• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Brexit: The last nail in the British Empire

hola!

Member
who are not afraid of brown people know they want to be in Europe.
Brexit: Racist abuse in UK growing since vote to leave EU - CNN.com

Brexit: Racist abuse in UK reported since vote to leave EU

CNN)Racial abuse is on the rise in post-Brexit Britain, a Conservative British MP said as police confirmed they were investigating several racially motivated crimes.
Anti-immigrant leaflets saying "Leave the EU - no more Polish vermin" were put on cars near a school, local police said, the day after the country voted to leave the European Union.

On Sunday, the Polish Social and Cultural Association in Hammersmith, west London, was allegedly vandalized with a racist slogan.
 

nonsense

Legendary Member

It is interesting to see the arguments made. I think pinning it whole or mostly on ignorance is wrong, and a bad move from the hurt establishment. They had four months of campaigning, and while surely there are some naive folk out there, make a majority they do not. Plus all this about regret among Brexiters, without any measure of their size. Blaming the old, as if they are worth any less. And the petition for a repeat. So much drama. Maybe they need to vent out their frustration at Brexit, but it seems democracy might have the final say in this.
 

hola!

Member
That's the main drive behind committing Britain's financial suicide.

'Go home': Hate crimes against minorities grow after 'Brexit'

'Go home': Hate crimes against minorities grow after 'Brexit'

Threats of migrant abuse and hate crimes surfaced in the United Kingdom on Monday, just days after voters angry about a growing immigrant population approved a referendum for leaving the European Union.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan asked police Monday to be on heightened alert to deal with hate crimes directed against minorities or immigrants. The mayor vowed there would be "zero tolerance" for such acts.

"I'm calling on all Londoners to pull together and rally behind this great city. While I'm Mayor, addressing hate crimes will be a priority for the Met," Khan said in a statement.

The mayor also said it was important not to demonize the "1.5 million Londoners who voted for 'Brexit.'"

"While I and millions of others disagreed with their decision, they took it for a variety of reasons and this shouldn't be used to accuse them of being xenophobic or racist. We must respect their decision and work together now to get the best deal for London," Khan said.

The Polish Embassy in London also issued a statement Monday expressing shock and concern about reported incidents of "xenophobic abuse."
 

hola!

Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/w...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

How Britain Could Exit ‘Brexit’:D


A souvenir stall in central London on Sunday. Technically, the “Brexit” referendum result is not legally binding. Credit Odd Andersen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

WASHINGTON — In the days since Britons voted to leave the European Union, the so-called “Brexit” referendum has created such severe turmoil that public attention is increasingly focused on an extreme option: Can they get out of it?

Prime Minister David Cameron said on Monday that he considered the referendum binding and that “the process of implementing the decision in the best possible way must now begin.” But he also said he would leave that process to his successor, after his expected resignation in October. This opens a window of at least four months during which time Britain could decide not to proceed, and avoid consequences from Europe.

If the next prime minister does trigger the departure process, Britain then has two years to negotiate the terms of its leaving. While European Union rules say that membership is revoked automatically at the end of that period, Britain could theoretically use that time to negotiate an alternative plan.

The country has a few options for how, during these two windows, it might remain in the European Union. Each carries significant risks and downsides, both for Europe and for Britain itself — but, then again, so does leaving.

Option No. 1:
Simply don’t do it

The referendum is not legally binding. The process of leaving does not begin until the prime minister officially invokes Article 50 of the European Union’s governing treaty. So he or she could, in theory, carry on as if the vote had never happened.


Mr. Cameron has already caused a delay by refusing to invoke Article 50 himself. Of his two most likely possible successors in the Conservative Party, Theresa May opposes leaving the union and Boris Johnson, a prime Brexit proponent, is already backpedaling, pledging on Monday that changes “will not come in any great rush.”

Most members of Parliament opposed leaving the union, and might support a prime minister who refused to invoke Article 50. But that would be akin to overruling the will of 17.4 million Britons who voted to leave, an extreme step in a country that prides itself on democratic values.
It would also risk inflaming the underlying political forces that led to the “Leave” victory: rising populist anger, distrust of seemingly unaccountable government institutions and a belief that the system is rigged.

It is difficult to predict how pro-Brexit voters would respond if their government ignored the referendum’s result, but such a move risks empowering more extreme voices. British politics, already in tremendous turmoil, would face an uncertain future, as would the lawmakers who will be up for re-election.

Option No. 2:
A Scottish veto

The House of Lords said in an April report that any decision to exit the European Union would have to be approved by the Parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

Welsh voters supported Brexit, and Northern Ireland’s Parliament is led by a party that favors leaving the union. But Scottish voters overwhelmingly opposed leaving, and so does the governing Scottish National Party, which has pledged to take any available measures to remain in the bloc.

Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland, has suggested that her Parliament could withhold consent, sparking a constitutional crisis.

That, in turn, could be an opportunity for leaders wishing to avoid a Brexit. The next prime minister could tell voters that he or she would like to carry out their will, but that leaving Europe is impossible without Scottish approval.


This offers at least a hint more political legitimacy than simply disregarding the referendum.

But if Britain’s next prime minister is intent on following through with Brexit, the British Parliament could repeal the law that gives Scotland veto power. Ms. Sturgeon would probably respond by seeking a new referendum on Scottish independence — something she has already threatened to do if Britain leaves the union.

Option No. 3: A do-over
In 1992, Danish voters narrowly rejected a referendum on joining one of the treaties that laid the European Union’s foundations. Eleven months later, after a flurry of diplomacy, Denmark held a second referendum, which voters approved.

Similar scenarios unfolded in 2001 — and again in 2008 — when Irish voters rejected European Union treaties before embracing them in second referendums in subsequent years.

Could British voters reverse themselves as well? By Monday, four days after the Brexit vote, an online petition calling for a do-over had 3.8 million signatures.

But there is little reason to believe that a second referendum, were it held today, would yield a different result. While a handful of Britons have said on social media that they regretted their vote to leave the union, polling suggests that they are a tiny minority. A survey by ComRes, taken on Saturday, found that only 1 percent of “Leave” voters were unhappy with the results. (Brexit won by four percentage points, 52 to 48.)

British leaders could justify a second cut at the question by securing special concessions from the European Union, like allowing Britain to put a cap on immigration. This approach was how Danish and Irish leaders persuaded their voters to approve the referendums they had previously rejected.

Mr. Johnson, who said on Monday that Britain was “part of Europe and always will be,” hinted before the vote that he might pursue this strategy. “There is only one way to get the change we need, and that is to vote to go,” he wrote in a March op-ed in The Telegraph. “All E.U. history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No.”

A second vote would allow politicians to claim that they had followed the will of the voters and stood up to the European Union, avoiding both populist outrage and the economic and diplomatic fallout of a British exit.


European leaders, however, may not be eager to go along. If any member state can extract special concessions by threatening to leave, it undermines the union’s ability to make Europe-wide policies. It also gives other states an incentive to play chicken with exit referendums, a dangerous game that could easily end in disaster.

There is also a risk that British voters would reject the second referendum as well. If that happened, there would truly be no going back.

Option No. 4:
An exit in name only

Article 50 gives an exiting country two years to negotiate terms for its relationship with the union, on issues like trade and migration.

What if Britain struck a series of deals that largely preserved the status quo, only without formal European Union membership?

This, too, seems to be something Mr. Johnson is pondering. In an op-ed in The Telegraph on Sunday, he promised that Britain would maintain free trade and free movement deals with Europe.

As Rafael Behr, a columnist for The Guardian, joked on Twitter: “Otherwise known as ‘membership of the European Union.’ ”

One model is Norway, which is not a European Union member but subscribes to its common market and open borders.

“Leave” campaigners emphasized two goals: reducing migration and extracting Britain from European bureaucracy. While a Norway-style arrangement could, in theory, limit migration, it would worsen British subjugation to European policy makers.


If Britain chose this path, it “would have no vote and no presence when crucial decisions that affect the daily lives of its citizens are made,” Norway’s former foreign minister, Espen Barth Eide, warned last year.

Such a deal would also probably require Britain to continue paying membership fees, which “Leave” campaigners promised to win back.

Nicolas Véron, a French economist, wrote on the website of Bruegel, a research group in Brussels, that European leaders would probably oppose this arrangement, too, for fear of setting a bad precedent.

These leaders, he said, want to send a “clear and unambiguous” message to other member states: If you leave the union, you will not be rewarded with a sweetheart deal allowing you the benefits of membership without the burden. You will get a hard and painful breakup, so think carefully.
 

nonsense

Legendary Member
June 27, 2016
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
by Patrick Cockburn

“In the little moment that remains to us between crisis and catastrophe, we may as well drink a glass of champagne,” said Paul Claudel, the French poet, dramatist and ambassador to the United States in the wake of some calamitous episode in the 1930s. As the British vote to leave the European Union, it feels as if we have reached just such “a little moment”, occurring as it does in a situation that was already dire and likely to get a great deal worse.

A referendum is by its nature divisive and is justified by explaining that it will produce a democratic decision that everybody can accept. But it is in the very nature of a referendum campaign that issues are over-simplified and presented as black-and-white questions by opponents who demonise each other. The vote becomes the vehicle for demagoguery and agendas that have little to do with Britain’s relationship to Europe.


This referendum has not only widened existing political and social divisions within British society, but has ensured that these differences become more divisive and poisonous. This is always the way with referenda on important issues: they make irreversible decisions, but they do so at a high political cost by excluding compromise between contending parties with deeply held opinions that they are not going to abandon on the day after the poll, regardless of who wins or loses.


The first referendum I ever witnessed first-hand was in Belfast in 1973 when there was a vote on whether or not Northern Ireland should remain part of the UK. Predictably, this long-forgotten poll did nothing except exacerbate hatred and convince the losing side that they had no alternative except violence. More than 30 years later in 2005, I was in Baghdad to cover the referendum on the new Iraqi constitution, which, insofar as it had any effect at all, turned out to be one more stepping stone towards civil war.

Analogies with Northern Ireland and Iraq may appear out of place because both places have a tradition of political violence that Britain does not. But the killing of Jo Cox MP suggests the possibility of how swiftly that can change, though at first such incidents will be dismissed as atypical and disconnected from political turmoil. Demagogues and their softly spoken fellow travellers invariably throw up their hands in angry denial that their over-heated rhetoric could have had violent consequences. Ian Paisley repeatedly raised the political temperature in Northern Ireland to boiling point over 40 years while furiously disclaiming any responsibility for the dead bodies in the streets.

The English tend to underrate the political fragility of their own country because it has been generally stable since the end of the 17th century. It was striking last year how the Conservatives revelled in the wipeout of Labour in Scotland by the SNP without expressing much concern about the unity of the UK as a whole. The Remain camp thought they could win the vote by relentlessly emphasising the economic risks of leaving the EU, though the real danger is political rather than economic as a populist right is empowered with little idea of what it should do with that power.

The triumphant mood among those wishing Britain to leave the EU is ominously similar to that of protesters in Arab capitals at the height of the Arab Spring in 2011. Again, the analogy may seem exaggerated because an inbred and often unconscious British sense of superiority bridles at comparisons with other nations. But one of the failings of those protesters in Cairo and Damascus was that they attributed far too many of their country’s troubles to the regime they were trying to overthrow. Demonisation of their opponents made sense in propaganda terms and conveniently freed them from drawing up realistic plans of their own. Similarly, those determined that Britain should exit the EU have likewise relied on excoriating Brussels as the source of all ills without explaining what they would do to end them.

There are other parallels between the “brave new world” feeling of those Arab Spring protesters five years ago and the Leave campaigners. Almost by accident, Leave has initiated a revolutionary change, but the weakness of revolutions is that they briefly bring together those with little in common except an antipathy to the status quo. It is not an alliance that normally lasts very long anywhere and in Britain it is difficult to see what right-wing Conservative MPs committed to the free market have in common with working class voters from the north of England suffering from cuts in social services.

Debate during the referendum focused on bread-and-butter economic issues and migration without much discussion of the political purpose of the EU itself. Since the beginning, the aim was always to find a way to include Germany as the most powerful and wealthiest state in Western Europe within an institution in which it and lesser European powers could coexist peacefully to the benefit of all. This project has largely worked – though long before the Brexit vote, the EU was clearly dysfunctional in coping with a myriad of political and economic problems. This failure had already produced a series of election victories for illiberal populist nationalist parties in Hungary, Poland and Austria. In the rest of Europe, the centre-left and centre-right parties have pursued much the same economic policies since the 1990s, providing no alternative for those opposed to the status quo aside from the extremes, which usually meant the far right.

The potential for Brexit to produce toxic results for everybody is greater than it looks, because it is one more source of instability in a region already under great pressures. This is at its worst in the Middle East and North Africa, where there are now at least eight wars and three serious insurgencies raging. Five years ago, European leaders such as David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy had a detached attitude to the collapse of states such as Syria and Libya into a state of permanent warfare. Only with the rise of Isis in 2014, followed by the migration crisis and terrorist attacks in 2015, did European leaders begin to take on board that the conflicts in the Middle East had the capacity to set the political agenda in Europe.

Dramatic developments such as the Brexit vote often elicit an exaggerated initial response, but the status quo turns out comfortingly to have more staying power than first imagined. In the present case, however, an apocalyptic tone is justified, because the post-Second World War political settlement was already at risk, and Europe was ill-prepared to withstand a further blow such as a British departure.

Join the debate on Facebook
Patrick Cockburn is the author of The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution.
 

nonsense

Legendary Member
June 27, 2016
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
by Dean Baker

Voters in the United Kingdom caught almost everyone by surprise with their decision to leave the European Union. The push for Brexit was driven by nationalistic, xenophobic and racist sentiments. There is no point in putting a pretty face on it. But this vote is now a fait accompli. The question is how the leadership of the European Union chooses to respond.

In the lead up to the Brexit vote, there was much discussion of punishment. Wolfgang Schauble, the finance minister of the European Union, had made several comments implying that the UK would be punished if its people voted to leave the European Union. The idea was that if they don’t want to be in the European Union, then Schauble and his colleagues would impose substantial trade barriers following the country’s departure. Since the UK is so heavily dependent on trade with the EU, large trade barriers would impose real costs on the British economy.

Of course, such trade barriers would also impose costs on the EU. The costs would not be as large on the block as a whole since the UK is less important to the EU than vice-versa, but the costs would nonetheless be a big hit for the countries that have the most trade with the UK. In effect, the EU leadership would be imposing costs on its people in order to punish voters in the UK for wanting to leave.

Some of the drive for punishment seems like a spurned lover story. Having been rejected by UK voters, the EU leadership is now intent on making them suffer. That’s not the sort of attitude that should determine economic policy.

But there is a more serious angle. The UK is hardly the only country where much of the public is unhappy with the EU. If the UK can engineer a relatively painless departure, then other countries may wish to follow its lead. From this vantage point, punishment is important since it will show the rest of Europe that leaving the EU really hurts.

It would be unfortunate if the EU went this direction. The better path would be to ask why it is that so many people are unhappy with the EU. It isn’t too hard to find answers. Part of this is the bureaucracy, which is widely viewed as bloated and unresponsive to the European people. However, what is probably more pressing for most voters is the state of Europe’s economy.

Many countries in the EU still have not recovered their pre-recession level of output and employment. For example, GDP is still down from its 2007 level by almost 6.0 percent in Portugal and 8.0 percent in Italy. Employment in Spain is down by more than 2 million, which is more than 10 percent of its pre-recession employment. In Greece, employment and GDP are both down by more than 20 percent, a track record that makes the Great Depression look mild by comparison.

This bleak economic performance was not dictated by the gods. It was the result of the conscious decision by the EU leadership to turn toward austerity in 2010, long before the economy was close to having recovered. Rather than using fiscal policy to steer economies toward full employment and address needs in infrastructure, clean energy, education and health care, the EU leadership demanded that governments move toward balanced budgets. This meant cutbacks in spending and tax increases that worsened and prolonged the downturn.

The EU leadership apparently likes balanced budgets. It may be something their parents told them. But the EU and the world can no longer be governed by folk wisdom handed down from prior generations; it needs to use real economics. And in real economics, the message is clear, they need to run larger budget deficits to boost economies and reduce unemployment.

The logic here is straightforward. If a deficit is too large it pushes up interest rates. And if central banks accommodate large deficits to keep interest rates down, then it leads to inflation.

Well, interest rates are about as low as they can be. In fact, the interest rate on Germany’s 10-year bond is now negative. You have to pay the German government to lend it money. Inflation is also nowhere in sight. The inflation rate has been barely positive for most of the last five years and certainly well below the European Central Bank’s 2.0 percent target. It’s hard to see a serious harm if interest rates rose to more normal level and inflation increased to the level that the European Central Bank targets.

In short, there is no argument against spending more money to both boost growth to create jobs and meet real needs.

The proper response to the Brexit vote would be for the EU leadership to finally embrace reality and adopt an economic policy that will push the continent toward stronger growth and full employment. If it goes this path, the rest of the EU will not be anxious to follow the UK’s lead.

If the EU leadership instead goes the route of tit for tat and tries to punish Britain, Brexit will be the first round of a very unhappy story.

This article originally appeared on PBS Newshour.

Join the debate on Facebook
Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University.
 

nonsense

Legendary Member
One more.
(of interest @Frisbeetarian)
June 28, 2016
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
by Jonathan Cook



The enraged liberal reaction to the Brexit vote is in full flood. The anger is pathological – and helps to shed light on why a majority of Britons voted for leaving the European Union, just as earlier a majority of Labour party members voted for Jeremy Corbyn as leader.

A few years ago the American writer Chris Hedges wrote a book he titled the Death of the Liberal Class. His argument was not so much that liberals had disappeared, but that they had become so coopted by the right wing and its goals – from the subversion of progressive economic and social ideals by neoliberalism, to the enthusiastic embrace of neoconservative doctrine in prosecuting aggressive and expansionist wars overseas in the guise of “humanitarian intervention” – that liberalism had been hollowed out of all substance.

Liberal pundits sensitively agonise over, but invariably end up backing, policies designed to benefit the bankers and arms manufacturers, and ones that wreak havoc domestically and abroad. They are the “useful idiots” of modern western societies.

The liberal British media is current awash with articles by pundits on the Brexit vote I could select to illustrate my point, but this one by Guardian columnist Zoe Williams, I think, isolates this liberal pathology in all its sordid glory.

Here is a revealing section, written by a mind so befuddled by decades of neoliberal orthodoxy that it has lost all sense of the values it claims to espouse:

“There is a reason why, when Marine le Pen and Donald Trump congratulated us on our decision, it was like being punched in the face – because they are racists, authoritarian, small-minded and backward-looking. They embody the energy of hatred. The principles that underpin internationalism – cooperation, solidarity, unity, empathy, openness – these are all just elements of love.”

A love-filled EU?

One wonders where in the corridors of the EU bureaucracy Williams identifies that “love” she so admires. Did she see it when the Greeks were being crushed into submission after they rebelled against austerity policies that were themselves a legacy of European economic policies that had required Greece to sell off the last of its family silver?

Is she enamoured of this internationalism when the World Bank and IMF go into Africa and force developing nations into debt-slavery, typically after a dictator has trashed the country decades after being installed and propped up with arms and military advisers from the US and European nations?

What about the love-filled internationalism of NATO, which has relied on the EU to help spread its military tentacles across Europe close to the throat of the Russian bear? Is that the kind of cooperation, solidarity and unity she was thinking of?

Williams then does what a lot of British liberals are doing at the moment. She subtly calls for subversion of the democratic will:

“The anger of the progressive remain side, however, has somewhere to go: always suckers for optimism, we now have the impetus to put aside ambiguity in the service of clarity, put aside differences in the service of creativity. Out of embarrassment or ironic detachment, we’ve backed away from this fight for too long.”

That includes seeking the ousting of Jeremy Corbyn, of course. “Progressive” Remainers, it seems, have had enough of him. His crime is that he hails from “leftwing aristocracy” – his parents were lefties too, apparently, and even had such strong internationalist principles that they first met in a committee on the Spanish civil war.

But Corbyn’s greater crime, according to Williams, is that “he is not in favour of the EU”. It would be too much trouble for her to try and untangle the knotty problem of how a supreme internationalist like Corbyn, or Tony Benn before him, could be so against the love-filled EU. So she doesn’t bother.

Reversing the democratic will

We will never know from Williams how a leader who supports oppressed and under-privileged people around the world is cut from the same cloth as racists like Le Pen and Trump. That would require the kind of “agile thinking” she accuses Corbyn of being incapable of. It might hint that there is a leftwing case quite separate from the racist one – even if Corbyn was not allowed by his party to advocate it – for abandoning the EU. (You can read my arguments for Brexit here and here.)

But no, Williams assures us, Labour needs someone with much more recent leftwing heritage, someone who can tailor his or her sails to the prevailing winds of orthodoxy. And what’s even better, there is a Labour party stuffed full of Blairites to choose from. After all, their international credentials have been proven repeatedly, including in the killing fields of Iraq and Libya.

And here, wrapped into a single paragraph, is a golden nugget of liberal pathology from Williams. Her furious liberal plea is to rip up the foundations of democracy: get rid of the democratically elected Corbyn and find a way, any way, to block the wrong referendum outcome. No love, solidarity, unity or empathy for those who betrayed her and her class.

“There hasn’t been a more fertile time for a Labour leader since the 1990s. The case for a snap general election, already strong, will only intensify over the coming weeks. As the sheer mendacity of the leave argument becomes clear – it never intended to curb immigration, there will be no extra money for the NHS, there was no plan for making up EU spending in deprived areas – there will be a powerful argument for framing the general election as a rematch. Not another referendum, but a brake on article 50 and the next move determined by the new government. If you still want to leave the EU, vote Conservative. If you’ve realised or knew already what an act of vandalism that was, vote Labour.”

A coup in the making

Williams and the rest of the media, of course, are not making these arguments in a vacuum. Much of the Labour shadow cabinet has just resigned and the rest of the parliamentary party are trying to defy the overwhelming democratic will of their membership and oust Corbyn. His crime is not that he supported Brexit (he didn’t dare, given the inevitable reaction of his MPs) but that he is not a true believer in the current neoliberal order, which very much includes the EU.

Here is what one of the organisers (probably a shadow cabinet minister) of this coup-in-the-making says:

“The plan is to make Corbyn’s job as leader extremely difficult in the hope of pushing him to resign, with most MPs refusing to serve as shadow ministers, show up on the frontbench in the House of Commons, support him at PMQs or formulate policy under his leadership.”

This was presumably said with a straight face, as though Corbyn has not been undermined by these same Blairite MPs since day one of his leadership. This is not a new campaign – it has simply been forced to go more public by the Brexit vote.

Labour MPs do not just want to oust a leader with massive support among party members. They have hamstrung him from the outset so that he could not lead the political revolution members elected him to begin. And now he is being made to pay the price because he privately backs a position that, as the referendum has just shown, has majority support.

The neoliberal prison

The Brexit vote is a huge challenge to the left to face facts. We want to believe we are free but the truth is that we have long been in a prison called neoliberalism. The Conservative and Labour parties are tied umbilically to this neoliberal order. The EU is one key institution in a transnational neoliberal club. Our economy is structured to enforce neoliberalism whoever ostensibly runs the country.

That is why the debate about Brexit was never about values or principles – it was about money. It still is. The Remainers are talking only about the threat to their pensions. The Brexiters are talking only about the role of immigrants in driving down wages. And there is good reason: because the EU is part of the walls of the economic prison that has been constructed all around us. Our lives are now only about money, as the gargantuan bail-outs of the too-big-to-fail banks should have shown us.

There is a key difference between the two sides. Most Remainers want to pretend that the prison does not exist because they still get privileges to visit the living areas. The Brexiters cannot forget it exists because they are never allowed to leave their small cells.

The left cannot call itself a left and keep whingeing about its lost privileges while denouncing those trapped inside their cells as “racists”. Change requires that we first recognise our situation – and then have the will to struggle for something better.

Join the debate on Facebook
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
 

Danny Z

Legendary Member
It is interesting to see the arguments made. I think pinning it whole or mostly on ignorance is wrong, and a bad move from the hurt establishment. They had four months of campaigning, and while surely there are some naive folk out there, make a majority they do not. Plus all this about regret among Brexiters, without any measure of their size. Blaming the old, as if they are worth any less. And the petition for a repeat. So much drama. Maybe they need to vent out their frustration at Brexit, but it seems democracy might have the final say in this.

Actually yes, the old are worth less, as Brexit does not affect them, their pensions will keep coming and they will forget what they voted if not deceased before the Brexit is finalized with EU. The young on the other hand want free movement of goods and people so that they can work in other EU countries, and this decision will affect their whole life even their pensions, When the stakes are different not all votes should be weighed equally. why do you think some regions have more deputies than other regions although sometimes they have a similar population. The reason for it is that it is the center of the economy and its decision making is the motor of the country.
 

JB81

Legendary Member
Actually yes, the old are worth less, as Brexit does not affect them, their pensions will keep coming and they will forget what they voted if not deceased before the Brexit is finalized with EU. The young on the other hand want free movement of goods and people so that they can work in other EU countries, and this decision will affect their whole life even their pensions, When the stakes are different not all votes should be weighed equally. why do you think some regions have more deputies than other regions although sometimes they have a similar population. The reason for it is that it is the center of the economy and its decision making is the motor of the country.

I don't understand your frustration over Britains vote and its future... are you a British citizen?:p
 

nonsense

Legendary Member
Actually yes, the old are worth less, as Brexit does not affect them, their pensions will keep coming and they will forget what they voted if not deceased before the Brexit is finalized with EU. The young on the other hand want free movement of goods and people so that they can work in other EU countries, and this decision will affect their whole life even their pensions, When the stakes are different not all votes should be weighed equally. why do you think some regions have more deputies than other regions although sometimes they have a similar population. The reason for it is that it is the center of the economy and its decision making is the motor of the country.
I understand that perspective, but I think its problematic to try to value the older persons any less than the young.
- From a human rights point of view it could be argued this is discrimination.
- We don't (and can't) know exactly how much it will affect the old vs. young
- People could argue that we should weight voting power for other groups as well depending on their life expectancy, like more for women since they live longer, less for cancer patients or persons with diabetes or heart disease, etc.
So all in all, it can turn into a mess, and one person-one vote remains the only realistic option.
 

Mighty Goat

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
I understand that perspective, but I think its problematic to try to value the older persons any less than the young.
- From a human rights point of view it could be argued this is discrimination.
- We don't (and can't) know exactly how much it will affect the old vs. young
- People could argue that we should weight voting power for other groups as well depending on their life expectancy, like more for women since they live longer, less for cancer patients or persons with diabetes or heart disease, etc.
So all in all, it can turn into a mess, and one person-one vote remains the only realistic option.

This is not discrimination, because, since they get their pensions from the system, then they get their pension from a system in which the non-pensioned population pays into the system. The discrimination is established by the system. So, yes, if these pensioners want to keep their pensions then they should pay attention to who is paying into the system.

But it seems to me that these pensioners are very stupid. They want a system that is running and is collecting taxes to pay pensions. Then, they want the system to pay only white English pensioners. This is to say, they refuse to share the system of payment, but accept taxes payed to government by immigrant workers, or Brits that are ethnically not English. We accept your money, but we refuse to share the system. A system of beggars and a system that is founded on breeding beggars, by pastoral power of populist politics, can not sustain itself.

What we have in here is a social well fare system, and social welfare collectors as an English and white privilege. Let them have it. They are all collectors of social well fare and once you do not have money paid into the system, you will also not be able to make payments. Back to the dark ages is where England is going.
 

proIsrael-nonIsraeli

Legendary Member
This is not discrimination, because, since they get their pensions from the system, then they get their pension from a system in which the non-pensioned population pays into the system. The discrimination is established by the system. So, yes, if these pensioners want to keep their pensions then they should pay attention to who is paying into the system.

But it seems to me that these pensioners are very stupid. They want a system that is running and is collecting taxes to pay pensions. Then, they want the system to pay only white English pensioners. This is to say, they refuse to share the system of payment, but accept taxes payed to government by immigrant workers, or Brits that are ethnically not English. We accept your money, but we refuse to share the system. A system of beggars and a system that is founded on breeding beggars, by pastoral power of populist politics, can not sustain itself.

What we have in here is a social well fare system, and social welfare collectors as an English and white privilege. Let them have it. They are all collectors of social well fare and once you do not have money paid into the system, you will also not be able to make payments. Back to the dark ages is where England is going.

Pensioners has already paid their pensions and now they are living it.

Young are paying for what they will be using later.
 

Mighty Goat

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Pensioners has already paid their pensions and now they are living it.

Young are paying for what they will be using later.

I do not think it works this way, what the young pays now pays into the living pensioners now, and when they die the living now, the living pays for the living. This is not that the government saves the money for you in a bank account, so that you do not spend it, and then pays it to you when you get old. This is pay the pensions of the living by the taxes collected. So, pensioners may have no pensions, even if they paid, since what they paid also paid their predecessors. What they get they get from what the youth pays now.
 

Danny Z

Legendary Member
I understand that perspective, but I think its problematic to try to value the older persons any less than the young.
- From a human rights point of view it could be argued this is discrimination.
- We don't (and can't) know exactly how much it will affect the old vs. young
- People could argue that we should weight voting power for other groups as well depending on their life expectancy, like more for women since they live longer, less for cancer patients or persons with diabetes or heart disease, etc.
So all in all, it can turn into a mess, and one person-one vote remains the only realistic option.
Il is more the easy option than the realistic one. Not only the old voted for the decisions but also one person one vote does not take into consideration that half of the peuple voted against the decision, against a stable system that has been around for several decades. They voted because they don't understand the stakes and they put almost an equal number of people in a situation that they don't want to be in and forever. Is that fair? I don't think so, but it is easy to say it is democratic because it is one man one vote but whoever came up with the one man one vote thinking that it is fair? It is fair only when the people are aware of the stakes to everybody and that their vote affects the nation equally but it does it? It is often said that Democracy is not only the vote of majority, it should also preserve the rights of minorities, well if it should protect the minority why shouldn't it also protect half of the population who is almost a majority that doesn't want to change a stable status that has been around for almost half a century?
 
Top