I don't know. First there was the Croatian War of Independence, in which the newly formed Croatian state fought the rump Yugoslavian state and then there was the involvement, as I recall, of the Albanian state in the Kosovo War.
But it sounds like the answer is that, for a variety of questionable reasons, many (all?) commentators have decided to ignore those wars, whatever name you want to call them, in order to say that the EU has guaranteed peace on the continent.
I don't know. First there was the Croatian War of Independence, in which the newly formed Croatian state fought the rump Yugoslavian state and then there was the involvement, as I recall, of the Albanian state in the Kosovo War.
But it sounds like the answer is that, for a variety of questionable reasons, many (all?) commentators have decided to ignore those wars, whatever name you want to call them, in order to say that the EU has guaranteed peace on the continent.
Rather true brother.
To be shockingly honest WW1 was not only the axis fault, a lot of countries tried hard to start a war, because they thought it was a damn good idea. Now the germans lost it and paid dearly for it in the following years. Recession followed, and then unemployment and also a few more factors wich led in the end to the victory of a party who were led by a few people with high charisma and little wisdom. But to be shockingly brutal that was 70 years ago, a camp guard got sentenced a few days ago, who is now 95, so please almost all people involved are dead or almost.
But instead of learning of it... we did not.
Agreed. Just a couple of notes: WWI comes right after the so called "Belle Epoque" a term actually invented after the "war to end all wars" to define a period that appeared much brighter in light of what happened in 1914-1918 and thus it was romanticized afterwards. The reasons leading to WWI are complex but it could be said the growing power of the central empires (well, the second Reich more than the Austro-Ungarian Empire but still) threatened the status quo and thus precipitated things. Add french revanchism in the midst of the franco-prussian war and italian drive to complete its own nation inside its own natural borders (and quite a few cultural and intellectual movements idealizing war for its own shake... "We glorify war, the World’s Only Hygiene" F.T. Marinetti), and you have a picture of the situation.
And among the reasons for Weimar's economical collapse we can't forget a global event like the great depression was (see any analogies with today?).And about Chancellor Merkels words to the immigrants "Come to us". Trust me it was hugely unpopular in germany and still is. But if you take a step back... Is there a way to stop a folk moving apart from slaughtering them. I do not think so. So either say no and they still come. Or say yes and at least try to work it in sensible ways.
Ask around who is doing most of the manual labor in hospitals, care homes and the like. People born in other countries. And it is still not enough.
It's unpopular in most countries. Resorces are limited and people competing for them with newcomers bearing often radically different mindsets and cultural behaviours aren't going to be particularly tolerant unless a huge effort is made to integrate and assimilate these people in theit host nations. They offer excellent scapegoats for rightwingers and ultranationalist parties otherwise.
And one more thing to think about. A lot of people complain about the chaps in brussels. Who made it possible. Those chaps YOU VOTED in YOUR Country and I mean ALL EUROPEAN countries thought it was a good idea to start one super governement.
Has it failed. NOPE. Is it problematic. HECK YES. To find a middle ground for all the member states is problematic. But please stop looking at your plate and start looking at all the others.
IF not we all loose!
Solidarity is the solution, but the question is: there's willingness to make the sacrifices required for it to have a chance? I doubt it, for those in power it's far more convenient to point at other countries faults or at internal minorities so called "privileges" than to change a system that benefits them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know. First there was the Croatian War of Independence, in which the newly formed Croatian state fought the rump Yugoslavian state and then there was the involvement, as I recall, of the Albanian state in the Kosovo War.
But it sounds like the answer is that, for a variety of questionable reasons, many (all?) commentators have decided to ignore those wars, whatever name you want to call them, in order to say that the EU has guaranteed peace on the continent.
You are misreading, or people are making the same EU-Europe confusion as you did.
One of the original motivations of EU was to prevent a new war between its member states by sharing ressources and growing trade relations. It's not a magical gizmo generating peace-waves able to prevent war outside of its borders.
Some of the splinter states born from Yugoslavia are now EU members, but it happened AFTER the yugoslavian civil war.
I get that, but the statements I quoted and asked about asserted that the EU kept peace "in Europe" not amongst EU members.
So it sounds like the statement makers, while probably aware of the Yugoslavian/Third Balkan Wars, used sloppy shorthand. Fair enough.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that some of my fellow Americans will see this a reminder of the importance of voting. If higher percentages of younger, well-educated, less xenophobic demographics had voted, it might not have happened.
|
Given these conditions it's very hard for me to feel the remain people's pain. It might be a problem for the UK, it might be a problem for the EU, but it was the result of the people expressing its choice freely and it needs to be respected, not vilified.I concur! We should stop heckling Germans for voting NSDAP in 1933 and respect their thoughtful choice which brought about so much stimulus for positive change across the world.Really? Maybe you ought to ask yourself why so many people were willing to vote for a rabid (if charismatic) "Bohemian corporal" then.
It's not much different from what's happening today: a lot of people were suffering and choose an option that promised to change things. They made a tragic mistake but it was NOT entirely THEIR fault. The conditions for them to hurt and therefore the space for the likes of said corporal to present themselves as a credible alternative were in place due to the policies enforced by the winners of WWI. Weimar is widely reputed as the finest example of democratic institution but alone that wasn't enough to improve the living conditions of so many germans, the Weimar Republic never had a chance to do so DESPITE being something akin a perfect democracy.
Bottom line: you want to keep EU? Then the EU needs to change its policies. Its focus should be on improving people's living conditions not the already great income of a very small if well connected and powerful minority. Otherwise yes the risk of history repeating itself exist, because the same mistakes are being made by those in power, not because Democracy gives people the right to choose for themselves.
So should we stop heckling the Germans or not, because you kind of didn't answer my question :)
So should we stop heckling the Germans or not, because you kind of didn't answer my question :)Given these conditions it's very hard for me to feel the remain people's pain. It might be a problem for the UK, it might be a problem for the EU, but it was the result of the people expressing its choice freely and it needs to be respected, not vilified.I concur! We should stop heckling Germans for voting NSDAP in 1933 and respect their thoughtful choice which brought about so much stimulus for positive change across the world.Really? Maybe you ought to ask yourself why so many people were willing to vote for a rabid (if charismatic) "Bohemian corporal" then.
It's not much different from what's happening today: a lot of people were suffering and choose an option that promised to change things. They made a tragic mistake but it was NOT entirely THEIR fault. The conditions for them to hurt and therefore the space for the likes of said corporal to present themselves as a credible alternative were in place due to the policies enforced by the winners of WWI. Weimar is widely reputed as the finest example of democratic institution but alone that wasn't enough to improve the living conditions of so many germans, the Weimar Republic never had a chance to do so DESPITE being something akin a perfect democracy.
Bottom line: you want to keep EU? Then the EU needs to change its policies. Its focus should be on improving people's living conditions not the already great income of a very small if well connected and powerful minority. Otherwise yes the risk of history repeating itself exist, because the same mistakes are being made by those in power, not because Democracy gives people the right to choose for themselves.
I believe the answer was implicit but if you need a statement here it is: we should look at what happened with objective detachment and take a lesson from it so it doesn't happen again. There's no value whatsoever in "heckling germans" for the sake of it (although I'd admit it could be funny at times).
For that reason we should NEVER forget though.
I get that, but the statements I quoted and asked about asserted that the EU kept peace "in Europe" not amongst EU members.
So it sounds like the statement makers, while probably aware of the Yugoslavian/Third Balkan Wars, used sloppy shorthand. Fair enough.
No problem, it's as common as saying "america" for "USA". EU is nowadays the bigger part of Europe, but not all of it : we have still countries to submerge/convert/absorb/blip (Norwway, Swiss, Iceland, etc.).
Also, as most of the neighbours are currently knocking at the door and that being a peaceful democracy is the most basic thing required to be part of the club, it can be said that EU contribute somehow to peace in Europe (ny encouraging good behaviour among neighbours). Maybe it is what your statement maker intended (lack of context, blip).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So should we stop heckling the Germans or not, because you kind of didn't answer my question :)Given these conditions it's very hard for me to feel the remain people's pain. It might be a problem for the UK, it might be a problem for the EU, but it was the result of the people expressing its choice freely and it needs to be respected, not vilified.I concur! We should stop heckling Germans for voting NSDAP in 1933 and respect their thoughtful choice which brought about so much stimulus for positive change across the world.Really? Maybe you ought to ask yourself why so many people were willing to vote for a rabid (if charismatic) "Bohemian corporal" then.
It's not much different from what's happening today: a lot of people were suffering and choose an option that promised to change things. They made a tragic mistake but it was NOT entirely THEIR fault. The conditions for them to hurt and therefore the space for the likes of said corporal to present themselves as a credible alternative were in place due to the policies enforced by the winners of WWI. Weimar is widely reputed as the finest example of democratic institution but alone that wasn't enough to improve the living conditions of so many germans, the Weimar Republic never had a chance to do so DESPITE being something akin a perfect democracy.
Bottom line: you want to keep EU? Then the EU needs to change its policies. Its focus should be on improving people's living conditions not the already great income of a very small if well connected and powerful minority. Otherwise yes the risk of history repeating itself exist, because the same mistakes are being made by those in power, not because Democracy gives people the right to choose for themselves.
The answer is yes.
Because you heckle the grandchildren for sins of the grandfathers.
I get that, but the statements I quoted and asked about asserted that the EU kept peace "in Europe" not amongst EU members.
So it sounds like the statement makers, while probably aware of the Yugoslavian/Third Balkan Wars, used sloppy shorthand. Fair enough.
No problem, it's as common as saying "america" for "USA". EU is nowadays the bigger part of Europe, but not all of it : we have still countries to submerge/convert/absorb/blip (Norwway, Swiss, Iceland, etc.).
Also, as most of the neighbours are currently knocking at the door and that being a peaceful democracy is the most basic thing required to be part of the club, it can be said that EU contribute somehow to peace in Europe (ny encouraging good behaviour among neighbours). Maybe it is what your statement maker intended (lack of context, blip).
Although, to be fair, the Paizonian I quoted was more nuanced than the Remain campaigner I saw on tv yesterday.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So should we stop heckling the Germans or not, because you kind of didn't answer my question :)
The answer is yes.
Because you heckle the grandchildren for sins of the grandfathers.
Not even the grandchildren, for the most part. Everyone who voted in 1933 is at least 103 years old today, and there's a good chance that their grandchildren are themselves retired and not available on the Internet for heckling.
If you can find someone who actually voted for the NDSAP in 1933,.... well, yeah, I suppose you could heckle her if you like. If she were in any condition to understand what you were saying.
But even then, you might be better off, I dunno, trying to talk to her and understand what she was thinking at the time, because, I dunno, there might be parallels that could inform today's debate. Just sayin'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously? (1) Could this be true? If so, how widespread is Bregret? (B) When you cast a vote, make it the one you actually want.
In the last referendum in Quebec on breaking free of Canada back in 1995, there were quite a few people who said they had no interest in Quebec leaving Canada that voted that way anyway.
The question on the ballot wasn't clear cut and simply asked whether they wanted to "renegotiate" the status of Quebec within Canada. So the logic was they weren't voting to leave: they were just giving their provincial government some leverage over the federal government. Fortunately over 93% of voters turned out and a small majority voted against the measure.
Sadly, this sort of thing happens a lot in these votes. People who want to "send a message" or feel their vote won't actually affect things find to their shock that they have a voice that has weight.
It is also my fear that a certain percentage of voters just say no on principle. Or to make a political statement. But then those just add to the other no sayers and you have a vote that should have been yes voted no. Happened to us in Germany when they said no to the olympics. But if I get started on THAT subject my blood pressure will again skyrocket.
|
|
I believe the answer was implicit but if you need a statement here it is: we should look at what happened with objective detachment and take a lesson from it so it doesn't happen...So should we stop heckling the Germans or not, because you kind of didn't answer my question :)Given these conditions it's very hard for me to feel the remain people's pain. It might be a problem for the UK, it might be a problem for the EU, but it was the result of the people expressing its choice freely and it needs to be respected, not vilified.I concur! We should stop heckling Germans for voting NSDAP in 1933 and respect their thoughtful choice which brought about so much stimulus for positive change across the world.Really? Maybe you ought to ask yourself why so many people were willing to vote for a rabid (if charismatic) "Bohemian corporal" then.
It's not much different from what's happening today: a lot of people were suffering and choose an option that promised to change things. They made a tragic mistake but it was NOT entirely THEIR fault. The conditions for them to hurt and therefore the space for the likes of said corporal to present themselves as a credible alternative were in place due to the policies enforced by the winners of WWI. Weimar is widely reputed as the finest example of democratic institution but alone that wasn't enough to improve the living conditions of so many germans, the Weimar Republic never had a chance to do so DESPITE being something akin a perfect democracy.
Bottom line: you want to keep EU? Then the EU needs to change its policies. Its focus should be on improving people's living conditions not the already great income of a very small if well connected and powerful minority. Otherwise yes the risk of history repeating itself exist, because the same mistakes are being made by those in power, not because Democracy gives people the right to choose for themselves.
All right, just to make sure we're on the same page, if it was 1933 fresh after that fateful German election day and I'd go like "JESUS CHRIST YOU NUMBSKULLS WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?" you'd be there to tell me that I should respect their decision and wait until I see what happens with objective detachment?
Wow! I mean, it would be cool if the world would wait for you every time it goes bananas, but problem is, it doesn't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All right, just to make sure we're on the same page, if it was 1933 fresh after that fateful German election day and I'd go like "JESUS CHRIST YOU NUMBSKULLS WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?" you'd be there to tell me that I should respect their decision and wait until I see what happens with objective detachment?
Wow! I mean, it would be cool if the world would wait for you every time it goes bananas, but problem is, it doesn't.
It's a moot point. We can't predict the future and you could have moaned and b%++$ed all you wanted back then as you can do now, blaming democracy for allowing people to make choices. It would not have changed a thing back then it won't change anything now. What I find disturbing is all this willingness to throw away democracy... for what exactly?
Anecdotal note: the nationalsocialist party despised democracy as well and soon acted to get rid of it in the wake of the Reichstag fire.
All right, just to make sure we're on the same page, if it was 1933 fresh after that fateful German election day and I'd go like "JESUS CHRIST YOU NUMBSKULLS WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?" you'd be there to tell me that I should respect their decision and wait until I see what happens with objective detachment?
Wow! I mean, it would be cool if the world would wait for you every time it goes bananas, but problem is, it doesn't.
It's a moot point. We can't predict the future and you could have moaned and b$*#+ed all you wanted back then as you can do now, blaming democracy for allowing people to make choices. It would not have changed a thing back then it won't change anything now. What I find disturbing is all this willingness to throw away democracy... for what exactly?
Anecdotal note: the nationalsocialist party despised democracy as well and soon acted to get rid of it in the wake of the Reichstag fire.Who's talking about throwing away democracy?
We're bongoing about voters making a stupid decision. And worrying about the consequences.
And I'm telling you that calling this decision "stupid" is not in any way productive. You may very well think it is, you can blame people for their poor judgement, fears and insecurities. You may think they have been manipulated or scared into voting for something wrong but under democracic rules that just means the OTHER SIDE wasn't able to adress the reasons that produced this outcome and give voters a better alternative.
You want to change things so people dont make these "stupid mistakes" again? Find a way to make "wiser decisions" seem like they actually are wiser.Good luck.
|
Pretty relevant
i-really-regret-my-vote-now-the-brexit-voters-who-wish-theyd-voted-to-remai n
Not suprising since in 24 hours you have had the leaders (And Farrage) of the leave side say that the some of main reasons people voted to leave are not going to happen
So wait, canada can't leave. States can't leave, we settled that int he civil war.
*ow ow ow ow kidding ow ow ow*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wait, canada can't leave. States can't leave, we settled that int he civil war.
*ow ow ow ow kidding ow ow ow*
*preemptively invades Canada*
Either we get some people who know how to run a medical system... or they burn down the White House again. I love a win/win scenario!
So should we stop heckling the Germans or not, because you kind of didn't answer my question :)Given these conditions it's very hard for me to feel the remain people's pain. It might be a problem for the UK, it might be a problem for the EU, but it was the result of the people expressing its choice freely and it needs to be respected, not vilified.I concur! We should stop heckling Germans for voting NSDAP in 1933 and respect their thoughtful choice which brought about so much stimulus for positive change across the world.Really? Maybe you ought to ask yourself why so many people were willing to vote for a rabid (if charismatic) "Bohemian corporal" then.
It's not much different from what's happening today: a lot of people were suffering and choose an option that promised to change things. They made a tragic mistake but it was NOT entirely THEIR fault. The conditions for them to hurt and therefore the space for the likes of said corporal to present themselves as a credible alternative were in place due to the policies enforced by the winners of WWI. Weimar is widely reputed as the finest example of democratic institution but alone that wasn't enough to improve the living conditions of so many germans, the Weimar Republic never had a chance to do so DESPITE being something akin a perfect democracy.
Bottom line: you want to keep EU? Then the EU needs to change its policies. Its focus should be on improving people's living conditions not the already great income of a very small if well connected and powerful minority. Otherwise yes the risk of history repeating itself exist, because the same mistakes are being made by those in power, not because Democracy gives people the right to choose for themselves.
heckle away, it seems like too many people here, especally in the former GDR part have forgotten about it, and the efforts to rebuild and integrate all the german war refugees (which I see as direct victims of the nazies not of the eastern countries)
Honestly, I like what has happened because I can have more time to prepare. Brexit does, indeed, lead to a Donald Trump (or Gary Johnson) win. However, that could last for four years. I know a lot of people disrespect Donald Trump now, but the UK breaking away from the EU is good. It may present some terrible consequences in the short run, but in the long run it will be good for the UK.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I like what has happened because I can have more time to prepare. Brexit does, indeed, lead to a Donald Trump (or Gary Johnson) win. However, that could last for four years. I know a lot of people disrespect Donald Trump now, but the UK breaking away from the EU is good. It may present some terrible consequences in the short run, but in the long run it will be good for the UK.
Maybe, maybe not : opinions and experts diverge wildly on that topic (with a gloom and dooom dominant theme, though).
@Gorbacz : whatever, it is now a soveriegn decision of the english and welsh people, and it is something to be respected. The comparison with 1933 Germany is somewhat excessive and insulting. If some people voted "leave" and didn't really want to, it was appallingly stupid of them.
Cameron is mainly to blame for the whole mess, as the matter was probably too important and complex to be summarized in a single question...
|
Honestly, I like what has happened because I can have more time to prepare. Brexit does, indeed, lead to a Donald Trump (or Gary Johnson) win. However, that could last for four years. I know a lot of people disrespect Donald Trump now, but the UK breaking away from the EU is good. It may present some terrible consequences in the short run, but in the long run it will be good for the UK.
In the long run it MAY be good for the UK. But the good arguments for it to be good largely rested on economic decisions which would be politically impossible. Notions of "sovereignty" don't really cut much ice either. Pooling sovereignty is inevitable in lots of ways - NATO, WTO and so on - as it helps you get things done you could not otherwise do by yourself. So pulling away from a club which will set the rules for your main trading partners isn't all that sensible.
And Trump is disrespected for lots of good reasons. His views on Brexit are only one of those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The vote to leave was mainly by the older generation - that is, the people who won't have to live with the long-term consequences of this. On the other hand, the younger people voted overwhelmingly to stay - and they're the ones who will be impacted the most if the UK actually decides to go through with it.
I admit, it's... kind of hard to see this as anything except the older generation screwing over the younger one. Again. XD; That's a narrow vote, and I don't feel like it's right to completely twist the future against the people who have to live it on a margin that slim.
At what age do you think people should have their right to vote stripped away?
|
The main thing I am curious about is how many folks profited on this by shorting the markets/currency exchanges. Perhaps it is the conspiracy theorist in me, but I can see this being little more than a plan to pull wealth from convincing people through jingoism and spin to do something that will inevitably be bad for them.
Currently (World Bank statistics for 2014), USA invest 3.5 % of its GNP in military pursuits. European countries are way behind, with 2.2 % for France (and 2.3 % for Greece, surprisingly) [...]
Not surprising at all. Greece is next to Turkey, and those two haven't fully buried the hatchet.
Currently (World Bank statistics for 2014), USA invest 3.5 % of its GNP in military pursuits. European countries are way behind, with 2.2 % for France (and 2.3 % for Greece, surprisingly) [...]Not surprising at all. Greece is next to Turkey, and those two haven't fully buried the hatchet.
The reason being that neither one will turn around long enough for the other to bury it.
A petition for a second referendum in the UK has reached almost 3 million signatures.
Despite that extraordinarily high figure, I would agree that it would be undemocratic to rerun the referendum. The result has to be taken as it is. The only grounds on which to rerun the decision would be if there was a material change to the premise of the referendum.
Of course, part of the premise of the referendum was that the government would spend £350 million a week more on the NHS and would also halt the free movement of people from the EU. And in the last 36 hours senior members of the Leave campaign have rolled back on both of those promises. Is that enough to justify a second referendum? Maybe. The new Tory leader has to agree that both of those promises are enshrined in the Brexit negotiations or I think they will come back to bite them.
So, I've seen this being trotted around; most glaringly, I watched a piece yesterday with Alex Scrivener from the Another Europe is Possible Coalition arguing against a member of the Socialist Workers Party and their Lexit campaign in which the former claimed that "One thing it has definitely done is it's secured peace on this continent since the Second World War."
And, of course, the first thing I thing of is the Balkan Wars in the '90s. Now, I'll grant you, going from lots of wars to only one war in seventy years isn't too bad, but why does it seem like some (many?) people are ignoring them.
As mentioned above, neither Yugoslavia nor its successor states were part of the EU (a lot of them still aren't), which was part of the problem, and then suffered arguments over borders, which the EU effectively nullifies. The religious disagreements were also quite strong, but the EU has also done a reasonable job of keeping those issues under control.
This has been borne out in the last 36 hours. Britain controls the peninsula of Gibraltar, which borders the far southern tip of Spain, and has done for centuries. Spain has argued that it should be part of its own country because of proximity. Prior to the EU there were lots of arguments and threats over the issue. The EU nullified that because, well, it doesn't really matter when they're both part of the EU and then the UK and Spain made lots of money from Spanish workers who could cross the border freely to work in Gibraltar (at rather higher rates of pay than they could get locally, in some cases).
Almost immediately post-Brexit, Spain said soothingly that the estimated 800,000-1 million British expats living in Spain would still be welcome and could stay with no problems. And then, of course in a competely unrelated statement, said that they expected "joint sovereignty" over Gibraltar with the UK as a transitional stage before the colony completely joined the Spanish state. There was an interesting undertone there, "Give us Gibraltar and we won't force a million mostly old codgers to return to the UK and collapse your economy - er, more than it has been - overnight."
In addition, Britain helps pay for a migrant camp in Calais to stop illegal migrants crossing the Channel to Britain. To make that work legally, the border between Britain and France is at the edge of the migrant camp (as a bit of legal busywork to ensure that Britain has to pay for it, not just the French government). France has said that this arrangement - which can be terminated by either side - is no longer in their interest post-Brexit and they could choose to terminate it, which would allow migrants to enter the Channel Tunnel or even legally hitch a lift in vans to the far side at Dover, where a new migrant camp would have to be set up, 100% at the British taxpayer's expense.
The EU didn't do anything to prevent or mitigate the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Years of Lead in Italy, or ETA in the Basque country, either.
The worst excesses of those campaigns all took place before the modern EU was effectively founded with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. In addition, the EU actually is at a cornerstone of the resolution of the Troubles.
Technically, continued co-membership of the European Union by both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is stipulated in the Good Friday Agreement (which effectively ended the Troubles), and the EU provides an important forum for discussions between Dublin and London. On paper, at least (the UK PM and the Irish Taoiseach usually have no problems just talking to each other direct), the EU provides an important forum for discussions between the Republic and the UK. The UK leaving the EU means that the Good Friday Agreement has to be reworked, which no-one really has engaged with because the mere thought of it causes politicians to break out in hives.
The Troubles (probably) wouldn't restart, of course, but the reintroduction of a physical land border between the Republic and the North and the end of free movement at will between the two states is going to be politically sensitive, problematic and migraine-inducing.
the UK breaking away from the EU is good. It may present some terrible consequences in the short run, but in the long run it will be good for the UK.
What do you base this on? A long-term good result for the UK requires the UK to either start building something to sell to the rest of the world - which there is no realistic prospect of - or for it to be allowed continued free access to the EU market, which there is also no realistic prospect of.
Werthead, the agreement (about the border) is the result of a bilateral agreement and won't change, even as a result of Brexit. Here's a link to the relevant story.
It's a bilateral agreement that either side can terminate at two years' notice. So far the Mayor of Calais and the representative for the whole region have said they now see no logical reason for France to continue shouldering the bulk of the costs of maintaining the camp on their side of the tunnel. Others in the French government have said that they won't be rushing to change agreements without further discussions with Britain. They COULD choose to terminate it and we would have no say in the matter. How that pans out depends a lot on French internal politics and the Brexit discussions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, actually, I hadn't seen the question. XD
I don't think there should be a set age. I do, however, believe people should lose the right to vote if they are declared medically incompetent (which happens to some people as they age). Voting requires people to understand issues, and if people genuinely can't, then I think that's a problem. (This is similar to the way people may be judged unable to stand trial, make other important decisions in their lives, etc.)
I also think it's important to consider votes from the perspective of understanding what the people really think. There's a difference between a decision-making vote and an advisory vote, and I think relevant demographics should be taken into account for understanding advisory votes. Reality is not as simple as a Yes or No question, however much we'd like that to be the case.
If something has a strong chance of negatively impacting a part of the group that's voting, they deserve to have their concerns addressed, especially on close votes. A victory for "Yes" does not mean everyone who voted "No" should be thrown to the curb. Their thoughts and desires should be addressed, and in general proportion to the vote.
Basically, 51% of the people should not have 100% of the power, especially if their decisions would actively hurt the other 49%. That sort of thing tends to result in polarization, and let's face it, that has not been working out for the world.