Brexit and the Consequences

[Signalcalc]

SC that guy talks a lot but no one challenges him on his dribble.

Peterson is challenged in every public interview he has ever made.

 

[Atilla]

He's passing a judgement in relation to hierarchical structures that exist in our societies and yet doesn't exist in the EU, this is one main reason why the EU is failing, 'the EU has grown too fast, there is a hierarchical disconnect between Brussels and it's citizens, therefore the citizens have no connection with the ruling Brussels and don't like the decisions that are taken there [sic]'.

This is how you begin to understand why the EU cannot work in the guise it is at the moment, nothing to do with trade, banking, frictionless borders or even immigration etc, but to do with the philosophical understanding of how society operates at a fundamental level and the decisions people make based on the hierarchical structure of how humans have always operated (within their reality)

Hierarchical structures and bureaucratic ones have pretty much existed through out human existence and complex social hierarchical structures also exist in the animal kingdom too.

Once again he is simply passing an opinion.

EU is one of the most successful trading and political blocks with shared values and common interests on the planet and has achieved much.

People calling or predicting EU demise are a little premature to say the least.

Brexit only demonstrates the fab culture of the EU and how it is a flexible super organisation with voluntary membership.


He is coming from top about people and how they are organised. Does he know what Local Authorities and Councils do. Is he aware we have council elections that determine and make local decisions.


His a bit of an academic who is selling his pov and that's all.


Talking of hierarchial organisations, many here support the army over which you have no say or visibility over. Yet you'll fight tooth and nail over some national interest which really is of no interest none what so ever other than to weapon producers. The world is a strange place indeed.

 

[Signalcalc]

EU is one of the most successful trading and political blocks with shared values and common interests on the planet and has achieved much.

So is China, but I don't hear of many wanting to live there voluntarily. It's good to be challenged on such a view.

Brexit only demonstrates the fab culture of the EU and how it is a flexible super organisation with voluntary membership.

What culture? Is it a monoculture? Voluntary membership for who, I'm pretty sure at leat 17.4M disagree with you.

His a bit of an academic who is selling his pov and that's all.

Good for him.

Talking of hierarchial organisations, many here support the army over which you have no say or visibility over. Yet you'll fight tooth and nail over some national interest which really is of no interest none what so ever other than to weapon producers. The world is a strange place indeed.

The army is supposed to protect the citizens of the country to which it belongs, if we didn't have an army what do you think would happen to the land and the citizens that reside within it?

 

[Atilla]

So is China, but I don't hear of many wanting to live there voluntarily. It's good to be challenged on such a view.



What culture? Is it a monoculture? Voluntary membership for who, I'm pretty sure at leat 17.4M disagree with you.



Good for him.




The army is supposed to protect the citizens of the country to which it belongs, if we didn't have an army what do you think would happen to the land and the citizens that reside within it?

The armies command structure is one of many that exists all over the place. There is structure and order, a command chain that flows down.

EU's hierarchial structure is not unique or that much removed from any other organisations structure.

Scotland Yard has a command structure.


So this one guy comes up with some principal jumping on the Brexit bandwagon and Trump's BS about clearing out the swamp in a language the layman can understand. I'd go far as to say, Trump's affairs are far more opaque than US government or the EU but people buy into it.


You need to go back re-evaluate your concept of reality.


Once again, your local authority has a much bigger impact on your life than the EU. Brexiteers need to get real about sovereignty and stop peddling drivel.

Ask Moggy why his moving his part of his hierarchical structure running his business to Ireland? Is it to increase clarity and transparency or colour it.

Why is he moving if his interested about taking back control adn making UK great again. He'll give you some dribble about well the EU will not trade with the UK because the EU does not conform to UK's rules and regulations. Should he not be able to generate more business with the rest of the world from the UK once we are out of the EU? I honestly don't understand how one persons BS and Actions can vary in such a short time frame and you don't challenge him on that?

Same goes for Nigel Lawson. Words and Actions tell two different stories.

You pick some academics blurb on Hierarchial Structures as confirming the decline of EU when as said before more countries are signing up membership deals.

So many paradoxical pov's can you explain them please?

 

[Signalcalc]

T

So this one guy comes up with some principal jumping on the Brexit bandwagon and Trump's BS about clearing out the swamp in a language the layman can understand. I'd go far as to say, Trump's affairs are far more opaque than US government or the EU but people buy into it.

Not sure who you're referring to, Peterson isn't political, have you actually watched anything with him in it?

Once again, your local authority has a much bigger impact on your life than the EU. Brexiteers need to get real about sovereignty and stop peddling drivel.

What have local authorities got to do with national sovereignty?

Ask Moggy why his moving his part of his hierarchical structure running his business to Ireland? Is it to increase clarity and transparency or colour it.

Moggy is the left whingers favourite punch bag of the moment, time to move on and stop foaming at the mouth about him all the time. He's not part of my discussion.

You pick some academics blurb on Hierarchial Structures as confirming the decline of EU when as said before more countries are signing up membership deals.

Again, you are not understanding, probably because you've not listened, go back and listen to his explanation why the EU hierarchical structure is failing to work, it's because the EU has grown too fast, compared to say, the US, where the structure had a chance to establish itself over a couple of centuries at least with the buy-in of its citizens (also through civil wars).

The EU wants to be like the US, but hasn't had the time to establish itself with it's many differing members' cultures, languages, attitudes, working patterns, domestic problems, political leanings, financial situations etc.

None of which is political, its just fact. It doesn't even confirm the decline of the EU, it just shows us why its not working as intended.

The EU has tried to become homogenised but it's failing in that task because it has tried to expedite the process, a process that probably would need a century to sort out, it may still do it over the long term, but it is going to have to change to maintain what it has achieved already, there are no signs of that happening in the short term.

Brexit has dealt a massive blow to the process at such an early stage, regardless of the final outcome (in or out), the EU can never be the same, following its originally intended path is no longer possible. Politically it will always be living with the loss of a major partner with the threat of the loss of other members hanging like the sword of Damocles.

 

[Jason101]

I feel amazingly free now. I see Brexit as curtailing my freedoms.

What on earth will you be able to do after Brexit that you can't do now?


We have elections and choose our leaders now so plllleeaaaseee don't give me that dribble about electing our useless Eurossceptic leaders like Boris, Govey, Mogey and the other riff raff who are no where to be seen.

I believe all that trash when Nigel Lawson changes his domiciled residence to the UK if sovereignty and parliament is so important to him. You just regurgitating tosh which has no meaning if I may put it crudely, do forgive me.


Bunch of crooks who want to turn UK into a niche tax haven so they can get away with paying less tax.

Wake up my friends. You lot up North facing a very grim future indeed.

Good Post, but I think you may have a long wait for a real answer to your question -

"I feel amazingly free now. I see Brexit as curtailing my freedoms.

What on earth will you be able to do after Brexit that you can't do now?"

 

[Jason101]

The freedom to hold a blue passport?
This was touted around a lot in the early days of the campaign.

 

[Atilla]

Good Post, but I think you may have a long wait for a real answer to your question -

"I feel amazingly free now. I see Brexit as curtailing my freedoms.

What on earth will you be able to do after Brexit that you can't do now?"

I like my passport to be burgundy as it is now.

Buy business and property anywhere I want. Transfer my pension and live anywhere in Europe. Access to free medical health care anywhere I want. Apply for jobs and work anywhere in Europe.

Not have to jump through lots of rules and regulations however that turns out.



Will I be able to do all these things freely as before Brexit? :whistling

 

[Pat494]

I see an ongoing effort to get the less able countries like Greece to get themselves ordered or else. Can't see the Germans subsidising them indefinitely. They may suddenly wake up to the unpleasant reality of large chunks of Greece etc. being owned by foreigners.
Not much fun being second rate citizens in one's own country.

 

[Atilla]

I see an ongoing effort to get the less able countries like Greece to get themselves ordered or else. Can't see the Germans subsidising them indefinitely. They may suddenly wake up to the unpleasant reality of large chunks of Greece etc. being owned by foreigners.
Not much fun being second rate citizens in one's own country.

What's wrong with that?

Use the price mechanism to value assets, buy and sell.

Who gives a hoot on who owns what?

Live within the rules of the state?

To reciprocate do you want any foreign owners of UK assets to leave because of what reason?

Most foreigners own many FTSE stock anyhow receiving excess profits earned in the UK as dividends.

Same goes for FTSE companies that earn profits abroad in foreign currency, which pumps up profits declared in the UK.

Have you thought through what owned by foreigners mean? :whistling

 

[NVP]

Not sure who you're referring to, Peterson isn't political, have you actually watched anything with him in it?

Again, you are not understanding, probably because you've not listened, go back and listen to his explanation why the EU hierarchical structure is failing to work, it's because the EU has grown too fast, compared to say, the US, where the structure had a chance to establish itself over a couple of centuries at least with the buy-in of its citizens (also through civil wars).

The EU wants to be like the US, but hasn't had the time to establish itself with it's many differing members' cultures, languages, attitudes, working patterns, domestic problems, political leanings, financial situations etc.

None of which is political, its just fact. It doesn't even confirm the decline of the EU, it just shows us why its not working as intended.

The EU has tried to become homogenised but it's failing in that task because it has tried to expedite the process, a process that probably would need a century to sort out, it may still do it over the long term, but it is going to have to change to maintain what it has achieved already, there are no signs of that happening in the short term.

Brexit has dealt a massive blow to the process at such an early stage, regardless of the final outcome (in or out), the EU can never be the same, following its originally intended path is no longer possible. Politically it will always be living with the loss of a major partner with the threat of the loss of other members hanging like the sword of Damocles.

Methinks you're labelling the US as a success model regarding integration ?

god help us if thats the benchmark for the Eurozone to work to....

jees they are hanging on with a thread on even just the Common Language...and Trump has driven a huge wedge through them all........ .


N

 

[Signalcalc]

Methinks you're labelling the US as a success model regarding integration ?

god help us if thats the benchmark for the Eurozone to work to....

jees they are hanging on with a thread on even just the Common Language...and Trump has driven a huge wedge through them all........ .


N

The US constitution was written in 1787 so it's lasted a good 200 years, is that not a measure of success in a Western sense?

Should I pick the Romans instead? The Romans lasted about 800 years didn't they and it took them a few good centuries to get to a point where integration was 'complete' although they were forever expanding and that is what also led to the Roman downfall. Maybe the Roman integration could be considered a failure because it was ultimately implemented by force, so not really on a par with modern morality.

I could have picked on China, although I would argue that union needs the voluntary consensus of it's citizens, I'm sure China hasn't achieved that and has implemented centralised government control regardless of what it's citizens wish, hence communism and a failure.

Also, I wasn't talking specifically about monetary union (although the Eurozone plays a major part in the whole idea of integration). Integration encompasses other aspects of cultural, language, political and ideological union as much as monetary.

The 'success' or failure of US integration has nothing to do with Trump, there have been 45 US presidents and many times turnover of congress and the senate, the US has been through the mill several times including civil and world wars, I hardly think Trump is going to make much of a dent in that long history.

What about the united Kingdom and the commonwealth, during Empire days it was a Union by force, now it is a Union by consensus, built up over centuries, I would call that a success.

The EU on the other hand has barely started and it's already in trouble, do the math(s)

 

[cantagril]

The EU on the other hand has barely started and it's already in trouble, do the math(s)

Whilst you do have a point, I think it's worth remembering that that earlier models designed to preserve peace and foster trade have also had fairly brief lives, historically speaking. The sole difference between the EU and historical ****-ups is the element (no matter how small ) of democracy.

One could also point to Brexit as being yet another load of bolleaux due to the "people" being given a choice and then them exercising that right - China and Rome did indeed endure for quite a bit without such a fanciful indulgence.

 

[Signalcalc]

One could also point to Brexit as being yet another load of bolleaux due to the "people" being given a choice and then them exercising that right - China and Rome did indeed endure for quite a bit without such a fanciful indulgence.

The problem here is how you interpret democracy. If you take the view that democracy is centralised control with little input from the people, is that really democracy in the accepted Western definition of the word? If you take the view that people are given a chance to decide what is right for themselves, is that democracy? In the modern Western sense of the meaning the latter seems to be the accepted view.

It looks like the EU accepts that view also, as its citizens have been afforded referendums galore during it's lifetime. It's what happens to those decisions taken by the majority vote that determines if democracy is working as intended.

In the case of Brexit where democracy so far has prevailed, there is no argument, it has been a success, if the decision is overturned in someway, then it would be easy to say that democracy has failed on this occasion.

 

[barjon]

.........What about the united Kingdom and the commonwealth, during Empire days it was a Union by force, now it is a Union by consensus, built up over centuries, I would call that a success.

The EU on the other hand has barely started and it's already in trouble, do the math(s) ...........

if you can call the commonwealth a “success” when all bar the ultra minnows gained independence as soon as they could leaving just a loose tie up and a trade deal, then how can you conclude that the EU is in trouble. Our departure to gain our “independence” will leave the same sort of loose tie up and trade deal (of some sort) and the rest of them are holding together despite a minority of moaners. At the very worst it would leave the EU in the same position as the commonwealth.

The moaning is mainly brought on by economic troubles and when economies improve the moaning will reduce - as Clinton always said “it’s the economy, stupid”

 

[barjon]

The problem here is how you interpret democracy. If you take the view that democracy is centralised control with little input from the people, is that really democracy in the accepted Western definition of the word? If you take the view that people are given a chance to decide what is right for themselves, is that democracy? In the modern Western sense of the meaning the latter seems to be the accepted view.

It looks like the EU accepts that view also, as its citizens have been afforded referendums galore during it's lifetime. It's what happens to those decisions taken by the majority vote that determines if democracy is working as intended.

In the case of Brexit where democracy so far has prevailed, there is no argument, it has been a success, if the decision is overturned in someway, then it would be easy to say that democracy has failed on this occasion.

I seem to be disagreeing with you rather a lot today, signal but in the modern Western sense I think democracy is representational democracy, like ours, where peoples’ democratic choice is centred on the people they put in place to make the decisions on our behalf, not the decisions themselves.

So far as Brexit is concerned the referendum is concerned the result could not be binding except by the choice of Parliament to make it so in effect. If the decision is overturned (it won’t be) it would not be a failure of our type of democracy but it would certainly be a failure of trust.

 

[Signalcalc]

if you can call the commonwealth a “success” when all bar the ultra minnows gained independence as soon as they could leaving just a loose tie up and a trade deal, then how can you conclude that the EU is in trouble. Our departure to gain our “independence” will leave the same sort of loose tie up and trade deal (of some sort) and the rest of them are holding together despite a minority of moaners. At the very worst it would leave the EU in the same position as the commonwealth.

The moaning is mainly brought on by economic troubles and when economies improve the moaning will reduce - as Clinton always said “it’s the economy, stupid”

Success measured in this context is the length of time that the UK has managed to maintain a commonwealth from imperial, more violent days to more peaceful days, including maintaining a Union of Scotland, NI, England and Wales and overseas territories.

Note that I haven't stated that the EU is a success or a failure, just that it is in trouble at a very early stage of its development. I will be long gone before it could be determined to be a success or failure.

 

[Signalcalc]

So far as Brexit is concerned the referendum is concerned the result could not be binding except by the choice of Parliament to make it so in effect. If the decision is overturned (it won’t be) it would not be a failure of our type of democracy but it would certainly be a failure of trust.

A failure of trust or a failure of democracy, it's just semantics when it comes to the attitude of citizens towards their elected representatives. Morally it's not right when promises have been made. In some respects a failure of trust is worse because then the argument would be to ensure that all referendums in the future are binding otherwise what would be the point? The point of democracy is not just legal, it is also moral.

We don't really live in a democracy anyway, probably never really have as many elected representatives seem to want a Corporatocracy more than anything (especially TM and the EU), Brexit certainly has brought this aspect to the fore, TM hides behind the facade of democracy, playing her version of Corporatocracy (military/industrial complex) game very well.

 

[barjon]

........The point of democracy is not just legal, it is also moral......

l.

Agree absolutely

 

[timsk]

. . .So far as Brexit is concerned the referendum is concerned the result could not be binding except by the choice of Parliament to make it so in effect. If the decision is overturned (it won’t be) it would not be a failure of our type of democracy but it would certainly be a failure of trust.

Hiya Jon,
With regard to the part of your post that I've highlighted - do you not think a 2nd referendum aka 'People's Vote' is looking increasingly likely? If so, can you think of a way of conducting it that is fair to both sides so that the majority (not all, obviously) feel that democracy has been served?

I had this discussion recently with a remainer on YouTube and he said he'd be happy to have a three way split vote (i.e. Remain, Mrs. May's BRINO and No Deal on the ballot paper) and, in order for remain to be declared the winner, they'd have to secure 60% of the total votes cast. Whilst I'm not in favour of having another referendum, if there is to be one nonetheless, those are the kinds of terms I'd regard as fair. Thoughts?
Tim.