brexit

[Lunella]

lmao

 

[Dak]

The problem is that you perceive the EU as siphoning power, as though it absorbs the magical sovereignty of individual nations to increase its own "super state" existence. This is kind of funny, to be honest.

As per the official EU page oriented towards US info seekers:

http://www.euintheus.org/who-we-are/what-is-the-european-union/

the 28 Member States have relinquished part of their sovereignty to EU institutions

Of course it also says it "isn't a government". This is kind of funny, to be honest.

 

[Einherjar86]

As per the official EU page oriented towards US info seekers:

http://www.euintheus.org/who-we-are/what-is-the-european-union/

Of course it also says it "isn't a government". This is kind of funny, to be honest.

You know what I think is funny? That you feel my own theoretical understanding of what the EU is/does would line up with the purported claims of those who are part of it. They even use the word sovereignty - obviously I feel no desire to substantiate their claims. My analysis is my own, not the borrowed explanation(s) of a bunch of sentimental humanitarians.

 

[Dak]

You know what I think is funny? That you feel my own theoretical understanding of what the EU is/does would line up with the purported claims of those who are part of it. They even use the word sovereignty - obviously I feel no desire to substantiate their claims. My analysis is my own, not the borrowed explanation(s) of a bunch of sentimental humanitarians.

Well private analyses are fine. But when an organization describes itself as requiring the surrender of sovereignty, and certain groups decide they wish to keep such sovereignty, there's something being described here - some sort of exchange, transmission, etc. You can't deride only the one side for not coming to a contractual agreement because of agreed upon terms/terminology between those potentially contracting sides.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well private analyses are fine. But when an organization describes itself as requiring the surrender of sovereignty, and certain groups decide they wish to keep such sovereignty, there's something being described here - some sort of exchange, transmission, etc. You can't deride only the one side for not coming to a contractual agreement because of agreed upon terms/terminology between those potentially contracting sides.

My argument has never been one of derision toward, specifically, the act of leaving the EU. My argument has consisted of two points:

1. The necessity of some kind of abstract organization like the EU.

2. The ridiculousness of the argument used by the Leave campaign.

Those are my objects of critique. As far as the act of leaving goes, I couldn't care much less. Obviously there are impacts here in the U.S., but that's not really my concern.

 

[Dak]

I don't see the need for EU-like supra-states. It isn't really abstract as it has physical locations, a parliament, central bank, etc.

Regional non-aggression pacts don't need a standing parliament and central bank. The Euro trade bloc has served to enrich a couple of countries at the expense of several of the others, so I don't see where putting them all under a single currency is a necessity.

The US has signed several multination trade deals which, regardless of how you view their necessity or success in terms of economic benefit, have functionee successfully without a suprastate organization overseeing them (aside from the UN).

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see the need for EU-like supra-states. It isn't really abstract as it has physical locations, a parliament, central bank, etc.

I'm not saying the EU is abstract. I'm saying it is one manifestation of an abstract type.

Regional non-aggression pacts don't need a standing parliament and central bank. The Euro trade bloc has served to enrich a couple of countries at the expense of several of the others, so I don't see where putting them all under a single currency is a necessity.

The US has signed several multination trade deals which, regardless of how you view their necessity or success in terms of economic benefit, have functionee successfully without a suprastate organization overseeing them (aside from the UN).

When I say "necessary," I mean that international relations inevitably spawn these kinds of organizations, more than just the EU. I don't mean that there is an ethical necessity to create such entities - I mean that they simply emerge as an effect of geopolitical structure.

 

[Dak]

Or do they emerge merely as a necessary result of a certain ideology? I'd easily agree with that.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would too. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[Dak]

Speaking of between/within country crises, Nigel touched on that in his full speech (1:53-2:07):



Farage is a phenomenal speaker. There's not a politician in the US that I've seen that could match him.

 

[Dak]

Dude is practically machine-like. Prepared and unflappable.

 

[tagradh]

Obama is a better speaker. Blair is better. There are loads that are better.

 

[CiG]

Hahaha. Hell no.

I don't quite share Dak's very complimentary view but Obama and Blair aren't on Nigel's level. Recently Muhbama turned into fucking Porky Pig.

 

[The Ozzman]

Obama is a better speaker. Blair is better. There are loads that are better.

A teleprompter and an ounce of charisma do wonders

 

[Einherjar86]

A phenomenal speaker? Meh, I don't think so. He's certainly a good speaker.

I am sorry though, there's no way that Farage is a better speaker than Obama, especially if we're talking about the early '00s and the first term of his presidency.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Tony Blair and Obama are boring.

 

[Dak]

In nearly every case in the video Farage is working merely from notes or off the cuff, and with an antagonistic interviewer/debater, and performs without a hitch and often at a rapid clip. Obama has very rarely been in those situations, and his patterns of pauses and inflections (with teleprompters no less) irritate, as if he assumes what he has to say is quite profound and/or people need significant time to process its depth and importance. It might be accurate to charge that he mimics the patterns of pedagogical speech, while lacking the necessary content.

 

[Einherjar86]

His pauses and inflections irritate you, Dak. But you're also very biased - you don't think what he has to say is profound, which predisposes you to dislike the inflections meant to emphasize his points. By any significant historical metric or rhetorical analysis, Obama excels as a rhetorician.

Also, Farage doesn't speak "without a hitch." He fumbled over some words at the very beginning of the first video you posted.

 

[SentinelSlain]

He just says vague positive things like all centrists.

 

[Dak]

His pauses and inflections irritate you, Dak. But you're also very biased - you don't think what he has to say is profound, which predisposes you to dislike the inflections meant to emphasize his points. By any significant historical metric or rhetorical analysis, Obama excels as a rhetorician.

Compared to Dubya or Clinton sure. But thats a low bar and we don't even have said objective bar to see anyway.

Also, Farage doesn't speak "without a hitch." He fumbled over some words at the very beginning of the first video you posted.

Yes at several points he resets or repeats when either interrupting or being interrupted. That's not fumbling. The Donald trips over his own words with fair regularity for comparison, even when speaking at a relatively slow clip.

Even if you agree with what Obama says the content is not deep or new. Data are often dated and/or general, and/or wrong.His frequent and lengthy pauses (all public speakers offer pauses but his are still noticeable by comparison) and high - low - high (as opposed to the high - low matter-of-fact delivery that seems typical to me of people more well versed in subject matter) inflection across sentences when not fairly monotone are the obvious tells for impersonating comedians and yes speaking in that way is annoying. In a less formal atmosphere (eg the Seinfeld interview) he doesn't pause nearly as much. I don't know if it is an intentional affect for a perceived dumber broad audience or a byproduct of teleprompters and the stage.