If we vote for Brexit what happens

Filo25

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Seems the electorate want the runway.

I'm sure he got some boost in his votes from resigning on a point of principle on a matter where most of his constituents agreed with him, but that was undoubtedly partially undermined by the Lib Dem candidate also opposing Heathrow expansion.

On the other hand he was a pro-Brexit MP in a strongly pro-Remain part of the country (and Brexit remains the number 1 issue for many at present), and he allowed a pretty toxic mayoral campaign to be run in his name.

Its not entirely a shock that he lost in those circumstances.

mwpt

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Globalisation doesn't work. The larger it has become. The more out of touch it has become with the people.

You are, once again incorrect. Instead of the usual two sentence statement of (non) truth, how about telling us what we should have instead of globalisation, what it would look like and how it would lift as many people out of poverty as globalisation has done?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

mwpt wrote: »

You are, once again incorrect. Instead of the usual two sentence statement of (non) truth, how about telling us what we should have instead of globalisation, what it would look like and how it would lift as many people out of poverty as globalisation has done?

Why don't you stop prevaricating and instead reply in a sensible manner?
In other words instead of telling Thrugelmir that the statement "Globalisation doesn't work" is incorrect and posing a fatuous question, why not instead explain how YOU think globalisation has eased poverty?

Because to attempt a balanced view, I can almost guarantee that for every piece of evidence you provide to show your POV there is at least the equivalent evidence supporting how globalisation is increasing poverty and/or inequality.

Or will you really try to deny that sweatshops and child labour are a direct result of globalisation?
A quick web search will show hundreds of results but here is just one from Greenpeace to start you off:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/globalisation-dark-side/blog/57141/

Thrugelmir

mwpt wrote: »

You are, once again incorrect. Instead of the usual two sentence statement of (non) truth, how about telling us what we should have instead of globalisation, what it would look like and how it would lift as many people out of poverty as globalisation has done?

Is corporate globalisation the cure for poverty. I disagree with that view. Why don't you sacrifice some of your lifestyle instead if you care so much.

mwpt

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Why don't you stop prevaricating and instead reply in a sensible manner?
In other words instead of telling Thrugelmir that the statement "Globalisation doesn't work" is incorrect and posing a fatuous question, why not instead explain how YOU think globalisation has eased poverty?

What do you consider a sensible manner? It seems that you are mostly fine with two sentence statements of truth, as long as they agree with your particular bias.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

mwpt wrote: »

What do you consider a sensible manner? It seems that you are mostly fine with two sentence statements of truth, as long as they agree with your particular bias.

Oh pot and kettle statements now?
No attempt to answer the question?
We'll take that as a "No I can't" then shall we?

To remind you of the question:

why not instead explain how YOU think globalisation has eased poverty?

Also note:

to attempt a balanced view

mwpt

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Is corporate globalisation the cure for poverty. I disagree with that view. Why don't you sacrifice some of your lifestyle instead if you care so much.

I note you have introduced a new word, now it is "corporate globalisation". Nevertheless, globalisation isn't really a thing to rally against. It is simply the emergent behaviour that comes with technological progress and as the world gets metaphorically smaller.

This has lifted more people out of poverty than any protectionist regime ever has or ever will.

BobQ

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Why don't you stop prevaricating and instead reply in a sensible manner?
In other words instead of telling Thrugelmir that the statement "Globalisation doesn't work" is incorrect and posing a fatuous question, why not instead explain how YOU think globalisation has eased poverty?

Because to attempt a balanced view, I can almost guarantee that for every piece of evidence you provide to show your POV there is at least the equivalent evidence supporting how globalisation is increasing poverty and/or inequality.

Or will you really try to deny that sweatshops and child labour are a direct result of globalisation?
A quick web search will show hundreds of results but here is just one from Greenpeace to start you off:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/globalisation-dark-side/blog/57141/

Sweatshops have been around well before the phenomenon of globalisation. They existed under the British Empire and not just in poor economies. Our cotton and wool mills were sweatshops where workers had little rights. As for child labour the British sent our own children down mines and up chimineys and those wool and cotton mills employed child labour to do hazzardous jobs like crawling under working weaving machines.

So lets not lecture other nations for allowing such things. It is the lack of regulation that encourages the corporate world to allow shch things.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

BobQ wrote: »

Sweatshops have been around well before the phenomenon of globalisation. They existed under the British Empire and not just in poor economies. Our cotton and wool mills were sweatshops where workers had little rights. As for child labour the British sent our own children down mines and up chimineys and those wool and cotton mills employed child labour to do hazzardous jobs like crawling under working weaving machines.

So lets not lecture other nations for allowing such things. It is the lack of regulation that encourages the corporate world to allow shch things.

I make no attempt to lecture other nations.
This is instead a discussion of how globalisation is supposedly reducing poverty; if that is the case would you not agree that such conditions would no longer exist or at least would increasingly cease to exist?
Yet there is little evidence of this reduction.

mwpt

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Oh pot and kettle statements now?
No attempt to answer the question?
We'll take that as a "No I can't" then shall we?

Well, as much as you'd like me to dance to your tune, you will note that I did kick off our little episode with an open question to Thrug.

As you have kindly noted, we can probably find evidence either way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIldvz0jygE

You will of course dismiss this video and most probably TED talks as a whole as just another liberal elite agenda because they don't conform to your particular biases while I as someone who is "into" technology, have a bias that technology and trade drives improvements in human lives and globalisation is the symptom of this.