I apologize for calling them demented. English is not my first language, and it shows sometimes. That said, if you do not have a non-insulting adjective for "with dementia", you should get one. "Dement" in swedish is one.
But yes. I would consider a fifty-year-old with frontal lobe dementia a prime candidate for not getting to vote due to being mentally incapable. It takes far more than poor impulse control to get that diagnosis. Poor impulse control is something many people are born with, so that is not the issue. Frontal lobe dementia wrecks your entire personality. You lose insight, understanding, social skill, judgement, and oh so many other things. Such a person not voting would improve the democratic process. A certain level of progression is needed, of course, but someone who has the diagnosis already is pretty far gone. It sadly always seems to work out that way.
But it seems you missed the last part of what I wrote: It isn't worth it. The idea of stripping people of their vote is dangerous beyond anything someone mentally incapable voting could ever be. I find, for example, that I have very little sympathy for democracies that strip convicted criminals of their vote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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!)
Of course they're not related. I mean why would a vote that indicates major international instability is coming affect the market? Wouldn't that be silly...
I apologize for calling them demented. English is not my first language, and it shows sometimes. That said, if you do not have a non-insulting adjective for "with dementia", you should get one. "Dement" in swedish is one.
But yes. I would consider a fifty-year-old with frontal lobe dementia a prime candidate for not getting to vote due to being mentally incapable. It takes far more than poor impulse control to get that diagnosis. Poor impulse control is something many people are born with, so that is not the issue. Frontal lobe dementia wrecks your entire personality. You lose insight, understanding, social skill, judgement, and oh so many other things. Such a person not voting would improve the democratic process.
But it seems you missed the last part of what I wrote: It isn't worth it. The idea of stripping people of their vote is dangerous beyond anything someone mentally incapable voting could ever be. I find, for example, that I have very little sympathy for democracies that strip convicted criminals of their vote.
I think it's likely that the unpredictable nature probably means it doesn't have a huge impact - there's probably a large number of informal votes, plus many that would "cancel" one another, so I agree with you that the risk of disenfranchisement of "competent" voters is too great.
To sum it all up, here is where UK stand, while all EU waits for the boat to stop rocking...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not certain what the actual results will be of the vote down the road.
No one is. Predicting the future with certainty is different. I'm not certain of what the weather will be next winter,.... but I'm betting (and planning) on "cold."
Oddly enough, so are the markets. I mean that both in a literal sense (people who are investing in ski resorts (NYSE:MTN) are doing it based on the sales they expect this autumn and winter, not on the sales they are making in late June) and in a figurative one.
But markets are also looking forward at what they expect -- not know, just expect -- the results of the Brexit vote to be, and it's very hard to see a positive outcome on the horizon. Britain has just voted to expose itself to a tremendous amount of regulatory uncertainty as well as increased costs for market access. Companies are already moving jobs out of the UK in an effort to get the best position they can vis-a-vis their competitors in the New World Order.
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.
This is patent nonsense. Business planning is a thing, and its whole purpose is to anticipate events before they actually occur and to make sure that you're in a position to respond effectively because you already know what to do in a specific what-if scenario.
Someone at JP Morgan-- more probably, several someones -- took the trouble to sit down and answer the question "what happens if Britain votes Leave." Jamie Dimon was quoted as saying that it would 'mean fewer JPMorgan jobs in the U.K. and more jobs in Europe." Deutsche Bank AG and HSBC Holdings Plc have said the same thing. Now people are surprised that bank jobs are leaving, and you're suggesting that this is unrelated to the vote?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see the people responsible for the lies that led to this mess held accountable. Sadly, I doubt it will happen.
I would love to see the people responsible for the lies that led to this mess held accountable.
Well, to some extent, they are.
Cameron is out already.
BoJo and Farage are frantically backpedalling on their campaign promises because they're terrified that they're actually going to be held to them -- it's going to be really hard for them to maintain any sort of leadership position when someone points out that their promises about Brexit didn't last forty-eight hours.
Corbyn has already lost half of the shadow cabinet and is facing a leadership challenge; he's probably a dead man walking.
I dunno what the cross-party leadership slate in July 2017 will look like (as I wrote earlier, "predicting the future with certainty is difficult") but I suspect that it will have almost nothing in common with the movers and shakers of today. The pro-Stay leaders are in the process of being sacked for incompetence, and the pro-Leave leaders will be sacked when the consequences of the vote become apparent.
One post I saw thought that this was basically the idea - that is, the event was a political ploy against the members of the "Leave" camp, designed to bring down the opposition by showing people what listening to them might actually look like. So if there's enough of a backlash against actually doing it, the "Remain" side can say "This is why we wanted to Remain in the first place, listen to us, we know what we're doing", which might help to solidify their rule. XD
I have no idea how true that is, of course, but it is one explanation.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see the people responsible for the lies that led to this mess held accountable. Sadly, I doubt it will happen.
you want a bunch of politicians to get together and outlaw lying?
One post I saw thought that this was basically the idea - that is, the event was a political ploy against the members of the "Leave" camp, designed to bring down the opposition by showing people what listening to them might actually look like. So if there's enough of a backlash against actually doing it, the "Remain" side can say "This is why we wanted to Remain in the first place, listen to us, we know what we're doing", which might help to solidify their rule. XD
I have no idea how true that is, of course, but it is one explanation.
Well, I suppose that's a possible explanation, in the sense that it violates no laws of physics, but it seems to me highly implausible. I mean, can you really see the Masters of the Universe sitting down and saying
".... okay, then in phase 3, you will need to resign in disgrace from the PMship, Mr. Cameron,...."
Similarly, I can't see the politicians deciding deliberately to cause a 10% drop in the stock market and the value of the pound at the same time; that's real money to a lot of Very Serious People who are traditional supporters of the Tories. "Phase 4: cause a crash in the City" has some issues that are possibly more serious than phase 3.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see the people responsible for the lies that led to this mess held accountable. Sadly, I doubt it will happen.you want a bunch of politicians to get together and outlaw lying?
~gasps in horror~ NO! NO NO NO!!! ~runs away screaming "The Horror! The Horror!"~
They might forgive the leadership if they manage to negotiate more-favorable trade agreements that make up for the loss. XD Again, though, I'm not saying - or assuming - that anything like that it was actually happened. We may never know for sure, and I try to avoid assuming things are definitely a certain way just because it sounds possible. I just thought it was an interesting interpretation.
I think the biggest detail is whether or not they actually activate Article 50 at some point in time, or whether the nation backpedals.
I voted to Remain even though I think the 'Noble Experiment' is failing everyone involved in it..
Now I see a nasty scenario coming to pass
1) The Government(whoever they may be) finally get round to invoking Article 50.
2)The collective EU Negotiators do as Junker so obviously wants and punish the UK for 'daring' to leave
3) The demagogues on the Right in Britain use this as an example of how "Foreigners all hate us and cannot be trusted"
4)Those same Right wing demagogues win power in Westminster
Where we go from there is anyone's guess.
Hopefully by that time we, the people of Scotland, will have seized the opportunity to divorce ourselves from the moribund corpse of the UK
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those of us who can't find your country on a map article 50 is...?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Article 50 is the mechanism by which you actually start the process of leaving the EU
Europe is NOT a country and it was the habit of treating it as such adopted by so many EU lawmakers that actually started this sad sorry mess in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They might forgive the leadership if they manage to negotiate more-favorable trade agreements that make up for the loss.
Er.... more favorable than what?
Right now, there are no trade barriers between the UK and the rest of the EU. The UK already has special dispensations from much of the EU's general regulations, enough to make the them the least-regulated market in Europe. Short of the EU agreeing actively to subsidize British exports to the rest of the EU, I'm not sure what kind of trade agreement could even be suggested.
The issue has never been trade agreements, as numerous political commentators have pointed out. The issue should never have been balance of payments, either, as both BoJo and Farage admitted within hours of winning -- the UK already strongly underpays for the privilege of EU membership.
The one semi-legitimate issue is immigration and the free movement of labor. The British enjoy a high standard of living and the high wages that go along with it, which means that every Pole and Greek who can drive a lorry or pull a pint -- excuse me, half-liter -- would love to move to the UK and get paid in real money. I can see where the English drivers would object to that. But I also think that free movement of labor is one of the hills that the EU is willing to die on.
|
One post I saw thought that this was basically the idea - that is, the event was a political ploy against the members of the "Leave" camp, designed to bring down the opposition by showing people what listening to them might actually look like. So if there's enough of a backlash against actually doing it, the "Remain" side can say "This is why we wanted to Remain in the first place, listen to us, we know what we're doing", which might help to solidify their rule. XD
I have no idea how true that is, of course, but it is one explanation.
I wish Brexit would teach people all over Europe why trusting populists is a bad idea. But I think populists are so good at finding both scapegoats and desperate people ready to follow any "strong" leader that the lesson will never hold
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Article 50 is the mechanism by which you actually start the process of leaving the EU
Europe is NOT a country and it was the habit of treating it as such adopted by so many EU lawmakers that actually started this sad sorry mess in the first place.
You're a collective group of individual governments that report to a much larger government which has been slowly gaining more and more power over time and slowly eroding the smaller governments into one cohesive nation. And it started out as a group of governments working together.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Article 50 is the mechanism by which you actually start the process of leaving the EU
Europe is NOT a country and it was the habit of treating it as such adopted by so many EU lawmakers that actually started this sad sorry mess in the first place.
You're a collective group of individual governments that report to a much larger government which has been slowly gaining more and more power over time and slowly eroding the smaller governments into one cohesive nation. And it started out as a group of governments working together.
Nope. Not like that at all
If it was so, the EU would be incredibly more powerful, less criticized and the legal possibility for Brexit would not exist
And we would not be having this discussion ;-)
Note also that those who wanted a broad integration (ie the UK) did not want even the beginning of a common government. For example there is no such thing as a EU foreign policy
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish Brexit would teach people all over Europe why trusting populists is a bad idea. But I think populists are so good at finding both scapegoats and desperate people ready to follow any "strong" leader that the lesson will never hold
Populists, that is political movements seeking to address the needs of the majority of the population, are the only politicians ever worth supporting. The trick is sorting out what policies are really beneficial... rather than those which just sound good to some people (e.g. blatantly nonsensical racist scapegoating seems to be a perennial favorite for some reason).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Through revolution or consent, then. Both should be possible, though hardly palatable solutions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish Brexit would teach people all over Europe why trusting populists is a bad idea. But I think populists are so good at finding both scapegoats and desperate people ready to follow any "strong" leader that the lesson will never holdPopulists, that is political movements seeking to address the needs of the majority of the population, are the only politicians ever worth supporting. The trick is sorting out what policies are really beneficial... rather than those which just sound good to some people (e.g. blatantly nonsensical racist scapegoating seems to be a perennial favorite for some reason).
That's awfully close to a misrepresentation of populism. Wikipedia offers a pretty good definition: "Populism is a political position which holds that the virtuous citizens are being mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. The elites are depicted as trampling in illegitimate fashion upon the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people." Princeton University's WordNet is similar: "the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite."
I am opposed to blatantly nonsensical racist scapegoating.
But I'm also opposed to blatantly nonsensical classist scapegoating as well, which is a better definition of "populism" than the one you offered.
|
|
That's awfully close to a misrepresentation of populism.
Interestingly, definitions of "populist" (which I used) seem generally less negative than those of "populism" (which you cited);
Google: "a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people"
Meriam-Webster: "a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people"
Free dictionary: "A supporter of the rights and power of the people."
Oxford: "A member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people."
Dictionary.com: "a member of the People's party."
Et cetera.
So, no... nothing close to 'misrepresentation' here.
That said, 'blatantly nonsensical classist scapegoating' is NOT a "better definition" of "populism". It is only one narrow meaning of the term. At root, 'populism' simply means 'supporting the populace'. That such movements are often misused/mislabelled (giving rise to negative connotations) doesn't change the most basic meaning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Populism and Populists are fine.
It's demagoguery and demagogues that are the problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Article 50 is the mechanism by which you actually start the process of leaving the EU
Europe is NOT a country and it was the habit of treating it as such adopted by so many EU lawmakers that actually started this sad sorry mess in the first place.
You're a collective group of individual governments that report to a much larger government which has been slowly gaining more and more power over time and slowly eroding the smaller governments into one cohesive nation. And it started out as a group of governments working together.
Nope. Not like that at all
If it was so, the EU would be incredibly more powerful, less criticized and the legal possibility for Brexit would not exist
And we would not be having this discussion ;-)
Definitely sounds familiar, but perhaps more like this?
Not even that. Articles 6 and 9 here affirm the unity of the US for any foreign relation. Which is a requirement for having a central government. There are no such articles binding EU members' foreign policies
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Populism and Populists are fine.
It's demagoguery and demagogues that are the problem.
My bad
I used Populists in the French meaning where it is almost synonymous with demagogues
We use the word Populaire for positive common people movements
Sorry for the misunderstanding and my most sincere apologies to any I have offended with my mistaken choice of words
As the UK doesn't have the Euro as it's currency, things should be relatively easier. If a member with the Euro voted to leave, such as Austraa, France, or the Netherlands, I imagine the issue would be much more complicated.
No more so than when a country unilaterally issues a new currency, which happens from time to time. The sky didn't fall, for example, when the UK abandoned the shilling and "decimalized" their currency, or when Turkey reevaluated the lira in 2005.
I think it would be fairly straightforward. "Effective April 31, 20XX, the official currency of the Ruritanian Republic will now be the Ruritanian bindersnitch, replacing the Euro. From April 31 to June 31, Euro notes will be accepted at all government agencies for payment of all debts and fees at a rate of one Euro to ten bindersnitchi. After that period, Euro notes will be continued to be accepted at market rates until November 31."
It's easy to swap the cash out. But what happens to non-cash items. Do all deposits and loans get converted, so that if I owed Euros, that just changes to bindersnitches? How about contracts? Wages? And most importantly there's all the interstate commerce that used to easily be handled in Euros.
Actually, that's only complicated if the government wants to make it complicated.
In general, there's no rule that commerce, even within a single country, needs to happen in any currency in particular. It's very common in border towns all over the world that merchants will accept lots of different currencies, and it's fairly easy to find banks that will accept accounts in any currency you like (as a convenience to business customers). So whether deposits/loans get converted is largely a matter to be resolved between the individual customer and the individual bank.
If it can't be resolved, check your contract. My bank, for example, insists that my account is controlled under US law, and specifically the state of Delaware; there's no reason for my bank even to listen to me if I tried to sue under Ruritanian law. So, yeah, I'd probably still owe dollars to pay off my mortgage for my Ruritanian summer house...
Regarding interstate compacts,.... well, that's part of the negotiations under article 50. If negotiations succeed, that will be dealt with there. If they fail, Ruritania is an independent and sovereign country and can opt to treat its debt as it sees fit, including paying in Euros, paying in bindersnitchi, paying in orange peel, or simply repudiating it. (That's one reason that Argentina was in trouble with the bond vultures recently; the bonds market wouldn't touch Argentinian bonds without a guarantee, and part of the guarantee was that the controlling law for the bonds was US law, specifically New York. That's why Argentina couldn't simply walk away from the bonds.) Is there such a choice-of-controlling-law clause in the interstate compacts? If not, I hope you know a good recipe that involves orange peel.
What I've just described is actually one of the weaknesses of the EU (as is widely recognized); it's an economic union without political union, which means that the EU as a body has no real way of enforcing its rules other than economic sanction. Greece didn't want to leave the EU (for understandable reasons) and had therefore to accept the bailout terms offered, but an independent Greece could simply have devalued the drachma into newsprint and walked away. (Yes, this would have destabilized the Greek economy as well, but the EU didn't want to take that hit, which is why they eventually came up with a semi-reasonable deal.)