brexit

[SentinelSlain]

Sovereignty and legitimacy are weird things. I'm neither for nor against them in general. I tend to think my culture would be better if the latter was kind of encoded into a kind of mandate of heaven belief that specified that our leadership cannot allow certain things to happen or they have to be replaced by better more able people. The people would have a duty to replace them, if such a failure occurred. This seems better than limited democracy in some ways.

 

[no country for old wainds]

regardless of whether their position is the correct one, the people who led the leave campaigns are beyond fucking retarded. they're already publicly backtracking on every promise they made, all trying to shirk the responsibility of pulling us out of this short-term mess and generally saying the dumbest things and looking like they've just shat themselves. i suspect another referendum now would result in a remain majority because it's quickly become abundantly clear how ill-prepared they are to deal with this (they were reportedly expecting cameron to deal with the fallout rather than just resign lol). meanwhile labour is deevolving into some really brutal in-fighting as lots of people make power plays.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sovereignty dispersed among a congress or council isn't quite the same as within an individual, but to not be superseded or vetoed legally is sovereignty."The authority of a state to govern itself".

What constitutes a state? A state is little more than an arbitrary measure of unification, and might consist of a multitude of possible combinations. Why not "the authority of a league of nations to govern itself"?

Sovereignty is a construction, and little more than an attempt to rationalize autonomous action as a preexisting feature of a social body, whether that body is a country, a state, a union, or even a human.

 

[Dak]

What constitutes a state? A state is little more than an arbitrary measure of unification, and might consist of a multitude of possible combinations. Why not "the authority of a league of nations to govern itself"?

Without bothering to quibble over semantic technicalities, that's the form for the EU of course. A majority of voting British rejected the league as providing sufficient benefit in exchange for even arguably merely another level of dilution of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is a construction, and little more than an attempt to rationalize autonomous action as a preexisting feature of a social body, whether that body is a country, a state, a union, or even a human.

And?

 

[Einherjar86]

Without bothering to quibble over semantic technicalities, that's the form for the EU of course. A majority of voting British rejected the league as providing sufficient benefit in exchange for even arguably merely another level of dilution of sovereignty.

Absolutely! It's just stupid appeal to one arbitrary measure of unification when arguing to abandon another. As no country said, the leave campaigns are "beyond fucking retarded." That's basically how I feel.

And?

And maybe people should think about that when they let appeals to sovereignty dissuade them from other models of political organization that are just as "sovereign." Kind of embarrassing for them, especially now that many of them are shaking their heads and going, "Wait, what the fuck did we just do? Explain to me again what 'the EU' is?"

But of course, the EU is obviously more corrupt and evil than the government of Britain. God save the Queen.

 

[Dak]

The 20th and 21st centuries models of governance are layer upon layer of almost entirely deadweight administrative bureaucracy. Reducing these layers is a positive. Now, one could obviously reduce layers in the middle rather than from the top. (Eliminate the national government in favor of the regional). The problem is that the further governance gets from the represented, and the more disparate the electorate, the less responsive said government will be. In light of these things, it would seem seem readily apparent that joining the EU was "beyond fucking retarded" to begin with. The pain of breakup could have been avoided.

Certain particular reasons for leaving might be retarded, but not the leaving itself.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Also, the fact that the politicians backing Brexit don't intend to reduce immigration doesn't mean you're stupid for voting for Brexit if less immigration was part of your reason for doing so. Brexit takes away a large part of the excuse for immigration. All immigration will become the result of policy written up by elected officials in the UK, so if people hate it, they'll be able to challenge them directly. The only argument these pro immigration people will have is, well what about all the Brits in Europe and then people will say, well they left, that was their decision.

 

[Einherjar86]

The 20th and 21st centuries models of governance are layer upon layer of almost entirely deadweight administrative bureaucracy. Reducing these layers is a positive.

So deceptively false.

 

[Dak]

So deceptively false.

I'm sure there are plenty of models out there.

Relevant:

 

[Einherjar86]

You teach me nothing new with that graphic. It's dripping with rhetorical sarcasm and the usual disdain.

Bureaucracies are often inefficient and financially unfeasible. This is through no inherent fault of the bureaucracy, but an effect of its imperfect position within a shifting network of social systems. Despite their inefficiency, bureaucracies are also necessary at the advanced level of complex social systems - they function as mediatory nexuses of decision-making within/between systems that would simply destroy themselves otherwise. They aren't perfect, and in many cases they're catastrophic; but they are also structurally necessary.

 

[Dak]

It's really just the human organizational cycle. The difference is that non-governmental organizations have various external pressures to reset them or eliminate them.

Some things are worth a level of economic inefficiency, but it's on a very limited case by case basis.

Regulatory capture is the empirical reality set against the "protect systems from themselves" argument.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

They aren't perfect, and in many cases they're catastrophic; but they are also structurally necessary.

Is the EU structurally necessary?

 

[CiG]

Deconstructing the meaning of concepts like the state and sovereignty is a poor way of arguing that those that valued the idea of having returned degrees of control over their country's decisions and policy are "fucking retarded."

The only retards in this scenario are the retards that voted stay because "I don't really know much about the topic but every liberal media outlet I know was for remain and my favourite pop singers say it's racist to vote leave" and that's really all it amounts to.

Very few have developed and insightful positions on this.

I had a guy from originally from Ghana complain to me in like the first 5 minutes after meeting him that "It's so hard to get into medical school because of Indians (dot)." And he was talking about here in the US. It isn't only a white thing to not like immigrants. It isn't even only a native thing.

Also important to point out that Brexit wasn't necessarily fueled by anti-immigration but rather opposition to specifically mass immigration and illegal immigration and this is why the Brexit attracted many non-white non-native supporters. People don't like it when others completely bypass the process in order to get into the country, you see it with a lot of admittedly right-leaning Hispanic Americans too.

regardless of whether their position is the correct one, the people who led the leave campaigns are beyond fucking retarded. they're already publicly backtracking on every promise they made, all trying to shirk the responsibility of pulling us out of this short-term mess and generally saying the dumbest things and looking like they've just shat themselves. i suspect another referendum now would result in a remain majority because it's quickly become abundantly clear how ill-prepared they are to deal with this (they were reportedly expecting cameron to deal with the fallout rather than just resign lol). meanwhile labour is deevolving into some really brutal in-fighting as lots of people make power plays.

Some examples? Videos etc. This will be entertaining for me.

It's all quite irrelevant though, since they need to elect a new leader before any promises can be made or kept.

 

[Einherjar86]

Is the EU structurally necessary?

Yes, I would say it is if we want to maintain the level of complexity that currently subsists between nation-states.

Deconstructing the meaning of concepts like the state and sovereignty is a poor way of arguing that those that valued the idea of having returned degrees of control over their country's decisions and policy are "fucking retarded."

There's a difference between critiquing an argument and critiquing someone's actions. If many of the people who voted "leave" realized that, they might have voted differently. Who knows.

You seem to harbor the illusory belief that those who voted "Stay" did so because they were seduced by the liberal media, while those who voted "Leave" were somehow enlightened.

 

[CiG]

You seem to harbor the illusory belief that those who voted "Stay" did so because they were seduced by the liberal media, while those who voted "Leave" were somehow enlightened.

I've said several times that both sides can find anything in this topic to reinforce their views, I'm merely laying down an attack on the remain side as a response to the terrible and generalised attacks on the leave side I'm seeing here.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Aside from ease of crossing between nations for tourism and such, what complexity is required, and for what advantage? Complexity obviously isn't an inherent good. From what I can tell, the UK has had a negative trade deficit for most of the last 30 years, so would it be even worse without the EU? At least in the case of NAFTA, trade agreements turned our economy from having a milf trade surplus with Mexico to having a massive trade deficit that has never gone away. I'm not even particularly anti-free trade, but obviously lower/middle-class workers in manufacturing are going to be worse off when poorer economies are given easier access to compete. While it will certainly become more expensive for the UK to trade with EU members, there are still plenty of goods brought into the EU by non-member nations (the USA apparently imports more than all member-states combined unless I'm reading that chart wrong), so I'm doubtful that the barrier-to-entry will go up by that much, unless the EU decides to be punitive. From what I can find, the citizens of the UK don't appear to personally profit as much as other Western European members of the EU either.

Maybe altogether this signals something inherently broken with the UK's system and that the EU is merely cushioning what would otherwise be a much larger problem for them, but I dunno, I'd like more concrete information showing not only how the EU is specifically beneficial, but also something over the UK's lengthy membership showing how it got them out of a bad situation.

 

[arg]

 

[CiG]

Irony being Scotland want to be in the EU.

 

[Einherjar86]

Aside from ease of crossing between nations for tourism and such, what complexity is required, and for what advantage? Complexity obviously isn't an inherent good. From what I can tell, the UK has had a negative trade deficit for most of the last 30 years, so would it be even worse without the EU? At least in the case of NAFTA, trade agreements turned our economy from having a milf trade surplus with Mexico to having a massive trade deficit that has never gone away. I'm not even particularly anti-free trade, but obviously lower/middle-class workers in manufacturing are going to be worse off when poorer economies are given easier access to compete. While it will certainly become more expensive for the UK to trade with EU members, there are still plenty of goods brought into the EU by non-member nations (the USA apparently imports more than all member-states combined unless I'm reading that chart wrong), so I'm doubtful that the barrier-to-entry will go up by that much, unless the EU decides to be punitive. From what I can find, the citizens of the UK don't appear to personally profit as much as other Western European members of the EU either.

Maybe altogether this signals something inherently broken with the UK's system and that the EU is merely cushioning what would otherwise be a much larger problem for them, but I dunno, I'd like more concrete information showing not only how the EU is specifically beneficial, but also something over the UK's lengthy membership showing how it got them out of a bad situation.

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/

It’s natural — and inevitable — that malignant figures will try to exploit this vacuum of authority. All sorts of demagogues and extremists will try to redirect mass anger for their own ends. Revolts against corrupt elite institutions can usher in reform and progress, but they can also create a space for the ugliest tribal impulses: xenophobia, authoritarianism, racism, fascism. One sees all of that, both good and bad, manifesting in the anti-establishment movements throughout the U.S., Europe, and the U.K. — including Brexit. All of this can be invigorating, or promising, or destabilizing, or dangerous: most likely a combination of all that.

The solution is not to subserviently cling to corrupt elite institutions out of fear of the alternatives. It is, instead, to help bury those institutions and their elite mavens and then fight for superior replacements. As Hayes put it in his book, the challenge is “directing the frustration, anger, and alienation we all feel into building a trans-ideological coalition that can actually dislodge the power of the post-meritocratic elite. One that marshals insurrectionist sentiment without succumbing to nihilism and manic, paranoid distrust.”

 

[CiG]

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.

It's only surprising if you think we sympathise because of tribalism and mob mentality.

Same could be said about people here sympathising with republicans defeating gun control measures, perhaps they don't even care about the second amendment and just swing the way they do on the topic due to republican party tribalism, doesn't mean we sympathise with why they did it. We sympathise with the outcome.