The Brexit aftermath thread

[Pann]

So in essence she does not trust them, she only trusts binding agreements.

No, in essence she does not have a crystal ball and recognises that a lot change with politics in the future; this is not unique to the UK - something so obvious should not need pointing out to you.

[Pann]

Because there was no link nor apparently the full quote in the post i've quoted.

Thanks for providing it though, doesn't really change my former point, i think you can still read it the way i've put it.

She said the exact opposite of what you claimed but you are still claiming that you were right?! Bizarre. I knew it was a mistake replying to you.

On a serious note this goes back to a point made earlier in the thread about the standard and quality of our current politicians. Is it any surprise that we are left with mediocre careerists or self-serving opportunists when no matter what you say or do people will not bother to find out what was said or done and/or will twist your words and actions to fit their own biases?

[Mayhem]

She said the exact opposite of what you claimed but you are still claiming that you were right?! Bizarre. I knew it was a mistake replying to you.

Well she put it more nicely than i would've but still what you wrote came befor her saying i don't trust what comes after david davis.

[Slant]

She said the exact opposite of what you claimed but you are still claiming that you were right?! Bizarre. I knew it was a mistake replying to you.

On a serious note this goes back to a point made earlier in the thread about the standard and quality of our current politicians. Is it any surprise that we are left with mediocre careerists or self-serving opportunists when no matter what you say or do people will not bother to find out what was said or done and/or will twist your words and actions to fit their own biases?

You're right about politicians. They seem very mediocre these days. On the other hand, they are faced with the internet. We need a new generation of politicians that are internet savy. I do not mean the Trumps that'll happily abuse Twitter to spread propaganda. I think that's a short lived misuse of Twitter that'll pass once people learn to ignore Twitter as a news source.

This day and age is probably not quite unlike when Gutenberg invented the printing press. I absolutely would love to know how the political class of that time had to adapt to the general public having access to newspapers and books in wide spread all of a sudden.

[Noradin]

No, in essence she does not have a crystal ball and recognises that a lot change with politics in the future; this is not unique to the UK - something so obvious should not need pointing out to you.

You seem to feel the need to make a lot of obviously unneccessary posts, but don't fret we will bear with you.
She points out that whether she trust British politicans (which of course she does, totally, who would ever accuse her of thinking otherwise) is irrelevant; they come and go like the seasons and nobody can rely on their word or them to still be around in the future.
The best you can hope for as basis for future plans are binding agreements, but apparently the UK isn't sure if it should still be able to make or keep those.
Maybe to them it is a sign of sovereignty to not feel bound by agreements of the past? To me personally it signifies a lack of sovereignty--to not be able to consent to something and have that consent be binding.

- - - Updated - - -

This day and age is probably not quite unlike when Gutenberg invented the printing press. I absolutely would love to know how the political class of that time had to adapt to the general public having access to newspapers and books in wide spread all of a sudden.

By banning and burning them for example.

[Slant]

By banning and burning them for example.

So... kinda like what Europe is trying to do with Facebook? If anyone ever needed proof that history is cyclic...

- - - Updated - - -

Consider how the spread of the Bible translated essentially defanged the Catholic church and led us firmly to secularism I think that the Information Age will at some point lead to a more significant transformation to politics, either towards aristocracy/technocracy or to a more direct democracy. It is crucial to understand how learning as a process is changing fast with each successive generation with knowledge so readily available that more and more time can be devoted to learning how to process it rather than rote (which most of our educational systems fail to embrace yet, look out for China in this).

Well, we don't need to look far. Just look at this forum and the condensed cultural interchange going on here. How we're readily ask "Anyone from Portugal have an opinion on this?" and usually you can have it within a few hours tops. From complete strangers, no less. It's hard to do propaganda when people can fact check so easily. It's on us, however, to actually do the fact checking. And this is the new bit that the people need to learn. They need to learn to think critically and question politicians, even if they trust them.

[Noradin]

So... kinda like what Europe is trying to do with Facebook? If anyone ever needed proof that history is cyclic...

Yes, it is always the first reaction of the establishment to try and keep out the newcomers, the next will be to do as they do just with the advantage of being the establishment.
(See planned EU reaction to netflix.)

[Slant]

Yes, it is always the first reaction of the establishment to try and keep out the newcomers, the next will be to do as they do just with the advantage of being the establishment.
(See planned EU reaction to netflix.)

What planned action against Netflix?

[Pann]

You're right about politicians. They seem very mediocre these days. On the other hand, they are faced with the internet. We need a new generation of politicians that are internet savy. I do not mean the Trumps that'll happily abuse Twitter to spread propaganda. I think that's a short lived misuse of Twitter that'll pass once people learn to ignore Twitter as a news source.

This day and age is probably not quite unlike when Gutenberg invented the printing press. I absolutely would love to know how the political class of that time had to adapt to the general public having access to newspapers and books in wide spread all of a sudden.

How do you attract competent politicians? The most talented people (the people we really want running our countries) can earn much more in the private sector for example the Prime Minister gets paid around £140k pa (granted there are more perks to the job); this is the kind of salary that an upper middle manager in a large multinational company would expect to earn. Surely we need better than middle-management quality politicians?

And as you say no matter how well they perform or how well intentioned their actions they are people will misrepresent them on social media to an ever-willing and unthinking audience. This is before you get to issues like the press digging through their past or hounding their families and friends.

I don't know about you but personally I wouldn't want their job.

[Slant]

How do you attract competent politicians? The most talented people (the people we really want running our countries) can earn much more in the private sector for example the Prime Minister gets paid around £140k pa (granted there are more perks to the job); this is the kind of salary that an upper middle manager in a large multinational company would expect to earn. Surely we need better than middle-management quality politicians?

And as you say no matter how well they perform or how well intentioned their actions they are people will misrepresent them on social media to an ever-willing and unthinking audience. This is before you get to issues like the press digging through their past or hounding their families and friends.

I don't know about you but personally I wouldn't want their job.

This is a bit of a dreamer's point of view, but I know a lot of people would do it for idealistic reasons. If I had a bit more ambition and more tolerance for stupidity, I might have gone down that route myself. Alas, my low tolerance towards imbeciles tells me I shouldn't bother. :P

[Noradin]

What planned action against Netflix?

Fund the creation of an European comepetitor to promote European movies and culture because it is seen as underrepresented on Netflix.

[Slant]

Fund the creation of an European comeptitor to promote European movies and culture.

LOL. What the heck... I mean, Europe has some good movies, but they're so far in between, Netflix could buy the "good movie" catalogue and simply show those movies. :P I think European movie makers should get their act together and do proper movies instead of the shitty sunday evening crime movie. God, how I hate Tatort and the fact that people think it's worth talking about a shitty crime series like that, because it's a "national treasure" or something like that.

There's a reason why I don't watch TV. :P

[Noradin]

LOL. What the heck... I mean, Europe has some good movies, but they're so far in between, Netflix could buy the "good movie" catalogue and simply show those movies. :P I think European movie makers should get their act together and do proper movies instead of the shitty sunday evening crime movie. God, how I hate Tatort and the fact that people think it's worth talking about a shitty crime series like that, because it's a "national treasure" or something like that.

There's a reason why I don't watch TV. :P

Well, same here basically, but that just illustrates the point that it is seen as underrepresented and why some action to be taken might be beneficial.

[Slant]

Well, same here basically, but that just illustrates the point that it is seen as underrepresented and why some action to be taken might be beneficial.

Yes, improve the production quality! Building a new platform won't change the fact that those movies are shit. :P

Btw: Since this is about Brexit, see Brexiteers, this is how adults can talk about the EU doing silly things without ragequitting.

[Slant]

It's not just the money they can make in the private sector that will attract the best talent in management. It's also the rise of the culture of entrepreneurship.
Primarily in the US but also in Europe to a lesser extent, the CEO became a hero. They are the ultimate expression of the American dream, the superheros of capitalism. The US pushed this image across media for decades. It is arguable that aspiring to offer something better to society as a whole is better accomplished through entrepreneurship than political action; the internal locus of control so crucial to strategic management is stifled in politics while lionized in enterprise. Politicians are seen almost universally as corrupt while executives are seen as both heroes and villains and while the latter are usually seen as monolithic or impersonal (it's rare that we have a face for Big Pharma or Big Oil while we clearly have a face for Musk or Gates). Personality cults formed across actually admirable politicians are rare, while cults around executives are not as rare and the latter are often somewhat justified by their brilliance.

I can see the attraction for Musk and Gates type people. But generally, CEOs are viewed rather negatively. What with the anti-globalism crowd and all. I mean, I'm all for globalism in that I like cooperation between nations, but I can sympathize with the hate for mega corporations. If anyone is curious, look up Deutsche Telekom. If Satan had invested into telecommunication companies, DT would be his prime love child at the stock market.

[Pann]

This is a bit of a dreamer's point of view, but I know a lot of people would do it for idealistic reasons. If I had a bit more ambition and more tolerance for stupidity, I might have gone down that route myself. Alas, my low tolerance towards imbeciles tells me I shouldn't bother. :P

Don't get me wrong there are many who enter into politics for idealistic reasons who then find themselves either ground down by the system or not quite as talented as they thought.

[Kronik85]

Whilst I have no love for Davis I am going to go out on a limb and say that given the position held by Andersson that she is not an idiot and is probably better poised to offer a qualified opinion on Davis than, say, some random person on the internet. But, no, you're right Davis is a bell-end - someone on Twitter said so - so it must be true.

I don't tweet or read Twitter. The track record of David Davis himself is all you need to know, I didn't think my opinion of the man could be any lower than when we started this debacle, he proved me wrong.

How on earth you can say you can trust a man who upon negotiating the difficulties regarding NI immediately turned round and said something akin to "yeah it's not worth squat" I haven't a clue apart from her just being diplomatic.

[Jessicka]

I mean she needed to create some goodwill to segue into the rest of her argument to not sound incendiary and she cannot as well say she doesn't trust the person we are negotiating with because if that is true (even if it is true) then the entire process is innately a sham.

It already is innately a sham, the EU have been absolutely clear what's on offer. The UK hasn't said at all what it wants, only that it doesn't want things like a Mad Max style dystopia. I'm now curious as to what kind of dystopia the government does want.

[Pann]

I don't tweet or read Twitter. The track record of David Davis himself is all you need to know, I didn't think my opinion of the man could be any lower than when we started this debacle, he proved me wrong.

How on earth you can say you can trust a man who upon negotiating the difficulties regarding NI immediately turned round and said something akin to "yeah it's not worth squat" I haven't a clue apart from her just being diplomatic.

That's fine. There is no requirement to like Davis and the list of things he can be criticised for is rather long however to label a woman as a "retard" because she has different professional opinion of the man is not really constructive and does nothing to forward the debate.

In fairness to Davis, although what he said was incredibly ill-thought out, the question he answered was in relation to a no-deal situation nor did he say the that it was worth squat, in fact he specifically mentions that the UK wishes to protect Ireland from the impact of Brexit and keep the peace process intact. Also he was correct when he said that the phase 1 agreement was not legally binding which is why the EU have asked for it to made legally binding.

Yes, what he said was stupid and potentially damaging to the negotiation process but let's criticise him for what he has actually said and done not what someone, who heard from someone who read about what he had said or done on the internet, claims he said or did.

[dribbles]

Yes, improve the production quality! Building a new platform won't change the fact that those movies are shit. :P

They may not be shit, but if they are in a strange weird local dialect when the world speaks English their audience will be tiny. Another non starting waste of EU taxpayers money. You can be sure Netflix won't be shaking in their boots over it.

Btw: Since this is about Brexit, see Brexiteers, this is how adults can talk about the EU doing silly things without ragequitting.

No it isn't. It is a bunch of vocal minority EU supporting chummy adolescents happy back slapping each other whilst their beloved falls apart. It makes Brexiteers feel quite nauseous to watch, no wonder they as the mainly silent majority don't come here much.