The Brexit aftermath thread

[Demolitia]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKBN1KG1XF
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/...beyond-brexit/

Please continue talking about fictional support for the EU.

check the dates on your sources

[Demolitia]

My Reuters source was posted AFTER his source.

Your point?

And the other 2 years before.
Nymrohd's article show's that people are more Europhile than before. Your source shows that that there will be an increase of 60% of anti EU MEPs, which doesn't mean much considering how many there were in the first place. If anything it just shows some eurosceptics are getting more extreme in their positions.

[Slant]

I'll just leave this here, because the EU is crumbling and stuff...

[Fuiking]

Dont bother with facts Slant... Kangodo has shown not to listen to reasoning anyways. If he's really Dutch (Which I strongly doubt), I feel ashamed by my fellow country-men.

[Acidbaron]

Now I understand why Trump-fanboys call you guys NPC's. No original thought whatsoever.
The leadership told you that everyone with a different opinion must be a foreign agent and you accept it without even questioning.
Even computers have errors and refuse input once in a while, but you just take it all in.

Yes, scream harder how democratic you are while the majority hates your guts. That's really going to work.
It's almost as if you are feeding the far right on purpose. 1930 flashbacks are coming.

- - - Updated - - -


Continue please. You're only feeding into the anti-EU sentiment the population has.
At this pace the EU will be gone within the next decade.

If you bothered to look up you'll notice my party belongs to an Eurosceptic group, nah i wouldn't go as far as calling you agent that at least indicates some positive qualities. I already explained to it why i called you that but you seem to dislike the answer, and another term used by skippy that he doesn't know the meaning off!

So who are we feeding now, the far right, the far left, that magical majority ? I wonder who you'll name in your next posts, the furries?

Wants the EU to fail and also threatens with third reich references, you have to make up your mind what you really want skippy. Because you can't cheer for the demise of the EU and at the same time use wars on european soil that are now no longer happening due to the creation of the EU.

- - - Updated - - -

Slant is an extremist, willing to sacrifice the lives of everyone to keep his wet dream of the EU alive.
You shouldn't support people like him, it's like supporting ISIS.

Yeah, -we- are all the extremists here. Not the person who resides in the EU, enjoys all the luxury, peace and liberties of the EU. Wants the EU to fail and cheers for Russia and China and find them to be great nations that listen to their people.

Ever heard of the dunning-kruger effect?

[Demolitia]

Slant is an extremist, willing to sacrifice the lives of everyone to keep his wet dream of the EU alive.
You shouldn't support people like him, it's like supporting ISIS.

And you're quite the moderate, heh?

[Iphie]

Dont bother with facts Slant... Kangodo has shown not to listen to reasoning anyways. If he's really Dutch (Which I strongly doubt), I feel ashamed by my fellow country-men.

Nah, kangado is fine..../s

Slant is an extremist, willing to sacrifice the lives of everyone to keep his wet dream of the EU alive.
You shouldn't support people like him, it's like supporting ISIS.

Did...did you just equate support for the EU with supporting ISIS...?

I got nothing, he's a lost cause. I'm with ya Fuiking, he's a shame to our country.

[Demolitia]

Nah, kangado is fine..../s



Did...did you just equate support for the EU with supporting ISIS...?

I got nothing, he's a lost cause. I'm with ya Fuiking, he's a shame to our country.

Well he might just live there. There is hope yet.

[ati87]

Rofl, are you really using the European Commission as a source that people just love the EU?

Please let me show you this document from Erdogan claiming everyone loves him :')

Erdogan,Putin and Trump are leaders that are actually loved by a large % of people, to a various degree, in there respective countries. Of these 3 Trump is probably the least liked by the overal country but his support among republican voters is pretty high.

Your are projecting, your assumption is the shit you want is what other people want.

[P for Pancetta]

Dont bother with facts Slant... Kangodo has shown not to listen to reasoning anyways. If he's really Dutch (Which I strongly doubt), I feel ashamed by my fellow country-men.

He failed to succeed at his chosen field and is now doing a low level education job. His emotional rants and fallacious arguments are driven by his inability to accept his flaws and projects the cause of his failure as a professional to the society he's living in. His radicalization into a frantic Marxist corresponds with how radical Islamist radicalize. Luckily most of them never turn violent and eventually come to therms with their shortcomings and return to being valuable members of society.

[Crispin]

But to make an analogy:
I'd be the extremist organising the referendum for a free Catalonia.
Slant would be the police beating up elderly people for voting in the referendum.

This cute "I'm heroic" self-image of yours, falls apart with your little Stalin crush huh?

But we do get that you'd break the law for an ideology and hold a sham referendum, while others Slant included, prefers upholding the law.

[Mighty Tim]

Moving back on the topic.. considering the amount of actual treason that has been committed to keep the UK under the EU's thumb by it's own elected officials I think Brexit will be more a death knell for democracy rather then a separation.

[Demolitia]

Trump didn't even have the majority when he won the election.
Putin is only popular because he hitchhiked the quickly rising economy and his popularity is fading hard now.
And Erdogan's party doesn't even get 35% of the votes according to the poll.

You know what leaders like Erdogan, Merkel, Rutte, Macron and May have in common?
They all think that they have the majority support because they won the election. They really cannot see the difference between winning the election and winning the support of the people.

The only one who has had support from the majority of the population was Putin.
And I honestly cannot blame the Russian population. GDP went from 1.250 billion USD to almost 2.600 billion USD. Who wouldn't be happy with a President that had such growth under him? Good luck trying to convince the people that this GDP rise wasn't caused by Putin.


Nope.

But to make an analogy:
I'd be the extremist organising the referendum for a free Catalonia.
Slant would be the police beating up elderly people for voting in the referendum.

- - - Updated - - -

Enjoy the ban.

Macron was elected president on the second round with 66% of the votes, and his party holds 306 out of 577 seats in parliament. He might have lost popularity, as do all ruling presidents and parties after being elected, but he certainly had the support of the people.
But having the support of the people is not really relevant after that. He obtained a clear mandate based on his electoral program to lead the country for 5 years. People will decide whether they vote for him again in the next election.
There are democratic ways to bring change and express discontent. Making demands in the street while wearing yellow vests, or organising an unconstitutional referendum in Catalonia is not the way to go about it in mature democratic countries.

[ati87]

Trump didn't even have the majority when he won the election.
Putin is only popular because he hitchhiked the quickly rising economy and his popularity is fading hard now.
And Erdogan's party doesn't even get 35% of the votes according to the poll.

You know what leaders like Erdogan, Merkel, Rutte, Macron and May have in common?
They all think that they have the majority support because they won the election. They really cannot see the difference between winning the election and winning the support of the people.

The only one who has had support from the majority of the population was Putin.
And I honestly cannot blame the Russian population. GDP went from 1.250 billion USD to almost 2.600 billion USD. Who wouldn't be happy with a President that had such growth under him? Good luck trying to convince the people that this GDP rise wasn't caused by Putin.


.

Not sure what you are arguing now, you kind of sound like Trump since it's all over the place.

In the end your projecting. Based on what your ranting about the point you are trying to make is that the current leaders are all acting like if they have 50 +1 % which isn't the case.

Outside of the UK there is not a single EU country that has a strong Eurosceptics party, not even Hungaria and Poland because even there respective governments want the EU. So your anti EU rant represent even a smaller percentage of voters then the current European governments that are in power.

[P for Pancetta]

Macron was elected president on the second round with 66% of the votes, and his party holds 306 out of 577 seats in parliament. He might have lost popularity, as do all ruling presidents and parties after being elected, but he certainly had the support of the people.
But having the support of the people is not really relevant after that. He obtained a clear mandate based on his electoral program to lead the country for 5 years. People will decide whether they vote for him again in the next election.
There are democratic ways to bring change and express discontent. Making demands in the street while wearing yellow vests, or organising an unconstitutional referendum in Catalonia is not the way to go about it in mature democratic countries.

Having a president is in a way not democratic, in a real democracy the ministers should be made up of representatives of all parties that managed to get seats in parliament not just from a group that managed to form a majority. This isn't the case in france and thus certain groups of people have been overrepresented in french politics for decades now. Demonstrations are a necessary evil to combat democracies that lose touch with their mandate.

[Acidbaron]

Having a president is in a way not democratic, in a real democracy the ministers should be made up of representatives of all parties that managed to get seats in parliament not just from a group that managed to form a majority. This isn't the case in france and thus certain groups of people have been overrepresented in french politics for decades now. Demonstrations are a necessary evil to combat democracies that lose touch with their mandate.

I believe this is not applicable in an actual real situation. Because not all political movements and ideologies can be throw together to form a government. And while it does mean that at times parties get ignored or passed by due to a large coalition of smaller parties, it does get a government off the ground where it others would not.

It also tends to be so that if a party that is of noteworthy size gets ignored our out manoeuvred they tend to get larger next cycle.

Do demonstrations rectify this? If we look at France to stay in this say realm, the gillets jeunes, some of them might be for worker rights but there's also for example an anti-semitic part that feels empowered by the movement. So you're dealing with this hydra of multiple heads.

[Demolitia]

In all honesty, there is no possible way to have a constitutional referendum on this in Catalonia. So not that many options there.

No, but there is a way for a country wide referendum on it. Or if there is a real, strong push for it the constitution could be amended. But that's another story for another day.

[Demolitia]

Having a president is in a way not democratic, in a real democracy the ministers should be made up of representatives of all parties that managed to get seats in parliament not just from a group that managed to form a majority. This isn't the case in france and thus certain groups of people have been overrepresented in french politics for decades now. Demonstrations are a necessary evil to combat democracies that lose touch with their mandate.

The president traditionally picks the prime minister from the leading parties. We had quite a few instances where the prime minister was changed after the mid terms and was from the opposite party. The prime minister then forms his government.
All other parties get their say as part of the parliament.
I agree there is no hard set rules but recent presidents have tried to be open and representative when the parliament was really split.
As for demonstrations sure, they are not evil. The current one is not particularly focused or constructive, which makes it hard to address their demands.

[P for Pancetta]

Honestly the issue is, Macron did not really deviate from his mandate; this is what he campaigned on. So either the people protesting did not understand what they voted for or are simply a vocal minority that never did vote for him.

I believe this is not applicable in an actual real situation. Because not all political movements and ideologies can be throw together to form a government. And while it does mean that at times parties get ignored or passed by due to a large coalition of smaller parties, it does get a government off the ground where it others would not.

It also tends to be so that if a party that is of noteworthy size gets ignored our out manoeuvred they tend to get larger next cycle.

Do demonstrations rectify this? If we look at France to stay in this say realm, the gillets jeunes, some of them might be for worker rights but there's also for example an anti-semitic part that feels empowered by the movement. So you're dealing with this hydra of multiple heads.

I don't think it is applicable in a real situation but the situation as it is leaves much to be desired too.

The protesters are a minority but in a perfect democracy the majority governs in a way that protects all citizen and doesn't just work for the ones that voted for them. The reality of the situation is that the minority and majority have a lot of things in common and therefore it rarely happens that a governments can outright ignore the needs of the minority. Yet for decades now their government has cut social programs and demanded workers to work longer (and businesses demand more productivity) without extra rewards. Over time the standard of living has decreased for both groups but for the poor get affected by these changes much earlier then the middle class.

For the middle class majority this should be a warning signal, if things continue the way they're going now in time they'll end up in the same position the poor are at now. In a way the middle class majority has grown complacent due to the relative ease and luxury of their lives. This is one reason why demonstrations are a positive thing; they're a tool to shake up the majority and open their eyes. If they ignore it eventually the amount of dissatisfied poor reaches a critical mass and shit will hit the fan and a lot of people will die regardless of the eventual outcome.

Only very few protesters are right wing extremists; yet they enjoy demonstrations like these because they provide them with the ultimate camouflage for them to lash out against the system. They like to target the police and because solidarity is strong among these thugs they'll rarely leave one of their own behind to get beaten up by cops. In return the cops get frustrated and pumped and will eventually lash out against the more peaceful protesters. This creates a very unhealthy cycle of violence.

[Flarelaine]

I used to think you made decent arguments in the past. For the life of me I can't imagine how I made that mistake.

I also think he used to. A few years ago.