brexit

That's fair. I of course have my reservations about agreeing with the outcome - but those are also due to reasons other than the current rhetorical flair.

Ultimately, I think that the EU is representative of an abstract type of institution/organization that is necessary on our current geopolitical stage. I think you can point to instances where the EU failed or performed below expectations, but unfortunately there's no way to point to catastrophes that never happened because the EU is in place. It's a mediating body and one that lubricates exchanges between complex bodies. If it were to disappear, I think we'd see hostilities and open conflict within/between nation-states.

EDIT - and a quick final point. Complexity isn't inherently better, no, but neither is simplicity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Onder and tagradh
Because the poor and disenfranchised by globalism are really experiencing a setback in being able to take their many European vacations and drinking premium foreign brewskies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
The disenfranchised in the UK are the 25% of us that voted and got a grand total of 10 outa the 650 MPs.

People bitch about the EU and sovereignty and democracy and yet so few seem to have an issue with our shitty 'first past the post' electoral system.
 
The disenfranchised in the UK are the 25% of us that voted and got a grand total of 10 outa the 650 MPs.

People bitch about the EU and sovereignty and democracy and yet so few seem to have an issue with our shitty 'first past the post' electoral system.

The US also has a FPTP system. Looking at how coalitions often wind up shaking out in proportional systems, I'm not sure if it makes a damn difference.
 
I don't think you can pin the UK's problems on any single source, and certainly not predominantly on the strictures of operating within the EU.

The reason I focus on argument and rhetoric is because overwhelmingly people do not bother to learn what exactly their votes mean (to the best of their ability). They know their economic situation and their cultural attitude, and they vote according to which politicians are able to fire those cylinders. You can't (and I don't) blame people for harboring those sentiments, since they're a clear sign that something is wrong. But I do blame people for being complacent and indifferent to critical thought. I realize that most people don't have the time to spend studying the nuances and/or elisions of politi-speak, but it isn't that hard to reflect on whether you're being swayed by compelling logic or whether you're being emotionally manipulated.

I find it surprising that many here sympathize with the Britons who voted to leave when they're succumbing to the same tribalism and mob mentality that you (a general you, of course) accuse liberals here of succumbing to. This article gets it pretty accurately:

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25...ailure-of-western-establishment-institutions/

Are you certain that the EU is not directly responsible for some of the problems Britons complain about? I mean, I often hear a stereotype about Polish workers filling the menial job market in the UK and taking their earnings back to Poland where the cost of living is much lower and a pound goes much further, highly analogous to our situation with Mexico. I don't believe in supporting lazy/unproductive locals simply due to birthright, but if you in effect tell your poorer citizens "Hey, we're an international world now, if you can't work here move to Poland instead", obviously there are going to be issues. Once a generation is set in its ways, they don't like to leave. Another analogy would be California's prop 13; wealthy citizens all over the country move to booming California, drastically raising property values and therefore the taxes collected, and forcing older citizens out of their home since they could no longer afford taxes on their property. Californian locals voted in a referendum to give long-term property owners a significant tax break, increasing the barrier-to-entry from non-locals. Sure, it's anti-competitive, it suppresses the full extent to which an economy can grow, it's even xenophobic, but it's a perfectly natural reaction for people that don't want to change their livelihoods.

That's fair. I of course have my reservations about agreeing with the outcome - but those are also due to reasons other than the current rhetorical flair.

Ultimately, I think that the EU is representative of an abstract type of institution/organization that is necessary on our current geopolitical stage. I think you can point to instances where the EU failed or performed below expectations, but unfortunately there's no way to point to catastrophes that never happened because the EU is in place. It's a mediating body and one that lubricates exchanges between complex bodies. If it were to disappear, I think we'd see hostilities and open conflict within/between nation-states.

EDIT - and a quick final point. Complexity isn't inherently better, no, but neither is simplicity.

I dunno, wealthy EU members generally don't go to war with other countries developed either (with obviously some small exceptions like the Falklands war), for good reason. Particularly keep in mind the countries that were members up through the 90s; aside from problems with the IRA between the UK and Ireland, they weren't nations that particularly had any reason to kill each other (and it might be worth noting that IRA terrorism continued for decades after joining the EU regardless). What conflicts do you think it prevented?
 
The disenfranchised in the UK are the 25% of us that voted and got a grand total of 10 outa the 650 MPs.

People bitch about the EU and sovereignty and democracy and yet so few seem to have an issue with our shitty 'first past the post' electoral system.

Do you think the introduction of FPTP would skew the political scene to the right?
 
Are you certain that the EU is not directly responsible for some of the problems Britons complain about? I mean, I often hear a stereotype about Polish workers filling the menial job market in the UK and taking their earnings back to Poland where the cost of living is much lower and a pound goes much further, highly analogous to our situation with Mexico. I don't believe in supporting lazy/unproductive locals simply due to birthright, but if you in effect tell your poorer citizens "Hey, we're an international world now, if you can't work here move to Poland instead", obviously there are going to be issues. Once a generation is set in its ways, they don't like to leave. Another analogy would be California's prop 13; wealthy citizens all over the country move to booming California, drastically raising property values and therefore the taxes collected, and forcing older citizens out of their home since they could no longer afford taxes on their property. Californian locals voted in a referendum to give long-term property owners a significant tax break, increasing the barrier-to-entry from non-locals. Sure, it's anti-competitive, it suppresses the full extent to which an economy can grow, it's even xenophobic, but it's a perfectly natural reaction for people that don't want to change their livelihoods.

I won't say I'm certain; but then, I don't think you can be certain that the EU is directly responsible for problems in the UK.

As far as the stereotype you mention goes, it's more nuanced than that. Where Polish immigrants tend to fill the more menial jobs, as you say, is clustered in and around London.

Coincidentally, London overwhelmingly voted to remain in the UK, while the outlying districts voted to leave.

In short, it's people in the outlying districts who tend to fill those jobs, and Polish immigrants aren't taking those jobs from them. Meanwhile, Polish immigrants might very well be filling menial positions in and around London... but those people aren't complaining.

Now, as far as the effect this is having on the British economy... you can't blame this on the EU. This is Britain's own doing. Here's an excerpt from a NYT article in 2007:

When Poland and nine other new members, most of them former Communist countries, were admitted to the European Union, many West Europeans feared an influx of cheap labor. In May 2005 in France, opponents of a new European constitution used the labor threat — personified by an archetypal “Polish plumber” who would steal French jobs — to help defeat the proposed constitution in a national referendum.

But Britain, along with Ireland and Sweden, welcomed workers from the new European Union members — partly because they took physically demanding, minimum-wage jobs that many native-born Britons snubbed and partly because a wide range of industries in this country were suffering labor shortages.

Today, the reputation of Polish construction workers, nannies and caregivers is so high that other East Europeans sometimes say they are Polish to increase their chances of being hired. At Strathaird Salmon, a fish farm in Scotland, more than a third of the employees are from Poland.

British workers didn't want those jobs, and Polish workers took them - primarily comprising a demographic in and around London. Outside of the major metropolitan areas, British citizens purportedly still took those jobs, yet they are the ones complaining.

The moral of the story is this: those Brits that are suffering economically outside the metropolitan areas are projecting their problems onto the influx of immigrants, when other systemic issues are very likely at play.

And that, my friends, is why xenophobia is absolutely a centrally motivating factor in the Brexit campaign.

I dunno, wealthy EU members generally don't go to war with other countries developed either (with obviously some small exceptions like the Falklands war), for good reason. Particularly keep in mind the countries that were members up through the 90s; aside from problems with the IRA between the UK and Ireland, they weren't nations that particularly had any reason to kill each other (and it might be worth noting that IRA terrorism continued for decades after joining the EU regardless). What conflicts do you think it prevented?

I won't speculate. I'm simply saying that it makes sense to me that the EU exists in the first place.
 
British workers "not wanting" a type of job probably means that the UK is not cut out to be competitive in a given industry. I don't see why bringing people in to do the jobs would make a great deal of sense over a long period of time unless you've already decided you desire economic and population growth. There are a lot of things that get ignored by people who have set their minds on mass immigration being a good thing anyway. What if people value the cultural good of homogeneity and other cultural goods that have it as a prerequisite more than they value the supposed benefits of population and economic growth through immigration? Are they simply stupid? It seems to me that most goods above and beyond those needed to exist are valuable in a subjective and culturally skewed way.
 
Less people wanting to do a job has an upward pressure on the price of labor. More people willing to do it has a downward pressure.
 
fiscal conservative solution
- so you have jobless lazy whites
- and low skilled immigrants doing all the low skilled jobs
- cut immigration
- low skilled immigrants go away
- low skilled jobs unfilled
- cut welfare
- lazy whites forced to take low skilled jobs to survive
- unemployment goes down
 
This happened in my town, saw it yesterday on a local news site. Cringe. -_-
Stuff like this only started happening after Brexit else you never saw anything this bad normally.

 
Last edited:
Stuff like this only started happening after Brexit else you never saw anything this bad normally.

Well that's flat out bullshit.

"Racist white person on train/bus in England" videos are everywhere on youtube and have been for years. I remember watching at least three different videos of horrible white women on trains and buses calling men "Pakis" and telling them to fuck off, going back years before brexit was even a mainstream political prospect.

This video also has zero context as most videos like this don't because people only start recording after something happens. Unless anybody can show that these chav fuckheads are reacting to brexit rather than just being racist little pieces of shit as usual, any connection is debatable at best.
 
^ I mean in my town, considering I said my town. You don't see people kicking off in central Manchester like that much at all with the racist stuff, it's normally really diverse there and everyone just minds their own business, then suddenly Brexit, now I see loads of racist shit around the city center like that.
 
Personally or official stuff?

It's not uncommon knowledge that there's a huge rise in racism since brexit? https://news.vice.com/article/uk-police-say-racist-incidents-have-spiked-since-the-brexit-vote

As for personally I walked through the other day and saw a bunch of bellend kids throwing small stones at people of colour outside a wetherspoons, racial slurrs aren't uncommon now which was actually quite infuriating, especially the ridiculous "Go home" thing. I was in Primark and some muslim ladies got a lot of dirty looks from yer typical big hooped earring idiot women which was annoying. In fact when I was in the queue those types of women were like saying how it'd be oh so quicker if there weren't foreigners in the queue. I felt like saying something but I didn't cause I'd just end up arguing with idiots for ages.

Clearly it's not bullshit if David Hameron had to tell people to pretty much fuck off with the massive racism spike after the vote. :rofl:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...council-britain-warning-of-post-brexit-racism
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying that the bigotry doesn't exist, because it obviously does. I'm just very skeptical when people try to connect things they don't like (ie racism, xenophobia) with politics they don't support (ie brexit) because it's done all too often from both sides of the aisle.

For example, blaming the rise of homegrown terrorism (Lee Rigby incident) on the EU is just as contentious in my opinion as blaming the so-called rise of racism on the brexit. Both likely contain a grain of truth though.

(This article links no sources.)

Ultimately, I think that the EU is representative of an abstract type of institution/organization that is necessary on our current geopolitical stage.

Please define necessary in this context. Why would siphoning power of individual nations to one body in one nation be necessary and why would that super state find it necessary to create it's own military?

There is no evidence to suggest that without the EU doing (in what you imply as) the job of a mediator the members would become hostile towards each other. Though you may be correct once Turkey becomes a member, the rest show no signs of doing what you claim.

The Swiss and the Norwegians have perfectly respectable deals with EU member states, there is no reason why England can't also work something out.
 
Last edited:
The other side is community sensitive policing, which has in the past involved arresting men trying to stop their daughters being pimped out. No human needs to be so arrogant that they can't cope with a man trying to stop that happening to his daughter.