Brexit

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Post Reply
User avatar
JSDD
Posts: 1378
Joined: Fri, 21. Mar 14, 20:51
x3tc

Re: Brexit

Post by JSDD » Sat, 15. Dec 18, 14:23

BugMeister wrote:
Sat, 15. Dec 18, 06:44
I agree, change comes from within..
when it comes to the EU .. no so fast:
real change comes if only ALL 28 member states agree on something ... which almost never happens!
if london wants to protect the interest of their financial industry, it can simply block any new legislation on it, doesnt matter if that would implement common-sense .. or fairness .. or whatever
if germany and france want to protect hteir auto industrys interest, all of europe has to comply, doesnt matter if new legislation would promote climate protection ..

for real change, you can wait all day long, it (almost) never happens (in a structure like the EU).
To err is human. To really foul things up you need a computer.
Irren ist menschlich. Aber wenn man richtig Fehler machen will, braucht man einen Computer.


Mission Director Beispiele

A5PECT
Posts: 6078
Joined: Sun, 3. Sep 06, 02:31
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by A5PECT » Sat, 15. Dec 18, 19:17

Golden_Gonads wrote:
Sat, 15. Dec 18, 01:48
Observe wrote:
Wed, 12. Dec 18, 23:42
I wonder what would happen if Brexit was put up for vote again? Is this a possibility? Do you think the interest in leaving EU has faded?
I think if it were to go to the vote again, the remain camp would win. I also think it would spark some pretty serious riots.

That said, if what I read a while back is right, if we were to revoke leaving now, we'd lose just about every perk the UK has garnered over the last few decades.
If the UK calls off Brexit, they lose the extra perks of being an EU member state.

If the UK doesn't call off Brexit, they lose the extra perks and the standard perks of being a EU member state.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step in figuring out how to make it worse.

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by BugMeister » Sun, 16. Dec 18, 22:05

yeah, ok..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mtet4-dJy8

- it's even crazier in real life..!!
:lol:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Brexit

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 18. Dec 18, 00:44

2nd no confident vote in a week? And I thought Republican trying to repeal Obamacare under Obama was a waste of time. :roll:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by RegisterMe » Tue, 18. Dec 18, 01:00

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 18. Dec 18, 00:44
2nd no confident vote in a week? And I thought Republican trying to repeal Obamacare under Obama was a waste of time. :roll:
Any notion that these idiots on either the Tory or the Labour side of the political divide, pretending that they are doing this in the national interest, is a load of complete shite.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Brexit

Post by Bishop149 » Tue, 18. Dec 18, 11:31

Morkonan wrote:
Sat, 15. Dec 18, 04:21
But, it seems to me that the E.U. is a "Trade Federation" and/or an "Economic Cooperative" more than any "Union" of independent governments. (Confederacy) There are the trappings of a combined government, with shared requirements for certain laws and the movement of peoples, which touches lightly upon the sovereign control of borders. But, only lightly, being a requirement of willing members within the E.U. A truly unified "Currency" is there, but it's somewhat weakened IMO.
Mightysword wrote:
Sat, 15. Dec 18, 08:31
It seems to be the case of either people want to have a cake and eat it too, or just don't want to admit the big elephant in the room. Regarding your first paragraph, the United States basically have all that, because we are a "country". But in return, each states must willfully and forcefully complies to the common rule, and it's also "enforceable". Probably not the way some will put it, but remember the last time someone tried to break away from the union they were brought back at gun point, and told not to do it again. ;)
I think you two have hit the nail on the head here.
The EU would probably function much more effectively if it was a full on Federal Republic (like the USA) rather than this weird halfway house between one of those and a free trade area.
The reason it is like that however is pretty simple. . . . Nationalism.
As fond of your individual States as you might be, most Americans (a few wierdos in the south aside) primary loyalty is to the United States as a unified country.
This is not at all true of Europe, we have many 100s of years of both independent national identity and conflict between nation states to unpick before we could ever consider ourselves "European" first and "[Insert nationality here]" second. I suppose this might change eventually but I think recent events have thrown into sharp contrast how even a relatively small amount of stress on the European system starts causing yawning cracks to appear, all driven by popularist nationalism.

Funnily enough, Brexit itself might be a catalyst for such change. Speaking for myself I never realise quite how much a I valued my European identity until 26% of the UKs population decided to voted to remove it from me against my will.
Its now something I would fight for every bit as much as for my British. . . . I think many of my generation and younger feel the same.
Morkonan wrote:
Sat, 15. Dec 18, 04:21
"We're leaving the E.U. What will you give us as we walk out the door?"

I wonder which question gets the response of "Go screw yourself." :)
Lol, yep that's our negotiating position in a nutshell.
Why anyone believed this was "strong" is utterly beyond me.
Last edited by Bishop149 on Tue, 18. Dec 18, 15:06, edited 1 time in total.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by pjknibbs » Tue, 18. Dec 18, 14:11

Bishop149 wrote:
Tue, 18. Dec 18, 11:31
Lol, yep that's our negotiating position in a nutshell.
Why anyone believed this was "strong" is utterly beyond me.
But...Boris said it would be the easiest negotiation ever! Surely he wouldn't *lie* to us? :roll:

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by RegisterMe » Tue, 18. Dec 18, 17:35

pjknibbs wrote:
Tue, 18. Dec 18, 14:11
But...Boris said it would be the easiest negotiation ever! Surely he wouldn't *lie* to us? :roll:
Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Farrage, Aaron Banks, Tim WhateverhisnameisWetherspoons, The Daily ****** Mail etc etc etc etc.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Brexit

Post by Morkonan » Tue, 18. Dec 18, 18:10

Mightysword wrote:
Sat, 15. Dec 18, 08:31
...It seems to be the case of either people want to have a cake and eat it too, or just don't want to admit the big elephant in the room. Regarding your first paragraph, the United States basically have all that, because we are a "country". But in return, each states must willfully and forcefully complies to the common rule, and it's also "enforceable". Probably not the way some will put it, but remember the last time someone tried to break away from the union they were brought back at gun point, and told not to do it again. ;)
Well, there's still a jury out on the verdict of the "Right of Secession." But, there is no argument against a people's "Right of Revolution." :)
...Basically, she believes that no matter how much short term benefit the EU can demonstrate, it will never sustainable long term. Without a golden-unified-enforcable rule set, cracks will destine to appear and fester. She was especially thought the idea behind the common currency is stupid. She believe you can only do something like that once you bring every member economy to the same structure and similar level, not one where eveyrone do their own thing. Look at the Greece's crisis ... it's hard to argue with her on that point. :sceptic:
Knowing little of international trade and economics, I'd agree with her. The only way I can see continued success is by the E.U. being a unified economic and trade front. It does that, to one extent or another, but not consistently without internal bickering and a lot of growing pains and setbacks in less industrious nations that already had problems before the E.U.
... "Finding a rule that can work for everyone" is a wishful and pleasant thought, but my mother said that's actually not an important priority. She said: "it's about to write a rule and make everyone follow". :)
So, your mother aspired to become a Tyrant? :)

An "Empire" could work in Europe. But, a collection of semi-autonomous city-states with a unified currency? I dunno... Somehow, I don't think most of them liked Florins when they were commonly used and there happened to be a metric buttload of mercenaries "evening the odds" and "balancing the ledgers" for everyone way back then. :)

Personally, I hope it all works out. If it makes standardized trade easier, it's better for everyone. (YAY, my economic conservatism shines through!) But, if nations are forced to handicap themselves in order to comply... I'm against that, of course.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Brexit

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 18. Dec 18, 20:31

Morkonan wrote:
Tue, 18. Dec 18, 18:10
So, your mother aspired to become a Tyrant? :)
And why must it be that extreme? ;)

People often ask which is more important for leadership: being feared or being loved? And the answer I think is "both". She held two position: a member of the board and head of the union. The first position is appointed, the second is voted in. Can't survive the former without an iron fist, and can't last in the latter without being loved. When she quit to move to the US, people above her freaked out on how to replace her, and people below her weep because they believe there wouldn't be another one like her. She lifted up many people, many of colleagues were able to build their houses and send their kids to school thanks to her, but those who crossed her wrongly were set as examples for why it's a really bad idea to do so. For comparison, I think the closest American figure I can relate to is she is like a white collar George Patton. :P

What it means in this situation is "making a rule that will work for everyone" is either at best an idealistic and foolish aspiration in equal measure, or at worst it's just merely lip service to a political correctness notion that no one actually believe - which I'm more willing to bet is actually the case. When you try to make a rule for a whole bunch of individuals, the reality everyone must accept that there will be some that benefit you, and some that works against you, but everyone have to follow regardless. I don't think that has anything to do with tyranny, just simply the necessity of reality. :sceptic:

And I think, again, that's why an objective view is important. The Brexit discussion is just like any other political discussion, were polarized with a clear line: one side only talks about the benefit as if there is nothing bad, while the other side only focus on the drawbacks as if nothing good ever came out of it. Sure, if the 'narrators' are not being objective, you can argue since both sides are out there, the voters can mix in between and weight their own conclusion, right? But we all know that the voters are as bad about being objective as the politicians, once we chose a bias and narrative we like, often time we just gonna decide to believe one over another. :roll:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
notaterran
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu, 10. Sep 09, 05:22
x3tc

Re: Brexit

Post by notaterran » Tue, 18. Dec 18, 22:39

BugMeister wrote:
Sat, 15. Dec 18, 06:44

[...] and, given the enormous toll it will take on the UK economy, can only be described as a massive dereliction of duty.. :evil: :evil:
What would happen if London took the plunge like Switzerland and relaxed financial regulations a bit more (i.e. to become a friendlier haven)? That would be a nice source of revenue and would diminish the impact of leaving the EU.

Link1

Link2
Last edited by notaterran on Wed, 19. Dec 18, 15:09, edited 1 time in total.
-Skinny women look good in clothes, fit women look good naked.

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by BugMeister » Wed, 19. Dec 18, 06:00

- I seem to remember the tory chancellor suggesting that very idea several months ago..
- the oligarchs have become over-confident, if you ask me - they consider their wealth to be of paramount national importance..
- they would happily turn to entire UK into a massive corporation if they could - provided they were all given permanent seats on the board, natch..!! :sceptic: :sceptic:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Brexit

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 19. Dec 18, 15:27

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 18. Dec 18, 20:31
...What it means in this situation is "making a rule that will work for everyone" is either at best an idealistic and foolish aspiration in equal measure, or at worst it's just merely lip service to a political correctness notion that no one actually believe - which I'm more willing to bet is actually the case. When you try to make a rule for a whole bunch of individuals, the reality everyone must accept that there will be some that benefit you, and some that works against you, but everyone have to follow regardless. I don't think that has anything to do with tyranny, just simply the necessity of reality. :sceptic:...
You can make rules/laws that work for everyone, but you just have to make them using a bit of sense.

"Don't claim property that isn't yours." - ie: Don't steal.

That's pretty straightforward, right? It's a law or something... But, what happens when someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their starving family? They're still guilty, right? At that point, while they're guilty, they're now subject to "sentencing" by a judge. A rational judge would likely not choose to punish such a theft by sending the person to prison.

Tyrannical rules come about when you don't have the power to influence a rule that effectively means you will be immediately guilty of violating it as soon as it is put in force.

"Don't be black."

Well, golly... That'd sort of be a sucky rule for a lot of folks, right? Should they then be subjected to punishment? Or, should they be forced to pay the expenses of getting their skin bleached? What prevents this sort of "rule" from being tyrannical?

Rights.

If you have a firmly established set of "principles" that everyone can agree on and that are designed to prevent "tyranny" you'll have a lot easier time when it comes down to establishing rules that aren't tyrannical. For instance, the US's "Bill of Rights." All law must not infringe upon those "rights" and all law is judged by them.

Apply that to the E.U. What is their "mission statement?" That's often a guidepost that tells others what an organization aspires to. The E.U. has a set of principles:

https://europa.eu/european-union/about- ... n-brief_en

Those seem to be pretty good ideas, right? If everyone truly agrees with those principles, then all of their "rules" must abide by them. What is supposed to be served by any rules that they establish is, after all, the principles for which the E.U. was formed to promote. Unfortunately, "politics" doesn't always favor benevolence and altruism. For instance, people don't like it when they feel they're giving up something so that someone besides themselves will see benefits. But, the opinion of a people does not always translate into fact... And, people's opinions can be influenced by others, even to the point where their opinion is based on "non-facts."

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Brexit

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 19. Dec 18, 18:02

Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 19. Dec 18, 15:27
You can make rules/laws that work for everyone, but you just have to make them using a bit of sense.

"Don't claim property that isn't yours." - ie: Don't steal.

That's pretty straightforward, right? It's a law or something... But, what happens when someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their starving family? They're still guilty, right? At that point, while they're guilty, they're now subject to "sentencing" by a judge. A rational judge would likely not choose to punish such a theft by sending the person to prison.
Sure, but the examples you're offering are so simple they are pretty much irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's similar to how knowledge taught in the classroom used to be (and probably still are in some place) useless for real jobs. Not because what are taught is wrong, but because they often lack the "realistic" context. Anyone can come up with a idealistic theory using "common" sense, the problem is it's not like reality lack common sense, it's just often not ideal. :P

Tyrannical rules come about when you don't have the power to influence a rule that effectively means you will be immediately guilty of violating it as soon as it is put in force.
And like I said, why does it have to be that extreme? Is it Tyranny because it is tyranny, or is it because you just want to slap that label on it? Studying, most kids don't like to do it. A kid got grounded by the parents for not studying can scream "MY PARENTS ARE TYRANTS!!!", to other adults, we just call it "parenting".
"Don't be black."
Well, golly... That'd sort of be a sucky rule for a lot of folks, right? Should they then be subjected to punishment? Or, should they be forced to pay the expenses of getting their skin bleached? What prevents this sort of "rule" from being tyrannical?
Again, this kind of example is so far out there that I can't find a way to address them in a way that will add something meaningful to the discussion. Here is some suggestion for more relatable examples in this context:

- Look at the rule of conduct for the military.
- Look at the rule of conduct for professional sport players.
- Look at the law of some old/conservative oriental cultures.
- Look at the rule of Asian education institutions.
Unfortunately, "politics" doesn't always favor benevolence and altruism. For instance, people don't like it when they feel they're giving up something so that someone besides themselves will see benefits.
Like I said, welcome to reality. ;)
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by BugMeister » Wed, 19. Dec 18, 18:04

Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 19. Dec 18, 15:27
For instance, people don't like it when they feel they're giving up something so that someone besides themselves will see benefits.
- could you possibly be more uncharitable..?? :gruebel:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
notaterran
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu, 10. Sep 09, 05:22
x3tc

Re: Brexit

Post by notaterran » Thu, 20. Dec 18, 01:41

BugMeister wrote:
Wed, 19. Dec 18, 06:00
- the oligarchs have become over-confident, if you ask me - they consider their wealth to be of paramount national importance..
Apparently London is one of the Russkies' favorite laundromats.
BugMeister wrote:
Wed, 19. Dec 18, 06:00
- I seem to remember the tory chancellor suggesting that very idea several months ago..
Switzerland will only be too happy to take that money if Britain doesn't make a move. If London becomes attractive enough, then the Queen and others like her won't have to stash their money offshore. As for Russian oligarchs, apparently the money in the UK is much more than the official figures suggest.
[...] the statistics are telling a misleading story. Russian money that moves through another jurisdiction before arriving in Britain isn’t counted as Russian and, since the overwhelming majority of money that enters and leaves Russia does so via tax havens such as Cyprus and the Bahamas, this means the official figures reflect only a small portion of the money the MPs were interested in.
Wouldn't Londoners want to see that inflow of cash into their city?
-Skinny women look good in clothes, fit women look good naked.

User avatar
Ronald Sandoval
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue, 5. Apr 05, 06:56
x3tc

Re: Brexit

Post by Ronald Sandoval » Thu, 20. Dec 18, 09:29

happy brexit from Theresa May https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mtet4-dJy8
GA-7N400 PRO2
2x512MB PC3200 in dual channel
geforce 6600GT
XP3200

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Brexit

Post by Bishop149 » Thu, 20. Dec 18, 12:01

notaterran wrote:
Thu, 20. Dec 18, 01:41
Wouldn't Londoners want to see that inflow of cash into their city?
As someone who lives there the answer to that would have to be a "Hell no!"
In order to generate an economic benefit to the area in which it sits money must flow, or to to put it another way be spent there.
The people pouring their dirty money into London (and the rich more generally) have little interest in spending their wealth and thus spreading it around, no, essentially they just want to horde it.
The only way they ever send it out into the world is in a very limited way that makes sure it all just travels in circles and never filters down to the rest of us.
This is my one of primary problems with rich people, they are basically just big economic sinkholes into which vast sums of money just vanish never to be economically useful again.

AFAIK the primary way London acts as a sink for the worlds wealth is in the form of property.
Hence we have 100's of ridiculously overpriced homes (that no one ever lives in) with more being built all the time* and a housing crisis caused by a critical lack of social or affordable housing and skyrocketing prices for the housing stock that already exists. I recently bought a modest 2 bedroom house in zone 3, my friend is currently buying in Newcastle. . . . for what I spent on mine I could literally buy a whole damn street where shes looking.

*You might argue that this is good for the building trade, and perhaps it is but we also need homes for non-millionaires to actually live in. Plenty of (far more useful) work to be had for the builders there too.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by BugMeister » Thu, 20. Dec 18, 13:30

- hence taxation..
- the solution is an equitable taxation system - one that is suitably complex
- necessity is the mother of invention, Grasshopper.. :goner:

- quoth the Duck-billed Platitude.. :lol:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Brexit

Post by Morkonan » Thu, 20. Dec 18, 20:05

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 19. Dec 18, 18:02
Sure, but the examples you're offering are so simple they are pretty much irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's similar to how knowledge taught in the classroom used to be (and probably still are in some place) useless for real jobs. Not because what are taught is wrong, but because they often lack the "realistic" context. Anyone can come up with a idealistic theory using "common" sense, the problem is it's not like reality lack common sense, it's just often not ideal. :P
Basic founding principles of an organization are always "simple." "Mission Statements" are always "simple." Targeted goals that lead more complex processes to reach them are always "simple."

The ambiguities found in needlessly complex basic principles are undesirable... "Basic Principles" are supposed to be "basic."
And like I said, why does it have to be that extreme? Is it Tyranny because it is tyranny, or is it because you just want to slap that label on it? Studying, most kids don't like to do it. A kid got grounded by the parents for not studying can scream "MY PARENTS ARE TYRANTS!!!", to other adults, we just call it "parenting".
A "Tyrant" does not have to be "bad." You're not understanding the practical, functional, definition of "tyrant" : "A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in the modern English-language usage of the word, is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or person..." Wiki-Tyrant

These days, people refer to neutral or even good "tyrants" as "Benevolent Dictators." I think that's just to avoid the negative stigma of the word "tyrant." I prefer the neutral, mechanical, definition.
Again, this kind of example is so far out there that I can't find a way to address them in a way that will add something meaningful to the discussion. Here is some suggestion for more relatable examples in this context:
I don't see how these are "more relatable." The point is that if you establish a set of basic principles and guidelines for the formation of all future "law," you have a clearly defined way to measure the legitimacy of all future law creation. And, if that is true, anything the organization decides to do must be measured against a set of already established principles that are not easily subject to being redefined, changed, or argued about.

If there are a clear set of principles that all members agree to for the E.U. (which there are) then there shouldn't be any problems in how these are interpreted, right? :) But, if one starts mucking about with "special circumstances" one is going to start introducing exceptions that can be argued as illegitimate based upon those principles.
..Like I said, welcome to reality. ;)
Yeah... But, where do I get off if I don't like the ride? :)
BugMeister wrote:
Wed, 19. Dec 18, 18:04
Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 19. Dec 18, 15:27
For instance, people don't like it when they feel they're giving up something so that someone besides themselves will see benefits.
- could you possibly be more uncharitable..?? :gruebel:
Not sure what your use of "uncharitable" means, here. But, I will attempt to fulfill your request:

"People are jerks."

:)

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”