Thank your lucky stars you don't live in the USA
Comments
-
bostonerimus wrote: »I think the OP is tapping into a fear that exists with many people post Brexit that their voice is not heard and that a few rich special interests can use the UK's democracy for their own gain.
Because our voices are heard so loud and clear right now. I only have to lift my hand and shout "I'm hungry" and Jean-Claude Juncker will knock on the door and give me a sandwich.
I think this "fear" works logically more like this: "1. Brexit is bad 2. This is bad 3. Therefore Brexit will cause this".
Brexit is filling the void that used to be occupied by Satan or the lonely old woman who lived at the edge of the village, as an explanation and scapegoat for everything bad that happens or may happen. Where every time the crops failed or someone caught plague you said "Ah, 'tis the devil's work" and walked away happy that you knew how the world worked and didn't have to think about it any longer or do anything to improve your situation. Other than setting the old lady on fire.0 -
Alan_Cross wrote: »My sympathies, Eddy.
All you did was mention that Brexit would, effectively, 'localise' our legislature (a la Nevada) and give voice to the consequent possibility that May's threat to establish GB as a low-cost, low-wage, race-to-the-bottom fairyland might just have some negative implications for the kind of folks who haven't got the dough to live in nice, gated communities.
Needless to say, this is heresy to the Brexit-at-ANY-price frothers hereabouts.
Don't forget: you lost the referendum by a tiny fraction and this of course disqualifies your thoughts from having any validity... oh and by the way, despite the passage of time and the obvious possibility that the electorate may have changed its mind on this matter of generational, national importance, you're not allowed to give mention to the idea of a confirmatory, second referendum...
That post is barely any more sensible than the OP.
A substantial part of the yes vote for the referendum has been that the UK has been turned into a low cost, low wage economy, for reasons including immigration from Eastern Europe, Mis management by large company managers, banking incompetence of a laughable scale together with payment for failure etc etc. The failure of Blair to modulate workers after the accession countries joined, which most other Northern European countries adopted, just led to a more extreme movement of people for perfectly justifiable reasons, not an eu issue, purely a Westminster one.
The fact that people are now several years down the line of diminishing real wages is an obvious issue for large numbers of people, especially as unemployment is apparently at levels unseen for decades.
I don't think the uk really has many more issues than most of Europe, Catalan independence makes sturgeon look like a kitten, merkel is in all sorts of problems trying to manufacture a coalition with anyone who'll have her (shades of May but at least she only had to bribe a few members of a small party, merkel has to do deals with at least two other parties and even her own partner party is threatening to leave), macron is going to hit problems with unions and entrenched interests, Italy is still a near basket case and many of the smaller countries are even worse.
My main problem with the whole Brexit thing, apart from the huge amount of misinformation thrown around by both sides, is that being on or out of Europe is no panacea. People seem to have thoroughly entrenched views on either side, the reality is that being in or out has both benefits and drawbacks, oh for a sensible debate.0 -
bostonerimus wrote: »I think the OP is tapping into a fear that exists with many people post Brexit that their voice is not heard and that a few rich special interests can use the UK's democracy for their own gain.
People's voices were heard, and the majority went against the rich and powerful special interest groups who opposed Brexit. That was entirely sensible of them as the rich have a lot to lose and nothing to gain from change. The fear you describe is not sensible. There are plenty of example of rich specialist interest groups manipulating EU law for their own gain. A more democratic system should make that harder (though not impossible).0 -
My main problem with the whole Brexit thing, apart from the huge amount of misinformation thrown around by both sides, is that being on or out of Europe is no panacea. People seem to have thoroughly entrenched views on either side, the reality is that being in or out has both benefits and drawbacks, oh for a sensible debate.
Probably the most inteliigent thing that has been said about the whole Brexit shenanigans on MSE.
It'll never work though, all that being sensible and moderate:(0 -
I hardly think this is the time to be sensible and moderate. Everyone knows that leaving the EU will lead to the zombie apocalypse. We should all be fortifying our houses and preparing to shoot our neighbours, not engaging in reasoned and nuanced debate.Probably the most inteliigent thing that has been said about the whole Brexit shenanigans on MSE.
It'll never work though, all that being sensible and moderate:(0 -
Alan_Cross wrote: »All you did was mention that Brexit would, effectively, 'localise' our legislature...
...but applied it to an aspect that is already localised, not simply at the level of the UK, but with separate legislation and oversight for England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.0 -
The irony of this is it is based on an old English law.Paid off the last of my unsecured debts in 2016. Then saved up and bought a property. Current aim is to pay off my mortgage as early as possible. Currently over paying every month. Mortgage due to be paid off in 2036 hoping to get it paid off much earlier. Set up my own bespoke spreadsheet to manage my money.0
-
Like I said earlier. Brexit seems to be a very contentious issue and people's opinions are both polarised and very strong. If I had not mentioned Brexit in my original post, what would readers have thought then with just the bare article? I find it chilling that this is possible in a civilised society.
I have enough difficulties in my life without being laughed off as an idiot going by some comments. You will note that at no point did I indicate whether I was in favour or against Brexit in spite of some posters implying this.
I personally can see the connection between the UK going alone as an 'unfederated state' , as can some others above, although I have not had the time to make my arguments as lucid as I would have wished. I'm sorry. I understand the comparison between a federated Europe and a federated America may seem strange, but the construction of each federation....for me... seems to have come from opposite angles. The European Federation seems to grow in strength through it's acceptance of consensus politics. The USA seems to be in permanent conflict with the States always in conflict with the Federal Authorities. Just my take on it. I'm dipping out on this debate now, but I'm pleased to have drawn your attention to an excellent essay. Carry on debating to your heart's content. I just remain damn glad I don't live in Nevada
0 -
eddyinfreehold wrote: »Like I said earlier. Brexit seems to be a very contentious issue and people's opinions are both polarised and very strong. If I had not mentioned Brexit in my original post, what would readers have thought then with just the bare article? I find it chilling that this is possible in a civilised society.
I have enough difficulties in my life without being laughed off as an idiot going by some comments. You will note that at no point did I indicate whether I was in favour or against Brexit in spite of some posters implying this.
I personally can see the connection between the UK going alone as an 'unfederated state' , as can some others above, although I have not had the time to make my arguments as lucid as I would have wished. I'm sorry. I understand the comparison between a federated Europe and a federated America may seem strange, but the construction of each federation....for me... seems to have come from opposite angles. The European Federation seems to grow in strength through it's acceptance of consensus politics. The USA seems to be in permanent conflict with the States always in conflict with the Federal Authorities. Just my take on it. I'm dipping out on this debate now, but I'm pleased to have drawn your attention to an excellent essay. Carry on debating to your heart's content. I just remain damn glad I don't live in Nevada
Brexit is contentious and one of those things that people lose all sense of and fail to be rational about.
The issue is that you've provided a very poor starting point for any debate of a likely issue, the example you've chosen is very poor and pretty much irrelevant.
There are certainly areas where the EU has been very beneficial, the adoption of CE marking being a case in point that shows how poor the US experience can be and would be a better analogy. There was an interesting point on the motoring boards where it was discovered that in half a dozen us states, and yes I believe Nevada was one, there is no legal limit for tyre tread depth.
You set your stall out as a remainder in your OP so don't try and claim anything else, otherwise why posy such an irrelevant and dramatic link, which has no relevance for the subject you have tried to crowbar it into.
I love your interpretation of consensus in European politics, I hate to see what your definition of conflict is in that regard. Ther are far more issues with a federated Europe than the US, far more history, at least two fundamentally different legal codes, a dozen or more major languages with many other minor ones, economic development ranging from near third world to state of the art (Britain isn't either of these by the way), the failure of the EU to achieve budgets or more importantly get accounts audited, use as a rest home for retired and often semi corrupt politicians etc etc
There's a wide range in the US from Massachusetts to Nevada say, but co,pared to the Netherlands to Bulgaria then they aren't that different.0 -
People's voices were heard, and the majority went against the rich and powerful special interest groups who opposed Brexit. That was entirely sensible of them as the rich have a lot to lose and nothing to gain from change. The fear you describe is not sensible. There are plenty of example of rich specialist interest groups manipulating EU law for their own gain. A more democratic system should make that harder (though not impossible).
I pointed out what might be the origin of the OP's comment. As we see facts can be interpreted in opposing ways depending on someone's perspective, hence the contentious nature of Brexit. Even post Brexit (whatever that might be) it will take decades of perspective to come close to a final tally of the results......I'm sure some landowning families still see the repeal of the Corn Laws as bad for the UK economy.“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards