Sorry Britain, but I sincerely hope that your entire country goes down the shitter so we can make sure no other country dares follow your example. Basic survival instinct on my part, rather you than me.
That's why I advocate for EU focus courses during high school. Nobody should finish school without understanding how the European Union was formed, for what reasons, how it's structured, who you can vote for and what the major benefits, APART from free movement of labor/goods/schengen, are.
Only when you understand what you are voting for can democracy be a powerful tool to initiate positive change. Otherwise you are just being played by the schemers sitting in their golden chairs, feeding you lies or half truths.
This inane Brexit bus that was traveling through Britain with "EU COSTS US XXX POUNDS PER WEEK" bullshit is a prime example.
I honestly cannot understand the logic of Brexiteers (I'm from the UK).
There is tangibly no benefit to leaving the EU.
Whenever a brexiteer is pushed all they can come up with is sovereignty (not understanding that we already had it in the first place).
We are already seeing the effects of Brexit and we haven't even left yet.
The way I see it is short term it will be a disaster, long term we may get back to close to a pre brexit state (15-20 years, in the mean time the EU is likely to see a lot of growth). I cannot personally see any benefit for myself, my kids or anyone for that matter.
What I would really like to see happen is a completely impartial investigation (I know that's not really possible) with just facts of possible future outcomes and the likelihood of each outcome. I would then like another vote to see if we still wanted to leave.
I don't care if it's undemocratic (it's absolutely not), I honestly feel it's what would be best for the country.
It's not really a tragedy, they're also the demographic with the lowest turn out in that referendum as well as all votes before or since. It's their own fault for not being engaged and assuming that the democratic process is a waste of time. Older people understand that voting matters, vote in greater numbers; and get what they want.
After the fact younger people can march on Westminster and complain on social media but until they actually get involved nothing will change because it's too late. Saying "we have no voice" is an untenable position when they don't use it where it matters.
This is why I get so frustrated. I'm 34 so I'm not part of that group anymore but I'm still on their side in a lot of cases, but trying to get this point across to people who are in their teens and early twenties who think the world already belongs to them is tiresome. If they want something in life, fight for it; and take it. They shouldn't just sit back and wait for it to be given to them, that's how things like Brexit happen.
Last edited by Thoughtcrime; 2017-06-21 at 12:00 PM.
He is actually making good observations on the UK. Though knowing him I would have expected him to be in favour of brexit, so theEU reform.
A culture where people are allowed to have different thoughts? As much as I think the US and UK are selecting poor paths, a culture of free thought is the one these cultures are supporting. The fact that almost half or just over half (depending on the nation) have picked a path the rest doesn't support doesn't mean everyone is responsible for that direction. What's the alternative, support a dictatorial state where magically the dictator always picks what you (sef) personally think is best? What better alternative to supporting freedom of choice for all citizens do the people of these nations have that would make them NOT responsible in your eyes?
I think its hillarious people are missing the part where he says that May lost because she could not get older people on her side. Speaks of the victory of Corbyn.
Democracy is not the issue, no. Neither is freedom.
Democracy is rule of the people. And individuals can suck it. The people, the UK people voted, and the UK people are responsible for that vote.
Yes, everyone is responsible. If your individual path wasn't the chosen one, you didn't fight hard enough, well enough, intelligently enough for it to pass. And it's not even the choice; the fact alone that they had the referendum is, to me, enough of a joke by itself, fueled by decades of resent, infighting, and exceptionalism attitudes.
And it doesn't stop there, as the last election shows. Where both major parties should reflect how they both had the most ridiculous and ineffective opposition in recent history, and failed to squash it.
If they want to continue their petty squabbles, let them. From the outside, the UK, as a country, as a nation, chose a path. And they, as a nation, as a whole, are responsible. Should any of these "victims" want to migrate to the EU, or separate their respective countries, I'm sure we'll take them with open arms. But, so long as they're a unity, they get shared responsibility.
Last edited by mmoc003aca7d8e; 2017-06-21 at 12:25 PM.
So in your mind every individual that stood in opposition to Brexit had enough time, money, intellect, and charisma to change the minds of enough people to overturn the referendum in opposition to those who used their time, money, intellect, and charisma to make it pass? That's absurd.
If 11 people are voting on something, and all 11 are equally available to spend time on persuasion and equally skilled in the craft of doing so, then mathematically there is nothing 5 people out of those 11 can do if 6 decide something different, as it would be 6 equitably pushing against 5.
Reality, however, makes the persuasion you speak of FAR more difficult. You're not just dealing with 11 people and needing to push 1 over to your side. You're not talking about equally savvy people or individuals all having equal time and money. You're also ignoring the reality that there are tons of issues to fight over, not just Brexit. There is NO WAY that what you're suggesting can work in reality. It's why representative governments exist in the first place.
Let's take just one real life example, which I think disproves your hypothesis: A farmer far outside the big cities reads about Brexit. He decides it's a bad idea. He has a slightly below average education and intellect (not to imply all farmers are in either camp). How exactly is he supposed to convince the almost 2 MILLION brits that would be required to fall into his line of thinking? How can you seriously expect someone who is below average in intellect (not their fault) and thus education (due to their limited capacity) and one who must spend the majority of their time supporting their family supposed to find the time and money to "convert" 2 million people to their point of view? And if there's no reasonable expectation that they could do such a thing, how can you hold them accountable for what others with far more time and means have done?
I gave an exception to children.
The rest of the population has had decades of bitching and moaning about the EU, and time enough to design their strategies. Yes, the remain voters were collectively unintelligent and incapable (slightly more so than the exit ones). They were caught in a comfortable slumber, in which the very question was unimaginable years before, and they failed to uphold and defend day after day their European interests.
You're pretending that Brexit is contained in the campaign. I'm exploring the culture that produced it. And it's one of massive failure to have the broad population understand the EU.
No shit. Turning the brexit question to the voter-base is irresponsible management.It's why representative governments exist in the first place.
He isn't supposed to do jack squat. He can just recognize his country as the rotten carcass that it is, politically speaking, and migrate elsewhere.How exactly is he supposed to convince the almost 2 MILLION brits that would be required to fall into his line of thinking?
The result was roughly 50/50. There's no need to convince 2 millions, but 1 or two people. Each farmer.
But that's entirely irrelevant. For I told you: democracy is rule of the whole of the people, not the aggregate of individuals. The UK people choose their path, and the UK people are responsible for it.
He has a fraction of the accountability. 1/65million to be precise. Very little if you ask me. But still some. Because it's shared among them all.And if there's no reasonable expectation that they could do such a thing, how can you hold them accountable for what others with far more time and means have done?
It's you the one here not abiding by the principles that make democracy work: you are responsible for your peers. If your choices don't make it through, you are to work with your opposition to ameliorate the outcomes. When society decides collectively to form strong camps of irreconcilable opinions, they're essentially doomed. For they won't work towards the interest of their neighbor. They'll just fight for their piece, and then forget collaboration. "Got mine, screw you" is one aspect of it. The other is what you're exposing here: "they chose wrongly, not my responsibility". That is eroding the basic principle: "they" don't exist, they are just another one of "you".
Last edited by mmoc003aca7d8e; 2017-06-21 at 01:10 PM.