Being in NATO never stopped the US from doing that.
And by a more informed decision you mean of course a decision of which you approve. Because how on earth could anybody disagree with you and still call themselves informed?
I don’t want those who must be forced to vote voting.
Fuck. Ing. A.
Plenty who disagree with me call themselves ‘informed;’ some are actually justified in so doing.
There are good arguments on both sides of the ‘mandatory voting’ policy. (I expect there are some Australians on this board who could offer a few.)
Were those searches by folks who’d voted to leave, or by folks who’d voted to stay?
I don’t feel like the Brexit is mine to Pit. Not really my business, no? That said, is it fair to say the/a motive for it is to hear less “Abdul al Akbar” and more “Pip Pip Cheerio” in the streets of London?
British “lady” to some German friends of ours: “I did not want you to be affected. I just wanted to have fewer Pakis around here!”
Those are the kinds of people that have destroyed my belief in humanity. I have been asked to participate in a meeting about mitigating the effects of the Brexit in my (tourism-dependent) town, but my answer was akin to
:dubious: What makes you think that’s a specifically “left wing” phenomenon? The right wing is just as apt to use “Hurray we’re making progress” rhetoric about, say, more permissive gun laws or less permissive abortion laws, together with doomsday “Alas the country’s going to the dogs” rhetoric when it’s the other way around.
And of course, there’s nothing intrinsically contradictory or illogical about a society being able to simultaneously move forward in some areas and backward in others.
Unlikely, given how strongly London voted in favour of remaining…
Didn’t someone on this very board ask, “If you didn’t want Muslim immigrants you shouldn’t have conquered so many Muslim countries?”
For reasons of sanity and time and future relations with dopers I’m not engaging in debate on the details but I certainly don’t mind giving you a little insight.
Firstly, we have never expected the other partner to divulge how they vote. Never. On occasions we have told each other our choice but it is not expected or demanded.
It is her choice, her decision.
Also, from the outset we were both wavering and could be persuaded either way so we start from a point of allowing the legitimacy of the opposite view.
The main topics were
- economic outlook
- democratic process
- future structure of the E.U.
- impact of the vote numbers on E.U. policy
- impact on our holiday and retirement plans (see…we can be as self-serving as the next couple)
with many, many back and forth discussions on issues under those headings. Many times during those discussions we used the words “I agree” “I disagree” “I think that’s bollocks” and variations thereof. At no point did we think the other was stupid, ill-informed, reactionary, racist, xenophobic or bigoted because we have nearly 30 years of experience to the contrary. Hence my annoyance in other threads by broad brush stereotypes assigned to both sides of the campaign.
And so we weighed it up and cast our votes. When we told each other how we voted and realised we cancelled each other out the outcome was a wry smile, a shrug of the shoulders and a discussion on more immediate problems.
I can’t imaging being married to someone who didn’t allow dissenting opinions. We are both liberal people with no inherent political position.
If the arguments are such you can’t make them here without fear of losing relationships, either your relationships are really fragile or they are really bad. arguments. And if they’re that fragile, why worry–they were never your friends anyways.
What I do know is that all the arguments I saw being voiced were xenophobic. The one about national sovereignty is xenophobic–it assumes that Britons can do a better job than those Europeans. Ones about immigration are xenophobic for obvious reasons–it’s not as if the EU lets everyone.
Whining about people calling things bad doesn’t do a thing if you can’t actually bring forth the arguments that aren’t. You ironically are attacking the other side by dismissing their concerns that it is about xenophobia.
All I know is that the experts said it would fuck over the economy, so I view those who voted against being selfish. And I view being selfish without regard to the consequences to others as the definition of evil.
Another entry for the BigT lecture series, methinks…
QED BigT. You could not have made my point more clearly.
Read back what you’ve written and go back to the previous comments I’ve made here and in other threads. My beef is not with the choices that people have made (I voted “remain” remember so the arguments for leaving aren’t mine to make) but with exactly your lazy labelling of the “other”. I suspect that there is no argument a “leave” voter could make that you would accept as valid.
It is a wider political issue though, depressingly becoming more and more prevalent and particularly so in the Scottish Independence referendum (I bet you don’t think SNP aims are xenophobic), the last UK election, the Labour leadership debate and the in/out referendum last week.
And with that, for definite this time. I’m out.
People are under no obligation to allow a foreign majority to dictate to them. National sovereignty is not xenophobic and you left wing fools who keep pushing a globalist agenda with no concern for local desires are risking a major backlash. You think China dictating to Vietnam with the argument that there is more Chinese is moral based upon some goofy concept of sovereignty being xenophobic?
Sovereignty is meaningless in a global society. It is delusional to think we can walk back from that. We need to work in the reality that exists.
The idea of “national culture” is, and always has been, bullshit. People like people who look like them and speak like them, it’s nothing more sophisticated or meaningful than that.
There doesn’t seem to be any relationship between the paragraphs here. The second is nonsense. Of course there are national cultures (as well as subnational and multinational ones). Language is certainly part of that, but there’s far more.
I don’t know what “reality” you are referencing, but we don’t live in a “global society”. Star Trek is not a documentary.
That must be why only white people celebrate Independence Day in the US. I always wondered about that…
National sovereignty isn’t xenophobic, but using it as a dog-whistle term to condemn immigration and immigrants and blaming them for all your troubles certainly is. And that’s very much what Brexit was about. And by “backlash” I presume you mean the rise of Donald Trump, whose bigoted demagoguery reflects almost exactly the same phenomenon.