The inevitable Brexit thread


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 400 of 863 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Conservative Anklebiter wrote:
Norman Osborne wrote:
Rednal wrote:

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?
Rather strange this be not been answered.

How is it strange? It's an obvious trap question- anyone who answers it is going to be jumped on for denying people 'rights.'

Nevermind that nobody's government was/is set up to function with every issue being subjected to direct popular vote where everything of importance is completely obscured by counter-factual emotion-based propaganda in lieu of facts.

The illusion that elected representatives will have some access to actual knowledge of the situation is pretty much the only thing that keeps governments going. Along with deep deep protections against direct populism, because mostly the people writing up Constitutions don't trust the common person to walk and breath at the same time, let alone deal with complex economic and social issues.

Quite rightly as it turns out.


If the question was ridiculous, it was no more so than the opinion that it was a response too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Age-related issues are thorny. Always will be. It stands to some sort of reason that a man of 96 probably should not have the same political influence as someone who is 20 - they aren't likely to stay around for long after the vote. In many countries, we have had old people dictating the conditions of pensions and such to a level that they get great pensions and everyone has to pay for them, while eventually the system collapses and then the younger people have to pay for their own pensions after having paid for the older peoples'. Sweden is a prime example of this. Fair? Not really. Nor will it get better with an aging population all across the West.

It is also obvious that demented people should probably not have political influence at all. In some places, convicted criminals are not allowed to vote. In others, immigrants get to vote before citizenship in general elections. It is not clear-cut what should be in this issue.

Finally, age also brings a discussion about the beginning of the right to vote. Eighteen is common, but so is sixteen. Many sixteen-year-olds are perfectly capable of understanding what they need to vote. Many forty-year-olds are not.

But... democracy is a sensitive beast. One man, one vote has been the best we could figure out. In the end, the right to strip someone of the vote is a very dangerous tool, and would be wielded with verve and cruelty. All the above, while real problems with democracy as it is, is really less important than a simple framework.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Norman Osborne wrote:
Rednal wrote:

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?

Round about the age you think it's a good idea to leave the EU.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Norman Osborne wrote:
If the question was ridiculous, it was no more so than the opinion that it was a response too.

It's far from ridiculous. We have an ageing population in the UK which consumes a lot of tax revenue to run, what with pensions and the NHS, and they are the largest consumers by far of the welfare state. The young are expected to pay for this, so we are clearly pivotal to the standards of living of the elderly. Yet the polls also split, with the elderly voting to leave and the young voting to stay. So there is a clear split in intentions there between the generations.

And if you then consider that Brexit is expected to cause short term economic damage, and it is quite likely the long term benefits will prove illusory, then that will impact upon economic activity - aka the jobs of the young. So the elderly are sitting there, sucking up tax revenue, while voting to damage the interests of those that actually pay for their relaxed twilight years. As well as being pretty stupid, it's also pretty ungrateful. As well as propping up the welfare state, the young have to pay mortgages, raise children, and go to work. The financial liabilities stay roughly the same, or are even growing, as more and more of the population ages.

So if the economy really is damaged, either taxes will have to go up or benefits cut. This was an issue even before Brexit, but is quite possibly becoming particularly acute now. This vote has brought out into the open inter-generational issues that were bubbling under the surface. My parents voted for Brexit, as did my in-laws. I work in finance, which is heavily reliant on EU regulations. This potentially damages me, damages my family, damages my son's prospects, very directly. So yeah, I'm pissed off. You think that's ridiculous? I don't.

Clearly, elderly morons are entitled to vote. But this referendum clearly displays why we have representative democracy, and why direct democracy is a stupid idea. You don't let someone who is unqualified drive a bus. Why would you allow someone with no understanding of the issues to decide a crucial question that impacts the livelihoods of millions? We have elected representatives for that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ericthecleric wrote:
Werthead wrote:
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.
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.

The french government has already said that this particular and very controversial treaty will go down the drain, along with UK membership in EU. Not now, but it won't survive brexit.

EDIT : of course, we could reconsider... it will only cost UK Jersey and Guernesey. Barter time ! :)

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


It's far from ridiculous. We have an ageing population in the UK which consumes a lot of tax revenue to run, what with pensions and the NHS, and they are the largest consumers by far of the welfare state. The young are expected to pay for this, so we are clearly pivotal to the standards of living of the elderly.

Edit: to remove some of the crankiness.

Now I may be tired from working all day but it's a good thing you have no intention of aging, let me know the secret. Or if you do I'm glad to see you'll support yourself and not make any demands on the tax system or NHS.

This sort of thinking is remarkable in this day and age. We see the same in Australia. The elderly get cast aside, monetary benefits reduced, calls for rights to be reduced. All as a penalty for having the audacity to get old. We fight for equal rights for every tiny group we can think of except the elderly it appears. YOur society has the infrastructure, democracy and freedom it enjoys because of the elderly. Most of them have paid taxes throughout their life, just as pivotal to the standard of living many younger people enjoy. You don't see a lot of elderly adding to crime statistics - a huge cost to society.

The same stats on the Brecht also point out that higher educated people voted to stay, so perhaps we should only allow the highly educated to vote? In fact people identifying as British voted to leave! Maybe only those who are foreign should be allowed to vote? The polls also say the lower classes voted to go, why not restrict the ability to vote to the upper classes?


The growing pro-remain petition is nice (3 million now), but is nothing compared to the 17 millions who voted to leave. All it has achieved is to ensure that the british Parliament will hold a debate about the Brexit, which would have happened anyway.

I'a afraid that to derail the Brexit now, your next pro-Leave PM (Boris Johnson ?) would have to renege, admitting that he didn't meant what he said during the campaign (that is, utterly wrecking his political career and taking the bullet for the greater good).

Aubrey, you got him as mayor for years, how likely does it sound ?

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I think it's sad that many of the pro-leave are already regretting their vote. In fact quite a few younger people who voted to leave have since been interviewed by various agencies and even stated they voted to leave because they thought their vote wouldn't matter.

I feel sorry for the many, many Brits who have been threatened by this. Such a foolish thing to do. Imagine what will happen if Scotland and Ireland leave the uk and remain in the EU.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Cat-thulhu wrote:

I think it's sad that many of the pro-leave are already regretting their vote. In fact quite a few younger people who voted to leave have since been interviewed by various agencies and even stated they voted to leave because they thought their vote wouldn't matter.

I feel sorry for the many, many Brits who have been threatened by this. Such a foolish thing to do. Imagine what will happen if Scotland and Ireland leave the uk and remain in the EU.

Well, it could turn out to be a good thing in the long run...

Ireland truly reunited as a single country.
An independent Scotland freed to pursue sane economic and energy policies.
A chastened Britain eventually rejoining the EU as a full/real participant (i.e. no longer opting out of the Euro, Schengen border agreements, the fundamental rights charter, et cetera).

OR it could be a complete disaster... leading Europe in to economic collapse, rampant jingoistic racism, and war.

Scarab Sages

Sissyl wrote:


It is also obvious that demented people should probably not have political influence at all.

It's not even remotely obvious that people with a dementia should not have political influence at all.

There are lots of dementias (~110) and they affect people at different ages, progressive at different rates and affect different aspects of a person's life. Merely having a dementia doesn't make someone somehow incapable of making a decision. You think a 50 year old with frontal lobe dementia affecting their impulse control should have no political influence at all? "demented" isn't a word you hear very often outside of insults and I find the implication that people with a dementia shouldn't be allowed to vote insulting.


Cat-thulhu wrote:

I think it's sad that many of the pro-leave are already regretting their vote. In fact quite a few younger people who voted to leave have since been interviewed by various agencies and even stated they voted to leave because they thought their vote wouldn't matter.

I feel sorry for the many, many Brits who have been threatened by this. Such a foolish thing to do. Imagine what will happen if Scotland and Ireland leave the uk and remain in the EU.

You mean prepare for the moment they do and the ununited kingdom or lesser britain will sit down to define a new definition for humilating when they have to ask no beg their former countrymen to put in a good word for them. I won' t say this will happen but at the moment it looks like it. And I am pretty convinced brussels have to dictate very harsh terms to discourage others to leave and to be shocking honest they are in a very strong position.

Even if your polititians somehow say ok we ignore the referendum brussels could say ok. But say goodbye to british privileges.
Do not get me wrong this one broke my european heart and I went to camebridge to study, but I am so afraid that we will poison relationship for decades out of spite, fear, misunderstanding and lies.


Smarnil le couard wrote:

The growing pro-remain petition is nice (3 million now), but is nothing compared to the 17 millions who voted to leave. All it has achieved is to ensure that the british Parliament will hold a debate about the Brexit, which would have happened anyway.

I'a afraid that to derail the Brexit now, your next pro-Leave PM (Boris Johnson ?) would have to renege, admitting that he didn't meant what he said during the campaign (that is, utterly wrecking his political career and taking the bullet for the greater good).

Aubrey, you got him as mayor for years, how likely does it sound ?

Replying to myself, sorry...

Read somewhere that the petition was launched a month ago by a pro-leave guy. How ironic that it is now hijacked by the pro-remain crowd ?

Also, it just asks for a tweaking of the rules governing referendums, not a new vote per se. Nice as said earlier, but too late and not enough.


minoritarian wrote:
Sissyl wrote:


It is also obvious that demented people should probably not have political influence at all.

It's not even remotely obvious that people with a dementia should not have political influence at all.

There are lots of dementias (~110) and they affect people at different ages, progressive at different rates and affect different aspects of a person's life. Merely having a dementia doesn't make someone somehow incapable of making a decision. You think a 50 year old with frontal lobe dementia affecting their impulse control should have no political influence at all? "demented" isn't a word you hear very often outside of insults and I find the implication that people with a dementia shouldn't be allowed to vote insulting.

I find the idea that mentally incompetent people are allowed to make decisions that affect others offensive. And disturbing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Smarnil le couard wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:

The growing pro-remain petition is nice (3 million now), but is nothing compared to the 17 millions who voted to leave. All it has achieved is to ensure that the british Parliament will hold a debate about the Brexit, which would have happened anyway.

I'a afraid that to derail the Brexit now, your next pro-Leave PM (Boris Johnson ?) would have to renege, admitting that he didn't meant what he said during the campaign (that is, utterly wrecking his political career and taking the bullet for the greater good).

Aubrey, you got him as mayor for years, how likely does it sound ?

Replying to myself, sorry...

Read somewhere that the petition was launched a month ago by a pro-leave guy. How ironic that it is now hijacked by the pro-remain crowd ?

Also, it just asks for a tweaking of the rules governing referendums, not a new vote per se. Nice as said earlier, but too late and not enough.

Before The vote, when he was sure Leave would lose, Farage wanted a second chance referendum if the margin was only 52 - 48.

Of course now that he won, that margin is fine...


I'm in no position to have voted, but I am an anglophile and keen follower of UK politics (nearly as much as US politics) and I would have been for remaining.

At the same time, the brexit vote gave me an effective 5% pay raise overnight, and as an ESL teacher who wants to teach in Europe, Brits not having EU passports will make it easier for me to find gainful employment there.


meatrace wrote:
minoritarian wrote:
Sissyl wrote:


It is also obvious that demented people should probably not have political influence at all.

It's not even remotely obvious that people with a dementia should not have political influence at all.

There are lots of dementias (~110) and they affect people at different ages, progressive at different rates and affect different aspects of a person's life. Merely having a dementia doesn't make someone somehow incapable of making a decision. You think a 50 year old with frontal lobe dementia affecting their impulse control should have no political influence at all? "demented" isn't a word you hear very often outside of insults and I find the implication that people with a dementia shouldn't be allowed to vote insulting.

I find the idea that mentally incompetent people are allowed to make decisions that affect others offensive. And disturbing.

I suspect much of this is a matter of defining terms carefully. There are certainly some people who have sufficient mental issues that they shouldn't be voting. The question is where and how to draw that line - and who you can trust to do it.

"demented" is a vague term, mostly just an insult. "Dementia" is a condition with a variety of causes and levels of severity. "mentally incompetent" is probably a legal term, though it's also used more casually and more broadly.

Regardless it doesn't really matter. I very much doubt that those who could have been kept from voting under any even vaguely reasonable definition would have come anywhere near the margin of victory.


i think regardless of whoever set it up, that petition makes a lot of sense as a matter to debate in parliament. If voter turnout isn't that high and the margin of victory isn't that great, then it seems pretty important for parliament to have a good deep discussion about what to do in terms of enacting the result of a referendum. Certainly the Leave vote won, but at the end of the day less than 40% of possible voters held that position.

The government absolutely has to give consideration to the will of the 17 million people who voted to Leave. But they also have a responsibility to the 16 million people who voted Remain and to the ~10 million people who for whatever reason didn't vote. This is a complicated situation which has already divided the country and could divide it more. If more time needs to be taken to ensure a majority of people really understand and want what they're getting then I think (within reason) that time should be taken.

There's certainly going to be a challenge to keep the EU happy so there can't be too many delays, but at the moment there isn't even all that much clarity on what a Leave vote is meant to mean. No ties with Europe at all? The same kind of relationship that Switzerland and Norway have? Some kind of split regulation that enables London to continue as the financial hub of Europe? The government has a lot of major decisions to make that will completely change to tone of what a Brexit actually means, and if you're going to have people vote on the idea of leaving in the first place they really should have the chance to digest what that will actually mean.

The Exchange

Cat-thulhu wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


It's far from ridiculous. We have an ageing population in the UK which consumes a lot of tax revenue to run, what with pensions and the NHS, and they are the largest consumers by far of the welfare state. The young are expected to pay for this, so we are clearly pivotal to the standards of living of the elderly.

Edit: to remove some of the crankiness.

Now I may be tired from working all day but it's a good thing you have no intention of aging, let me know the secret. Or if you do I'm glad to see you'll support yourself and not make any demands on the tax system or NHS.

This sort of thinking is remarkable in this day and age. We see the same in Australia. The elderly get cast aside, monetary benefits reduced, calls for rights to be reduced. All as a penalty for having the audacity to get old. We fight for equal rights for every tiny group we can think of except the elderly it appears. YOur society has the infrastructure, democracy and freedom it enjoys because of the elderly. Most of them have paid taxes throughout their life, just as pivotal to the standard of living many younger people enjoy. You don't see a lot of elderly adding to crime statistics - a huge cost to society.

The same stats on the Brecht also point out that higher educated people voted to stay, so perhaps we should only allow the highly educated to vote? In fact people identifying as British voted to leave! Maybe only those who are foreign should be allowed to vote? The polls also say the lower classes voted to go, why not restrict the ability to vote to the upper classes?

You clearly don't get the point, and indeed edited out the point I was making and called it crankiness, so I will restate it. On demographic trends, the proportion of the elderly people to tax-paying young is much higher than it was when the current elderly were younger, and it is only set to get worse. So, proportionately, I have to pay more tax to keep them going. In general, the amount of tax generated will fall if the economy tanks, so there will be a series of decisions to make if, as is quite likely, Brexit reduces both short term and long term economic output. Do we cut benefits to the elderly (NHS care, pensions) or do we raise taxes on those who are actually working. How high do we raise taxes? At which point does it get unsupportable to squeeze taxes out of the workers to support an every-growing elderly population? Especially as there comes a point when high taxation becomes counterproductive.

In the UK, the elderly are relatively mollycoddled by government spending because they tend to vote more reliably than the young, plus there's more and more of them (relatively). This stuff about the elderly being ignored is total crap - maybe it's true in Australia, but I doubt it, frankly. Many, many pensioners are wealthy, owning property and having pensions the current generation of workers can only dream of. Your facetious comment about me not planning on getting old is far from the truth - but I will have to save up a lot in order to get anything like what may parents and parents-in-law got for just turning up to work.

I don't actually mind a certain degree of monetary transfers between the generations, I accept the need for a state pension and a state health care system. But if those same people are going to vote in a way which potentially would impact negatively on my welfare, while still expecting me to foot the bill for them, I will call foul. There is a similar problem where you have referendums on spending in California - everyone votes for spending increases, but refuses to vote for the taxes to pay for them. Net result: public finances that are a complete mess. Which is why voting on a single issue, where there was an information vacuum, and the issues are complex and nuanced, it a dumb way to run a government.

The Exchange

meatrace wrote:
minoritarian wrote:
Sissyl wrote:


It is also obvious that demented people should probably not have political influence at all.

It's not even remotely obvious that people with a dementia should not have political influence at all.

There are lots of dementias (~110) and they affect people at different ages, progressive at different rates and affect different aspects of a person's life. Merely having a dementia doesn't make someone somehow incapable of making a decision. You think a 50 year old with frontal lobe dementia affecting their impulse control should have no political influence at all? "demented" isn't a word you hear very often outside of insults and I find the implication that people with a dementia shouldn't be allowed to vote insulting.

I find the idea that mentally incompetent people are allowed to make decisions that affect others offensive. And disturbing.

And beside the point, frankly. The vast, vast majority of those voting to leave were perfectly compos mentis.


True. In general, mentally incompetent people likely make up only a very, very small part of the voting population (although some of them may be pushed into voting a certain way by relatives, etc.).

On the other hand, I live in an area that's been known to have a lot of close votes, sometimes with a difference of under 200 people out of about 4 million registered voters (a difference of about 0.005%), so yeah... ^^; Take that as you will.

For the Brexit vote, though, I'm utterly certain the impact was negligible. XD

The Exchange

Smarnil le couard wrote:

The growing pro-remain petition is nice (3 million now), but is nothing compared to the 17 millions who voted to leave. All it has achieved is to ensure that the british Parliament will hold a debate about the Brexit, which would have happened anyway.

I'a afraid that to derail the Brexit now, your next pro-Leave PM (Boris Johnson ?) would have to renege, admitting that he didn't meant what he said during the campaign (that is, utterly wrecking his political career and taking the bullet for the greater good).

Aubrey, you got him as mayor for years, how likely does it sound ?

I don't live in London, but he was on OK mayor as far as I know. The post is basically quite powerless other than running Transport For London. It's not easy to see what Boris would do. He is not that keen a Brexiteer in that he jumped on the bandwagon quite late and for purely self-promoting reasons - he has written books quite recently praising the EU as a bastion promoting peace in Europe (which is true enough). He says he changed his mind because Cameron's renegotiation didn't go far enough, but basically he saw his chance to make a splash in national politics and put himself in the driving seat to become the next Tory leader. It is even possible he didn't expect or even want to win, but was simply using the campaign as a way of raising his profile.

The fact that Boris seems to have very little principle at all suggests he could renege if it was in his interests to do so. But whether he will or not is another matter. He was talking at one point about a second referendum after the first, but Cameron (not that it matters what he says now) said that wouldn't happen. And if he did renege it might annoy an awful lot of people. I think it will boil down to what the EU and European leaders offer and threaten, and quite how bad the economic news is from here. A second referendum is not without precedent in EU matters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Smarnil le couard wrote:
The growing pro-remain petition is nice (3 million now), but is nothing compared to the 17 millions who voted to leave. All it has achieved is to ensure that the british Parliament will hold a debate about the Brexit, which would have happened anyway.

That the same petition that is all over social media and anyone in the world can sign?

Seems legit...

I wonder how many signing that are even from the UK?

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

You clearly don't get the point, and indeed edited out the point I was making and called it crankiness, so I will restate it. On demographic trends, the proportion of the elderly people to tax-paying young is much higher than it was when the current elderly were younger, and it is only set to get worse. So, proportionately, I have to pay more tax to keep them going. In...

The edit was to remove some of MY crankiness nothing to do with your post, poorly worded and placed, so sorry about that.

I also get the point but when you are old you'll be in the same position and the ratio of old to young will be even more disproportionate, but I assume you'll still want to be looked after while those younger than you will be complaining about supporting you, probably for the reason you stated. It's only going to be harder for the generation below yours. And sadly the bit about the elderly being ignored is all too true. Your focussing in on a small proportion of well to do people. Many, many elderly live from pension to pension with just enough to pay the bills and prescriptions, let alone eat.

You also missed the point about the stats. Those same stats could just as easily lay blame at the foot of the ill educated, those who admit to being British, and the middle to lower classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Smarnil le couard wrote:
I'a afraid that to derail the Brexit now, your next pro-Leave PM (Boris Johnson ?) would have to renege, admitting that he didn't meant what he said during the campaign (that is, utterly wrecking his political career and taking the bullet for the greater good).

The Leave campaign has reneged on its two primary campaign promises in less than 72 hours, so they're getting there.

Interesting reports suggesting that Boris's thinking was that Britain would vote Remain, he would congratulate Cameron and they'd hug it out, Boris would then dutifully and loyally support Cameron for three years, glowing with praise for him, hinting at a peerage, and then be ushered into office with the EU matter at rest, the economy improving and able to begin the Glorious Golden Age of Boris.

The fact that Leave won and he is now expected to negotiate the UK's departure from the European Union has left him with a rictus grin on his face as he's realised that he has absolutely no clue at all on how to do that. That's why he went off to play cricket yesterday rather than talking to anyone and has spent today apparently in emergency meetings with Gove and other Leave Tories trying to work out WTF they are going to do. Becoming PM and having to negotiate Brexit amidst a suddenly declining economy and the potential breakup of the United Kingdom was not in his script.

Quote:
I think it's sad that many of the pro-leave are already regretting their vote. In fact quite a few younger people who voted to leave have since been interviewed by various agencies and even stated they voted to leave because they thought their vote wouldn't matter.

Apparently it was not communicated well that the rules for the referendum were different to a general election (where the Tories won majority control of Parliament last year with just a third of the vote) and that some people thought that if their area got a majority their vote wouldn't count, so they protest voted or didn't bother voting at all.

Quote:
That the same petition that is all over social media and anyone in the world can sign?

Nope. You need a UK address to sign the petition. In theory people can simply use a friend's address, but their vote would then be discounted if too many people use the same address and if they do not appear on the electoral register.

The petition does allow non-UK-born residents of Britain and also 16 and 17 year olds to vote. Both groups were unable to vote during the actual referendum, amidst great controversy.


@ Aubrey the Malformed, enough with the "pot calls the kettle black" thing, both sides were equally screwed by people, on both side, willing to betray and sacrifice the UKs for their own personal benefits, and that can be called treason or high treason, and now, the nation and her people can ask for justice about it, and if the governement is smart, they will realize they can't say no to it without risks of really dire consequences, they are, after all, sitting on a metaphorical powder keg they themselves put there.

The Exchange

Cat-thulhu wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

You clearly don't get the point, and indeed edited out the point I was making and called it crankiness, so I will restate it. On demographic trends, the proportion of the elderly people to tax-paying young is much higher than it was when the current elderly were younger, and it is only set to get worse. So, proportionately, I have to pay more tax to keep them going. In...

The edit was to remove some of MY crankiness nothing to do with your post, poorly worded and placed, so sorry about that.

I also get the point but when you are old you'll be in the same position and the ratio of old to young will be even more disproportionate, but I assume you'll still want to be looked after while those younger than you will be complaining about supporting you, probably for the reason you stated. It's only going to be harder for the generation below yours. And sadly the bit about the elderly being ignored is all too true. Your focussing in on a small proportion of well to do people. Many, many elderly live from pension to pension with just enough to pay the bills and prescriptions, let alone eat.

You also missed the point about the stats. Those same stats could just as easily lay blame at the foot of the ill educated, those who admit to being British, and the middle to lower classes.

Yeah, sorry, and I am cranky. I apologise for my tone. I hear you, but it doesn't really help. If we are going to rely on taxation to help out the elderly with the demographic situation we have, we really need the economy to be going flat out to generate the tax revenues. Instead we have had a vote that could potentially do severe damage. A lot of elderly live in poverty, but a lot live in relative splendour.

As for the ill-educated... Well, I mentioned a few posts above how living standards haven't moved much for them since the financial crisis. Somehow they think that keeping immigrants out will improve that, when it will instead probably make it worse. They may have justifiable gripes but they chose a quick fix that almost certainly won't work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aubrey the malformed wrote:
But this referendum clearly displays why we have representative democracy, and why direct democracy is a stupid idea. You don't let someone who is unqualified drive a bus. Why would you allow someone with no understanding of the issues to decide a crucial question that impacts the livelihoods of millions?

Considering that there's rarely any more qualifications to run for office than to vote for it I fail to see the improvement


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aubrey the malformed wrote:
But this referendum clearly displays why we have representative democracy, and why direct democracy is a stupid idea. You don't let someone who is unqualified drive a bus. Why would you allow someone with no understanding of the issues to decide a crucial question that impacts the livelihoods of millions?
Considering that there's rarely any more qualifications to run for office than to vote for it I fail to see the improvement

Well, there's the traditional biggest qualification, which is to win an election. It's why I'm not President. :(

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aubrey the malformed wrote:
But this referendum clearly displays why we have representative democracy, and why direct democracy is a stupid idea. You don't let someone who is unqualified drive a bus. Why would you allow someone with no understanding of the issues to decide a crucial question that impacts the livelihoods of millions?
Considering that there's rarely any more qualifications to run for office than to vote for it I fail to see the improvement

Yeah, true enough. The problem with referendums is that you aren't forced to make the trade-off of a package for government set out in a manifesto, but instead can pick and choose even if the constituent parts add up to be self-contradictory. Like in California.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Run, Logan! Run!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:
Some excellent insight.

Thank you for your last post regarding the politics, which were obviously heavy in this referendum and not particularly comprehensible to an outsider, and the voting method. This sounds like one of the biggest fubars in political history, but people aren't being complete idiots. I've made protest votes myself in US Presidential elections, because the area I live in was obviously swinging heavily one way and my vote truly didn't matter. A referendum is a different beast.

I hope they are considering taking some of the outs - such as Parliamentary rejection, or the Scottish parliament blocking, or responding to the petitions. There are some problems with the EU, but you don't fix an ingrown toenail by amputating the leg. They certainly have the EU's attention. Maybe cooler heads will prevail and they'll fix this in a graceful way that uses the large Leave vote as leverage to make change within the system.

And now I'm going to go build a stable for the pony I asked Santa for this Christmas.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:


Well, there's the traditional biggest qualification, which is to win an election. It's why I'm not President. :(

I'll paraphrase an old addage that this should disqualify you for office: the process is likely to eliminate anyone qualified to hold the position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A certain percentage of young voters will also be unaffected...they will die over the next few years: accidents, illness, etc. Should that percentage be calculated, and that percentage of their votes be discarded?

You say it's offensive and disturbing that mentally incompetent people might be able to vote. I think it's more offensive and disturbing to deny a group of people the right to vote simply because you fear that some small percentage of them are mentally incompetent.

Also, there are mentally incompetent people of ALL ages. Perhaps nobody should be allowed a vote? Maybe the UK should return to being an absolute monarchy.


Norman Osborne wrote:

A certain percentage of young voters will also be unaffected...they will die over the next few years: accidents, illness, etc. Should that percentage be calculated, and that percentage of their votes be discarded?

You say it's offensive and disturbing that mentally incompetent people might be able to vote. I think it's more offensive and disturbing to deny a group of people the right to vote simply because you fear that some small percentage of them are mentally incompetent.

Also, there are mentally incompetent people of ALL ages. Perhaps nobody should be allowed a vote? Maybe the UK should return to being an absolute monarchy.

I think they shouldn't be able to be candidates either.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Norman Osborne wrote:

A certain percentage of young voters will also be unaffected...they will die over the next few years: accidents, illness, etc. Should that percentage be calculated, and that percentage of their votes be discarded?

You say it's offensive and disturbing that mentally incompetent people might be able to vote. I think it's more offensive and disturbing to deny a group of people the right to vote simply because you fear that some small percentage of them are mentally incompetent.

Also, there are mentally incompetent people of ALL ages. Perhaps nobody should be allowed a vote? Maybe the UK should return to being an absolute monarchy.

Maybe you should stop tilting at straw men. This is irrelevant to Brexit.


You do realize that is a conservative response as well.

Leaving the european union is possibly the result of people voting along party lines when bad people have taken over their party. That's what is taking place in the states. The old and paranoid are often better equipped to see the signs.


Goth Guru wrote:

You do realize that is a conservative response as well.

Leaving the european union is possibly the result of people voting along party lines when bad people have taken over their party. That's what is taking place in the states. The old and paranoid are often better equipped to see the signs.

I just hope this won't turn into Civil Unrest/Uprising/War.


Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:

You do realize that is a conservative response as well.

Leaving the european union is possibly the result of people voting along party lines when bad people have taken over their party. That's what is taking place in the states. The old and paranoid are often better equipped to see the signs.

I just hope this won't turn into Civil Unrest/Uprising/War.

Well, that is one of the two typical results of what happens when a "state" decides to break away from a central authority that can make laws over them.


Kazuka wrote:
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:

You do realize that is a conservative response as well.

Leaving the european union is possibly the result of people voting along party lines when bad people have taken over their party. That's what is taking place in the states. The old and paranoid are often better equipped to see the signs.

I just hope this won't turn into Civil Unrest/Uprising/War.
Well, that is one of the two typical results of what happens when a "state" decides to break away from a central authority that can make laws over them.

Or when a government screw the population in an epic fashion, then manage to piss them off further.


I think the problem that the elder people see is actually very similar to the problems that the US also currently face.

While costs are going up, the wages are not. In addition, the gap between rich and poor are increasing, and in many ways jobs that could support the middle class are being relegated to lower incomes for foreign immigrants who accept less pay, or going to other nations instead of the UK (or in the US's situation, the US).

Overall, the UK has more money going into the UPPER CLASS, but it's one that the LOWER Classes are NOT seeing.

It's a situation that the Older people in the UK recognize and blame on the open borders...as that means more immigration in and more companies moving employment opportunities outward.

Of course, open borders also mean that for younger individuals, those who have no objection to it, also have a wider plain to seek employment.

ON the other end, that means that the may be able to evade taxes more easily.

Finally, they see that they are forced to accept laws and ideas which they may not feel is a British type of ideal, for example, being forced to accept refugees they may not like, or expending funds to bail out Greece or other nations, while at the same time being denied those very same types of funds to aid in areas like Northern Ireland.

The same situation is happening in the US currently (which is probably the reason some people are going insane and supporting someone like Trump, they are tired of open trading borders with certain nations and seeing the middle class jobs being given to other nations and wages being basically stagnant).

At least, that's what I think many of the conservatives in Britain are seeing...and I see this FAR more as a political thought process rather than an old vs. young thing.

Overall, I think it's more of a conservative vs. a liberal ideal, not necessarily an elder vs. younger type vote. The Older individuals tend to be more conservative in terms of nationalism and individualism in how proud and British they are...while many of the younger individuals tend to be more liberal in terms of a unified Europe and seeing the international cooperation between European states as the way of the future.

However, I don't think they are both as clear cut as saying it is all the youth for one and the Older generation for the other. I think a majority may be seen on one side or the other, but enough of each age group is on both sides that it is more a nationalistic group vs. a future vision group that are competing in the votes.

I'm not certain what the actual results will be of the vote down the road.

The market problems currently are NOT due to the vote...the vote is simply a referendum, NO OFFICIAL ACTION has actually occurred yet as far as I know. It's simply the market being the market and doing it's own thing (they would respond if there's a thunderstorm over Edinburgh for no other reason than a fear that there will be flood! whether there was a flood or not!)

I think that Brexit could actually be a good thing for Parliament and give both sides what they want. People are saying if Parliament does NOT follow the referendum, that there will be HECK to pay.

I see it as giving Britain bargaining power. I don't think the EU want's Britain to leave. They've negotiated things when others have threatened to leave, and I think they will attempt that here. I also don't think a majority of Parliament want to leave the EU (despite the conservative votes in the referendum). This paves the way for other options.

This gives the British government leverage to negotiate things they want. Perhaps they'll be given power over the immigration and other factors which many of the conservatives are hostile towards, while retaining open borders in other areas for those who are European citizens (as opposed to those from other continents, which could be bad for me in some ways, but would ingratiate the conservatives in what they called for).

Of course, Britain could throw caution to the wind and simply leave, but with how close the vote was (though overall, it wasn't as close as some make it out to be...and that showing for the vote was actually pretty spectacular), I'm thinking that there will probably be some intense negotiations before hand which could lead to both sides at least getting some of what they wanted.

AKA...some of the reasons the conservatives gave for leaving are granted by the EU in return for Britain staying in the EU with a majority of the privelages of the EU remaining for those in Britain.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Although I was surprised by the vote (and disappointed), I probably shouldn't have been. The world is swinging back towards an "us and them" mentality, so rising isolationism and nationalism are probably inevitable in coming years.

Nigel Farage has a lot to answer for, in my view - fear and paranoia are the easy answers. :(

351 to 400 of 863 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The inevitable Brexit thread All Messageboards