|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jun 28, 2016 6:33:08 GMT -5
Some here have given economic reasons they voted exit, but I've gotta' say, from an outsider watching newsbites, it really just looks like older racists screwed the younger generations, immigrants, emmigrants and the stock market. That is not the case, and I find that remark personally offensive. That's certainly not my intent, but the fact remains for every articulate poster here giving their economic concerns I've seen far more people saying horribly hateful things in man-on-the-street interviews. You may want to believe they're a tiny minority, but they'd have to be tiny indeed - given how close the results were - to not have been a deciding factor. Added to the election in the U.S. it just makes people seem more insular, scared and xenophobic, makes the world look bleak and sad, and erodes the last of my faith in humanity. Star Trek so lied to me about the future... |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 28, 2016 6:48:20 GMT -5
Star Trek so lied to me about the future... So, so true. I asked my students yesterday how they viewed the future of humanity. "Bleak" was the general idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2016 7:02:28 GMT -5
Some here have given economic reasons they voted exit, but I've gotta' say, from an outsider watching newsbites, it really just looks like older racists screwed the younger generations, immigrants, emmigrants and the stock market. Still, Trump's behind them... I can understand why you'd think that, and there certainly is an element of xenophobia in some of the voting, but that's only a portion of why people were voting for exit. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2016 7:08:17 GMT -5
Many things to say about that. I call bullshit on all those statements about France. True, Lepen wants the referendum, but France will never leave the EU, it is in our DNA now, we complain about the EU so often, but the numbers against it were about 20% 20 years ago, still the same when you look at the current global french surveys. Let's see if that's still true when the financial impact of losing the 2nd largest nett contributor to the EU budget percolates through. There's going to be a €3+ billion hole in the EU budget (which already doesn't balance, and which already is so uncontrolled that the numbers can't get their audit signed off, but let's just skim over that part). Someone is going to have to pick up the slack, and that number is not going down with continual enlargement of nett beneficiary countries. Germany were already rebelling against supporting Greece, are they going to enthusiastically fill that budget hole? How about Netherlands and France, the 2 next biggest net contributors? |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 28, 2016 8:12:21 GMT -5
That is not the case, and I find that remark personally offensive. That's certainly not my intent, but the fact remains for every articulate poster here giving their economic concerns I've seen far more people saying horribly hateful things in man-on-the-street interviews. You may want to believe they're a tiny minority, but they'd have to be tiny indeed - given how close the results were - to not have been a deciding factor. Added to the election in the U.S. it just makes people seem more insular, scared and xenophobic, makes the world look bleak and sad, and erodes the last of my faith in humanity. Star Trek so lied to me about the future... I do not believe that seventeen million Britons voted out of the EU simply because they don't like foreigners. That may be the way certain news outlets are spinning it, but I think I know my own country better than that. |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jun 28, 2016 8:38:03 GMT -5
That's certainly not my intent, but the fact remains for every articulate poster here giving their economic concerns I've seen far more people saying horribly hateful things in man-on-the-street interviews. You may want to believe they're a tiny minority, but they'd have to be tiny indeed - given how close the results were - to not have been a deciding factor. Added to the election in the U.S. it just makes people seem more insular, scared and xenophobic, makes the world look bleak and sad, and erodes the last of my faith in humanity. Star Trek so lied to me about the future... . That may be the way certain news outlets are spinning it, but I think I know my own country better than that. I sincerly hope so. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202 
|
Post by Confessor on Jun 28, 2016 9:11:17 GMT -5
Some here have given economic reasons they voted exit, but I've gotta' say, from an outsider watching newsbites, it really just looks like older racists screwed the younger generations, immigrants, emmigrants and the stock market. Still, Trump's behind them... That is not the case, and I find that remark personally offensive. That's certainly not my intent, but the fact remains for every articulate poster here giving their economic concerns I've seen far more people saying horribly hateful things in man-on-the-street interviews. You may want to believe they're a tiny minority, but they'd have to be tiny indeed - given how close the results were - to not have been a deciding factor. Added to the election in the U.S. it just makes people seem more insular, scared and xenophobic, makes the world look bleak and sad, and erodes the last of my faith in humanity. Star Trek so lied to me about the future... I'm sorry to have to say this, duper, but these posts of yours represent a highly misinformed view of the situation. ...and I can also see why tingramretro finds your first post a bit offensive, although I realise you didn't mean it to come across that way. As I've said earlier in the thread, a vote to leave is not automatically a vote in support of Nigel Farage (who wasn't even part of the official leave campaign, by the way) and/or the right-wing. Last Thursday, the traditional left-wing Labour party heartlands voted almost unanimously to leave the EU. I mean, almost the entirety of Wales voted to leave. Pretty much a whole Labour-centric country! Just think about that for a moment. Although there are undoubtedly some idiotic, narrow-minded racists clapping their hands with glee over this result, they represent a very small portion of British society. The UK is actually a very tolerant nation towards immigrants on the whole and always has been. Far-right, racist political parties, such as the BNP, always do appallingly badly here in our elections and that's something that I am very proud of the UK for. As I said before, for the vast majority of the 17 million of us who voted to leave, that vote was a bit more nuanced and intellectual than simply saying we don't like foreigners. As for this whole 'old screwing the young' thing, there are undoubtedly some generational biases evident in the way people voted, but there were also plenty of people under 40 who voted to leave. The attendant idea that has been swimming around among the sore-losers on the Remain side that somehow people over 60 shouldn't be allowed to vote -- which is like saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote or something! -- or that we should hold a second referendum, is at once extremely ageist, utterly undemocratic and well on the way to being fascist in its world view. The truth is, a lot of the people on the Remain side are all for respect and tolerance until things don't go their way and then they get nasty, trotting out meaningless, tired platitudes like "racist" or "xenophobic", when the truth is far more complex. I do not believe that seventeen million Britons voted out of the EU simply because they don't like foreigners. That may be the way certain news outlets are spinning it, but I think I know my own country better than that. I couldn't agree more, ting. Well said! |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 28, 2016 9:32:48 GMT -5
It's surely not 17 milion Britons, granted! But... how much is it? Because you guys keep saying it's only a "handfull" or "some", but surely feels as much much more than just "some". Most of the media (even the british ones) reports the main issue for the "leave" voters was immigration. You say it's a spin, fine, maybe so, it just feels like the truth is at least half ways :/
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 28, 2016 9:35:08 GMT -5
Many things to say about that. I call bullshit on all those statements about France. True, Lepen wants the referendum, but France will never leave the EU, it is in our DNA now, we complain about the EU so often, but the numbers against it were about 20% 20 years ago, still the same when you look at the current global french surveys. Let's see if that's still true when the financial impact of losing the 2nd largest nett contributor to the EU budget percolates through. There's going to be a €3+ billion hole in the EU budget (which already doesn't balance, and which already is so uncontrolled that the numbers can't get their audit signed off, but let's just skim over that part). Someone is going to have to pick up the slack, and that number is not going down with continual enlargement of nett beneficiary countries. Germany were already rebelling against supporting Greece, are they going to enthusiastically fill that budget hole? How about Netherlands and France, the 2 next biggest net contributors? We'll see about that, but the UK leaving surely will make work easier from now on  But seriously, after claiming the vote wouldn't affect the UK that much, you now bear apocalyptic predictions about the UK-less EU... It really seems you have a personnal beef against it |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 28, 2016 9:40:26 GMT -5
...which the UK never voted to join! I'm not sure how to make this any simpler, my friend. We voted to join the EEC and that, in time, was absorbed into the federal European Union, which we, as a nation, did not vote to join. There really isn't much more I can say on this matter. Hopefully you understand. Yes, but with that kind of rationalizing, apart from Croatia, no one voted to join the current version of the EU. In order for the US to form NATO, they had to change their constitution because it didn't allow the US to form any kind of military alliance outside of declared war time. Big organisations constantly evolve, that's in their nature. That point you're making is IMHO a little stuborn. As you can see, federalism was in the DNA of the ECSC from the get go, they never hid that this was a reaching goal. What I doubt is that any of us could actually find documentation from 1973 pointing that this was or wasn't in the least brought up before the UK joined. BTW, as you can see, I'm fairly enthusiastic about that topic and have some level of knowledge about it, but I must confess I don't think I ever learned about the actual legal process which saw the UK join. Anyone? Being a US citizen, I don't feel qualified to express an opinion on whether the UK leaving the EU was a good or bad thing. However, I would take issue with your statement that the US had to change our Constitution to form NATO. The Constitution itself doesn't change, except for the adoption of amendments. I re-read all the constitutional amendments, and I found nothing regarding changes to allow the US to join a foreign military treaty (which is what NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is). Could you site your source? Also, you state that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for decades, but I would suggest that NATO had something to do with it as well. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 28, 2016 9:46:48 GMT -5
It's surely not 17 milion Britons, granted! But... how much is it? Because you guys keep saying it's only a "handfull" or "some", but surely feels as much much more than just "some". Most of the media (even the british ones) reports the main issue for the "leave" voters was immigration. You say it's a spin, fine, maybe so, it just feels like the truth is at least half ways :/ I'm sorry, but it really isn't-of that I'm sure. Regardless of the very vocal ranting of the Remain campaign about immigration and xenophobia, the fact is that many people in this country simply did not want us to go into the EU in the first place; it was fine when it was the EEC, just a trading partnership, but a huge chunk of our society has always been resistant to the idea of a political union, and there has been continual resentment about European laws being enacted here and European directives affecting areas of our lives ever since 1992. It was pretty much inevitable from the moment Cameron promised a referendum that at least half of us would vote out, and entirely predictable that most of those votes would be from older people who did not want to be in in the first place. Many of the younger generation voted to stay, but then, those under thirty have basically never known a world where we were not in the EU. And it has not been good for Britain. For big business, yes, and for the couple of million who work in the EU, but not for our farmers, our fishermen, or the average man in the street. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 28, 2016 9:49:43 GMT -5
Yes, but with that kind of rationalizing, apart from Croatia, no one voted to join the current version of the EU. In order for the US to form NATO, they had to change their constitution because it didn't allow the US to form any kind of military alliance outside of declared war time. Big organisations constantly evolve, that's in their nature. That point you're making is IMHO a little stuborn. As you can see, federalism was in the DNA of the ECSC from the get go, they never hid that this was a reaching goal. What I doubt is that any of us could actually find documentation from 1973 pointing that this was or wasn't in the least brought up before the UK joined. BTW, as you can see, I'm fairly enthusiastic about that topic and have some level of knowledge about it, but I must confess I don't think I ever learned about the actual legal process which saw the UK join. Anyone? Being a US citizen, I don't feel qualified to express an opinion on whether the UK leaving the EU was a good or bad thing. However, I would take issue with your statement that the US had to change our Constitution to form NATO. The Constitution itself doesn't change, except for the adoption of amendments. I re-read all the constitutional amendments, and I found nothing regarding changes to allow the US to join a foreign military treaty (which is what NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is). Could you site your source? Also, you state that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for decades, but I would suggest that NATO had something to do with it as well. That occurred to me, too. Considerably more than the EU, in fact, which is not a peacekeeping organisation. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 28, 2016 9:58:53 GMT -5
However, I would take issue with your statement that the US had to change our Constitution to form NATO. The Constitution itself doesn't change, except for the adoption of amendments. I re-read all the constitutional amendments, and I found nothing regarding changes to allow the US to join a foreign military treaty (which is what NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is). Could you site your source? Also, you state that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for decades, but I would suggest that NATO had something to do with it as well. Resolution 239 from June 11th 1948, introduced by Senator Vandenberg changed the US constitution so that the US could form military alliances during peace time. Does that seem correct? NATO has certainly had an impact on peace in Europe and the world, but I'd argue that as it was a US military tool, it also caused a lot of friction, when the EU in its various forms was never a military tool, but one of trade intended to build bridges and keep peace between former enemies. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 28, 2016 10:09:54 GMT -5
That occurred to me, too. Considerably more than the EU, in fact, which is not a peacekeeping organisation. Nato is a military organisation, a tool of the US defense department historicaly monitored by the CIA, one that was engineered to face the soviet nations. The EU is an organisation born with the hope of building longlasting peace between former enemies. It's an ideal, a symbol and an organisation, and of course it made war impossible between those countries anymore. So we disagree as I strongly believe that as all of those things, the EU has been a major source of peace throughout the world alonside the UN in the past 60+ years, while I believe that the NATO has at times been usefull and at others highly dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 28, 2016 10:24:06 GMT -5
However, I would take issue with your statement that the US had to change our Constitution to form NATO. The Constitution itself doesn't change, except for the adoption of amendments. I re-read all the constitutional amendments, and I found nothing regarding changes to allow the US to join a foreign military treaty (which is what NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is). Could you site your source? Also, you state that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for decades, but I would suggest that NATO had something to do with it as well. Resolution 239 from June 11th 1948, introduced by Senator Vandenberg changed the US constitution so that the US could form military alliances during peace time. Does that seem correct? NATO has certainly had an impact on peace in Europe and the world, but I'd argue that as it was a US military tool, it also caused a lot of friction, when the EU in its various forms was never a military tool, but one of trade intended to build bridges and keep peace between former enemies. OK, I see where the confusion comes from. It was a Senate resolution, that had the effect of law but was not an actual change to the Constitution. A resolution only requires the approval of the Senate (and maybe the House of Representatives, not sure about that) and being signed by the President. An amendment to the Constitution requires a nationwide referendum and approval by two thirds of the 50 states before it becomes part of the Constitution. And you're right, NATO is strictly and unquestionably a military alliance. As for it being a US military tool, there is some validity to that as well. When you're the 800 pound gorilla in the room, you frequently get your way, right or wrong. |
|
