

13 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Like a said, some democratic victories are pyrrhic victories.  And I cannot tell the future.

But I've been hearing these sorts of arguments for 30+ years, and, though I cannot tell the future, I cannot help suspecting that your fears are exaggerated if you think a few ID cards and other so-called "anti-fraud" precautions presage the imminent rise of the next Hitler.  Even when only male 21+ landowners could vote, this "democratic" power served as a limitation on the power of kings and tyrants.

And I understand Cameron is deeply regretful that he made it so easy for the people to vote.  Because in his view they made the wrong decision.

If more people agreed with you, the Tories would not have done as well as they did.

You're just arguing that democracy is bad (or at least dangerous), because people are stupid.  You may be right.  But that does not mean there is anything wrong with my semantics.  When the will of the people is applied and enforced, that is still meaningful to call it a "democratic victory".

When politicians routinely break campaign promises, and the public fails to punish them, because they feel they have no power to do so, then that is a sort of defeat for democracy, or a sort.  There is alot of that sort of cynicism among an apathetic public.  

I really don't want to rehearse all the pro and anti Brexit arguments.  For whatever reason, the anti-Brexit arguments have not resonated with the public, as well as you think they should have.

It's a big country.  There are a lot of bigots on your side too; and probably quite a few pedophiles on each side as well.  And arguing that democracy is bad because people are racist (which I don't think is a fair characterization of the people of the UK) does not change the fact that this is a democratic victory.  But feel free to keep arguing smearing those who voted remain with the charge of racism.  You will make more and more enemies, and keep losing more and more elections.  Or maybe you can start wising up.  But that's up to you.

You have one of the answers to your earlier question about where all the conservative posters are. And it is that it is just too tiring and time consuming for the minority of right-leaning posters to rebuff the arguments of the ten or twenty to one ratio of left wing posters who unleash on one’s every point.

So the choice becomes - either you never say anything, or you make your point and then depart, inevitably leaving the mob with the last word and reinforcing the echo chamber’s conviction of its own collective righteousness.

I still make my points when I feel like it. But with the knowledge that the outcome will always be the same. It’s a Groundhog Day ritual that entertains for a couple of posts, but nothing more. One’s expectations should just adapt to it.

[Werthead]

On 12/24/2019 at 4:32 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

You have one of the answers to your earlier question about where all the conservative posters are. And it is that it is just too tiring and time consuming for the minority of right-leaning posters to rebuff the arguments of the ten or twenty to one ratio of left wing posters who unleash on one’s every point.

So the choice becomes - either you never say anything, or you make your point and then depart, inevitably leaving the mob with the last word and reinforcing the echo chamber’s conviction of its own collective righteousness.

I still make my points when I feel like it. But with the knowledge that the outcome will always be the same. It’s a Groundhog Day ritual that entertains for a couple of posts, but nothing more. One’s expectations should just adapt to it.

What is extremely tiring and time consuming is when conservatives try to make some sort of coherent point about why their policies are better for the country, and all you have to do to reduce them to utter ash is just point at the state of the country for the last ten years. And since there is absolutely nothing that can be said to gainsay that, the conservative posters slink off or try to score some more points by making spurious points about terrorists (but don't even think of mentioning the Tories support for terrorist regimes or employing or making alliances with former terrorists themselves, because of course that's completely different).

When conservative posters take responsibility for the titanic increases in food banks, homelessness, illiteracy and crime in the last ten years rather than ducking the question and talking about that one time Diane Abbott mixed up her figures or how weird Jeremy Corbyn's hat is, perhaps they'll find themselves being taken a bit more seriously.

Although to be fair there's a few New Labour supporters around who still seem to find it hard to talk about the death toll of Tony Blair's policies as well, so perhaps that kind of partisan blindness is to be expected. It's annoying because Britain I always felt was better than the States in that regard, with far more people willing to listen to opposing arguments and move between parties based on their individual pitch at each election, not supporting one group no matter how far down the rabbit hole they go of corruption and incompetence, but it seems that online discourse is somehow trapping people in these positions.