|
Post by bobbridges on Feb 1, 2020 20:35:01 GMT
It's not like it affects me, not directly at any rate. And international trade and politics are complicated enough that any claims about how it might affect me are likely to be speculative at best, and thus implausible. Still, all of Jo's friends on Facebook seem to assume that Brexit is a really dumb idea. Can anyone elucidate why?
I may as well explain from the start that although I don't have many facts at my disposal, my philosophical tendencies are mixed: 1) I generally suppose that free trade is good for everyone, which might imply that staying in the EU is good for the economy, but 2) I'm in favor of national sovereignty, as a general concept, which implies that Britain is better off out. I'll listen to arguments both ways. I don't expect to get many; what I think I'll get are assumptions and dire predictions. But let's see.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Feb 1, 2020 21:24:34 GMT
I have no qualifications to talk about economics. But from an individual person's abilities to do things and go places it seems a massive step back.
We cannot know yet whether it is a good move for Britain or not, but it feels too risky, and too costly to personal liberty. Like that mid-life-crisis colleague who quits their secure if boring office job to open up a holistic dog massage parlour; you applaud their courage and hope they will succeed, yet for some reason you feel like you are watching an imminent and inevitable train wreck.
|
|
|
Post by bobbridges on Feb 1, 2020 23:19:03 GMT
LOL—I love that metaphor!
But I'm puzzled about the "costly to personal liberty" part. Surely the EU, with its thousand-page constitution, threatens personal liberty more than a sovereign UK ever did? In fact it's on grounds of personal liberty, and of national liberty too if those two concepts aren't opposed to each other, that I'm most tempted to approve of the exit.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 2, 2020 0:45:03 GMT
Surely the EU, with its thousand-page constitution, threatens personal liberty more than a sovereign UK ever did? Absolutely not. The sovereignty of the UK does not uphold personal liberty any more than the sovereignty of Iran upholds its population's personal liberty. The EU's ethics are Christian-centred* whilst the UK's ethics are founded on making money. The EU strives for equality, justice and fairness whilst the UK government just wants more money for the rich and more power for the government. If you think that the UK government is Christ-led, look at Deuteronomy Ch. 10. God says he loves the foreigner and ensures they are fed and clothed. And Moses says, you must love them too. (And in Matthew 25, Jesus emphasises this idea.) Angela Merkel, of the Christian Democrat Union, fulfils his command by having an open doors policy for migrants. In contrast, the UK government wants to kick them all out of the country. There are many other ways in which the EU's principles are Christ-centered but suffice it to say, Brexit has led us into a very dark place. *Many secular leaders have ethics that equate to Christian ethics, so I'm not putting Christian leaders above secular leaders.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 2, 2020 1:00:32 GMT
In what way is the EU constitution threatening personal liberty in the UK, Bob? Can you name one specific passage that does? (please don't mention bendy bananas. My blood pressure cannot cope).
'Regaining our sovereignty' has almost exclusively been the refrain of xenophobes during this campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 2, 2020 1:03:02 GMT
It is worth noting, Bob, if you have not already done so that most of my friends, religious or not, British or not, come from a certain demographic which is at least vaguely liberal/left wing/highly educated. You would probably read considerably different opinions on a right wing feed. The only difference is that by and large, on this side we can spell.
|
|
|
Post by bobbridges on Feb 2, 2020 3:37:41 GMT
I'll put on my contentious hat this evening:The sovereignty of the UK does not uphold personal liberty any more than the sovereignty of Iran upholds its population's personal liberty. Sure, I didn't mean that Britain's sovereignty enhances personal liberty—only that I expect it to undermine personal liberty less.
All government undermines personal liberty; governments cannot help doing so, even those whose leaders try hard to preserve it. But the bigger the government, to some extent the greater the territory it governs, certainly the more laws it enacts, the more personal liberty is impinged upon. Remember, though, I'm speaking from a general philosophy of government rather than from particular facts in this case. I doubt the EU is an exception to the general rule, but I musn't be too sure.Many secular leaders have ethics that equate to Christian ethics... This is an irrelevant aside, but I would say there's no specifically Christian ethic. Morality is the same for Christians and non-Christians. Oh, sure, different cultures can disagree about a particular application, but the fundamental principles are the same for all.The EU's ethics are Christian-centred whilst the UK's ethics are founded on making money. The EU strives for equality, justice and fairness whilst the UK government just wants more money for the rich and more power for the government. Piffle (if you'll forgive me). Governments do not follow Christ; people follow Christ, or don't. If you insist that the leadership of the EU cares about moral behavior and that of the UK does not, I rain contempt (in the friendliest possible way) upon such a careless assertion. If you want to say the EU leadership is doing a better job than than the UK of passing morally praiseworthy laws, you're welcome to believe it but I'm doubtful.'Regaining our sovereignty' has almost exclusively been the refrain of xenophobes... Ad-hominem; not an argument.
I don't recognize the bendy-banana reference; should I ask?You would probably read considerably different opinions on a right wing feed. The only difference is that by and large, on this side we can spell. Also ad-hominem. Besides, if the only difference is spelling then I expect I wouldn't see different opinions on a right-wing feed.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Feb 2, 2020 10:24:29 GMT
But I'm puzzled about the "costly to personal liberty" part. Like others, I am surprised you have seen the EU legislation as infringing on people's liberties and am curious to hear more. The liberties I spoke of are the ones that actually affect the day-to-day lives of people, such as the liberty to travel freely in Europe, as well as easily live and work in other countries. Forgive the personal anecdotes to follow, but as I sad I have no formal education on the matters of economics or social studies, and so all I can offer is how I feel: I come from an international family, we have lived in several countries, and in years past spent countless hours getting permits and documents, and the EU was an absolute blessing to us. I was reluctant to take Finnish citizenship for *decades* as at least at the time it meant giving up my UK one, but once Finland joined the EU it didn't matter any more, we were all part of one happy union. Now, I am faced with being *more* cut off from my relatives in the UK, not to mention the complications regarding JoeP living in London, as we are in a relationship while we remain living in different countries. The world and our lives are - and will no doubt continue to increasingly become - a lot more complicated than they were before 2016. This will affect the lives of Europeans living in the UK extremely detrimentally, not to mention the Brits residing in EU countries. The most mind-boggling Brexit voters are the retired UK citizens living in places like Spain. My only explanation is that they have not experienced what I have when it comes to the complications of not having that membership agreement, and thus cannot see how they are shooting themselves in the leg. Or else they are planning Spanish nationality, though I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Feb 2, 2020 10:41:13 GMT
Not to mention the horrific situation looming abut the Irish border. I have sisters in moth the Republic and the North, and they are very concerned.
Of course, everything said above could be mitigated by coming up with a decent deal over the next 11 months. Unfortunately, the UK politicians currently in power seem quite enamoured with a no-deal Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Feb 2, 2020 12:27:13 GMT
There are lots of reasons to think Brexit is a bad idea. I might try to list some, but first for me it's enough that it takes away the right, from all UK citizens, to live and work across the EU as easily as across the UK. For nothing in return. You don't need any other argument to see that Brexit is a bad idea.
Most of those who are pro-Brexit must think that preventing other EU citizens from being able to move to the UK is a benefit that outweighs the loss of that right. And I find that narrow-minded and selfish (not to mention mistaken, but that requires more analysis) and it makes me angry.
It is, however, democratic - surveys over the past few years have consistently shown high (around 80% from memory) support for restricting free movement. To the extent that people think about that as stopping free movement into Britain and not free movement out of Britain (they still expect to be able to retire to Spain), they are being inconsistent. The same surveys show high (I think ~70%) support for continuing free trade - but you can't have one without the other, and this suggests the majority views around these two issues aren't just selfish, they are also stupid.
Did I mention this makes me angry? I think a lot of people feel anger and despair about this. Sometimes this leads to emotional statements like calling all Brexiteers racist idiots. Whereas only some of them are.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Feb 2, 2020 12:53:41 GMT
Some more detail, perhaps.
There are two areas where the EU has created a bit of a mess and - though things have got somewhat better - Britain has not been able to influence policy strongly enough (in other areas it has) - the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy.
Farmers want an end to ridiculous constraints imposed by the EU, especially ones that just seem to support French and perhaps German farmers, and I agree with them on this. But at the same time they want to be able to sell their (hypothetically increased) produce freely across the EU (where freely includes benefiting from common standard on pesticides, hormones, etc). And very importantly, they want access to cheap seasonal labour - which Brits apparently won't do. Either they are going to have to increase wages until enough Brits do want to do it (and at first that seems like a good thing), and then increase their prices driving inflation and meaning that the Brits will need still higher wages to preserve standard of living - or automate everything - or go bust. So plenty of farmers have serious doubts about Brexit.
Fishermen want increased quotas in UK waters, and again I support them on this. But they want to be able to sell their increased catch freely to the EU - the French would buy a lot of it - and that's going to become more costly. (For all the complaints about red tape from Brussels due to being in the EU, Brexit means a lot more red tape for trading with the EU from outside it.) So fishermen have doubts as well.
The core facts of being able to sell products easily across the world's biggest trading bloc and import components and raw materials frictionlessly, and having access to a wider pool of labour some of it cheaper, some of it with different skills, apply just as much to most small businesses as to the farmers and fishermen. And Bob I think your point 1 accepts this.
Big business is another story. They have the resources to buy and sell and outsource labour wherever they want; having a huge market with common standards means greater efficiencies for them too but they still have to deal with markets outside the EU. Instead, they see all the regulation coming from Brussels as a purely bad thing. Especially the financial regulations and tax transparency. Big business are the prime movers behind Brexit, absolutely. And this is not a good thing for anyone else - they will shift work to places with the lowest costs and fewest working-condition protections; they will sell poor quality even harmful products if they can get away with it; they will cheat on tax and bribe politicians and everything.
Sovereignty (your point 2, Bob) is a complete illusion. It's a fabricated issue, fabricated by politicians and the above-mentioned big business as a mask to get what they want. As an illustration, the same people who claim Brexit is about getting control claim just as strongly in recent years that the Scottish and Northern Irish independence are bad things, the constituent countries are stronger together, Westminster knows best. In earlier decades the same Westminster politicians have systematically eroded the budgets and powers of local government across the country - and before that, spent decades resisting Irish independence.
They, and anyone who supports this hollow "sovereignty" argument, are being completable hypocritical - and I simply cannot understand anyone who doesn't see the cynical contradiction in it.
Did I mention being angry? This makes me angry.
It's not about sovereignty or control or self-determination for citizens or towns or counties or the constituent countries of the UK - it's about sovereignty of the Westminster parliament (to better help their financiers in big business). In my opinion, Brussels is a lot better at providing for the rights and benefits of individual citizens and needy regions that Westminster; Westminster is entirely self-serving and largely incompetent. (For sure, Brussels has some incompetence and stifling bureaucracy - but less that in Westminster.)
|
|
|
Post by juju on Feb 2, 2020 16:37:11 GMT
Just to add to what everyone else has said - and I believe you are asking in a genuine spirit of curiosity, Bob - I certainly do feel that my personal freedoms have been infringed by us leaving the EU. More than that, I’ve been stripped of my EU citizenship against my will. I wanted the chance to live and work in other countries for my children and for myself (we had vague plans of retiring to France), and now that won’t be possible. Sovereignty only works as an idea if the government is to be trusted. This one is not. I felt secure as a citizen of the EU that rights and laws benefiting the general population had to be upheld. Now there are no such assurances. ETA: I think one of the biggest worries that many Brits have is future trade deals with the USA that will involve access to our healthcare. There has already been talk of increasing the cost of medicines in line with the extortionate prices US citizens are forced to pay, and there has been a refusal in some quarters to remove NHS services from potential deals. We do NOT want a US style service. The Conservatives here know that protection of the NHS is high on most voters’ (leavers and remainers) priorities. However I don’t trust this lot as far as I could throw them- they’d sell it off by stealth.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 2, 2020 20:30:37 GMT
I've noticed that many right wing Americans - note that I said many and not all - seem to think that any sort of official 'interference' in their lives is a bad thing. Why is it? What is wrong with belonging to a Union which safeguards our human rights?
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Feb 2, 2020 21:20:13 GMT
There is a strain of individualist thought or philosophy, that is much stronger in Anglo-Saxon culture (Britain and America and so on) than in continental Europe. It gets to be culture-defining and almost religious. And that can easily lead to believing zealously that individual rights and freedoms are more important than any social rights and freedoms.
America was kind of founded by people trying to escape government (and church) power in Europe, and restricting the powers of the federal government is still a huge deal there. But this is perhaps only an outcome of this individualist streak.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Feb 2, 2020 23:19:45 GMT
The huge irony is that our individual rights and freedoms were far greater as members of the EU than outside it. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Feb 3, 2020 9:48:03 GMT
Arguably, many of them greater than the individual rights and freedom of Americans who so highly value individual rights and freedoms. Paid leave? Employment protection? Water, air, other environmental protections?
All irrelevant since we can't freely buy guns and openly carry them!
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Feb 3, 2020 16:12:09 GMT
There is actually research on the cost of leaving the EU for the Netherlands. It would mean a financial crisis of decades since untangling Dutch economy from EU economy would be near impossible. Many farmers would go bankrupt due to lacking EU subsidies for example.
I recall a thread on the cost of Brexit somewhere else on this forum with a link to a piece written by a well-known economist. His point was that Brexit was possible but would be very costly without many returns.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Feb 3, 2020 21:17:08 GMT
I've noticed that many right wing Americans - note that I said many and not all - seem to think that any sort of official 'interference' in their lives is a bad thing. Why is it? What is wrong with belonging to a Union which safeguards our human rights? This is interesting. Nothing wrong with unions at all. In fact I wish America had a better unions. As an employer I’ve always tried to be reasonable to them because to me they are my family to and I’m responsible for their well being. As far as right left tomato tamauto I noticed what you meant. Though WG thinks I’m a far right but truth is I’m a moderate in between. I don’t know if there is a right or wrong answer but find this very fascinating on what happens.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Feb 3, 2020 21:24:21 GMT
There is a strain of individualist thought or philosophy, that is much stronger in Anglo-Saxon culture (Britain and America and so on) than in continental Europe. It gets to be culture-defining and almost religious. And that can easily lead to believing zealously that individual rights and freedoms are more important than any social rights and freedoms. America was kind of founded by people trying to escape government (and church) power in Europe, and restricting the powers of the federal government is still a huge deal there. But this is perhaps only an outcome of this individualist streak. Yes we were. I’m not a big fan of any government. Even less on communism and other undesirable forms of government. Be careful though. People trying on both side to convince typically blow things out of proportion to make themselves look right. I trust no numbers or models unless I study it and do it myself.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 4, 2020 23:36:17 GMT
You do recognise the huge difference between socialism and communism though Brett?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Feb 6, 2020 5:47:11 GMT
'Regaining our sovereignty' has almost exclusively been the refrain of xenophobes... Ad-hominem; not an argument.I disagree. It is not an ad hominem, but a truism.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Feb 6, 2020 14:37:39 GMT
Though WG thinks I’m a far right but truth is I’m a moderate in between. This is incorrect. I suspect you don't put enough thought in to it to qualify as almost anything on the political spectrum. I would have guessed you to be a self-defined Libertarian, rather than as some kind of indeterminate 'moderate'. Those who suffer from RAS rarely are real moderates, even though they tell others they are. Evidently, they even think they are, in their abject cluelessness.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Feb 14, 2020 18:10:10 GMT
Shows how little you know me but it’s not that I particularly worry about it either. More funny than anything plus I like a good shock factor in life.
Ras stands for a family of related proteins found inside cells.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Feb 17, 2020 17:07:09 GMT
Ras stands for a family of related proteins found inside cells. LOL...That figures. You failed to read the post the last time I provided it. I'm not surprised, as I view it as typical behavior of those crippled by RAS. Privilege has its drawbacks and, boy, do you know how to flaunt them. RAS is yet another of the vastly proliferatiing acronyms of the internets. So, in the interest of what I consider a futile effort to educate you, here it is again. Try this time to read and understand, because around here you wave your RAS around like it was a flag.
|
|
|
Post by bobbridges on Feb 19, 2020 0:53:25 GMT
I started this thread, but I haven't been back to check on it in a week or two. I can't stay long enough now, either, to do justice to some of the posts I see here. Just two quick comments, and I'll have to come back after I've caught up on some work.
1) Yes, I'm one of those American right-wingers who as a general principle prefer less government to more. I would say (not speaking for any other right-wingers) that it stems from a fundamental distrust of government, from the belief that all governments tend over time to acquire more power and to misuse it. I hope to expand on this later; it's a standard rant topic near and dear to my heart. This is why the USA has states rather than provinces, historically speaking. And 2) 'Regaining our sovereignty' has almost exclusively been the refrain of xenophobes... Ad-hominem; not an argument.I disagree. It is not an ad hominem, but a truism. Whollygoats, if you're thinking that "truism" implies "not ad-hominem" then I'm guessing it's because you've mistaken the meaning of "ad-hominem". It's not an argument whose premisses are false; it's a fallacy, that is, an argument that is malformed. When a debater commits a fallacy, it's irrelevant whether his premiss(es) be true; the reason it's a fallacy is that they don't support his conclusion. The classic example of the ad-hominem fallacy is the child's retort "What do you know about it? Your father can't even get a job!" Even if it be true that my father cannot get a job, you see, the attacker has not succeeded in constructing an argument against my position (whatever it is).
Moose tried to argue that Brexit is a bad idea because it's supported mostly by xenophobes. The argument failed because the motivating fears of those who support Brexit are irrelevant to the question of whether Brexit will turn out in the end to be good for the UK.
Specifically, "ad hominem" is the name we give to a particular kind of fallacy, the one where, instead of debating your opponents' arguments, you attack some characteristic of the opponents themselves. Usually, as in this case, the attack is on motives
There are other types of fallacies. For example: "All dogs have fur. All cats have fur. Therefore all dogs are cats." Even though dogs and cats both have fur, the conclusion doesn't follow.
Anyway, I didn't argue that Jo was mistaken in saying that most of Brexit's supporters are xenophobes; I said that that doesn't tell us whether Brexit is a bad idea.
Back later.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Feb 19, 2020 3:08:15 GMT
I disagree. Jo has stated that 'Regaining our sovereignty' has almost exclusively been the refrain of xenophobes.
That is not false. And, it is to the point of why it is that it should not be supported. Those who touted this excuse and pushed for Brexit were those with paranoiac fears of foreigners. Those are people I would not associate with in determining the appropriate actions of my government in regards to its relationship with neighboring nations. It is directly a reason why those who fear xenophobia as a public policy would notably oppose such a policy.
"And your mother is ugly, too," is an ad hominem. If shitheads push the idea, then the idea requires a great deal more skepticism.
So...Are you supportive of xenophobia as public policy?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 19, 2020 3:09:11 GMT
Do you really not think that the fact that an idea is mostly supported by xenophobes and racists makes it a bad idea? Can you name me something that such people support that is NOT a bad idea?
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Feb 19, 2020 10:09:11 GMT
Motherhood and apple pie.
Bad people (and for this discussion everyone can decide their own definition of bad) also support good things.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Feb 19, 2020 11:52:47 GMT
I think la Moose is saying that something mostly supported by xenophobes and racists and mostly not supported by others is mostly a bad idea.
That's a more reasonable claim, and I can't think of any counterexamples right away ... but maybe it's circular ... ideas that aren't supported by others are bad because "we" are the others, in that we are defining xenophobia and racism as bad ideas / bad things in themselves.
And it's not really that applicable to Brexit because there are surely a lot of people who support Brexit who aren't fundamentally xenophobic or racist.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Feb 20, 2020 2:24:32 GMT
Is logical argumentation always appropriate and demanded for rhetorical exchanges?
If so, why is being a 'conservative', whose most visible proponents willfully and repeatedly abandon logical argumentation on a regular basis, even be worth mentioning, other than to poison the well?
|
|