Brexit

[Shadow Wolf]

I give up.

Would make a difference if you knew John Cleese was for Brexit? The little bit I've heard of his views on it did have some similarities to what Rival has been saying.
And when you think of it, why wouldn't many in England feel England is better off outside of the Eurozone? They've been exceedingly better off throughout most of their history, so much better that the sun never set on their Empire.
They also do have to consider the reality of international terrorism in ways many of those in the Americas (Especially North America) will never know. They don't have a massive ocean on either side shielding them from much of what goes on in the world.
And do the British care? Well, the Scottish ones seem to since Scottish independence comes up now and then, and that one is directly tied to English affairs. And the English? I'm sure most do to a degree, but most also are personally removed from places like London or Wesminster.

 

[LuisDantas]

Would make a difference if you knew John Cleese was for Brexit?

Not really.

I don't think that it is too much to expect voters to try and learn a bit about the expected consequences of what they are voting for.

Or to realize that they ought to question high promises of sudden prosperity and whatnot.

Or to just listen to the objections to those promises for a little while.

The little bit I've heard of his views on it did have some similarities to what Rival has been saying.
And when you think of it, why wouldn't many in England feel England is better off outside of the Eurozone?

Are you sure that you want me to answer that question?

They've been exceedingly better off throughout most of their history, so much better that the sun never set on their Empire.
They also do have to consider the reality of international terrorism in ways many of those in the Americas (Especially North America) will never know. They don't have a massive ocean on either side shielding them from much of what goes on in the world.
And do the British care? Well, the Scottish ones seem to since Scottish independence comes up now and then, and that one is directly tied to English affairs. And the English? I'm sure most do to a degree, but most also are personally removed from places like London or Wesminster.

Sorry. If there is a point there, it is still happily flying circles over my head without me noticing.

I wonder if that has anything to do with my anti-nationalism. I am literally incapable of taking nationalism as justification for anything whatsoever. Far as I am concerned it is a fiction lent way too much significance.

I keep being surprised when I find evidence that not everyone realizes that.



Shall we perhaps bring Stephen Fry to this discussion instead?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am literally incapable of taking nationalism as justification for anything whatsoever.

That seems an odd point. Such as, if Irish reunification and Scottish independence happen it will be because of a sense of nationalism and righting centuries of wrongs done to those nations. In fact most places that have been colonized, invaded and occupied, and had their very cultural foundations robbed of them resort to nationalism as a means to unite and fight against the oppressors.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That seems an odd point. Such as, if Irish reunification and Scottish independence happen it will be because of a sense of nationalism and righting centuries of wrongs done to those nations. In fact most places that have been colonized, invaded and occupied, and had their very cultural foundations robbed of them resort to nationalism as a means to unite and fight against the oppressors.

What centuries of wrong have been done to the Scots? You do realise they were equal partners in the Union, and enthusiastic participants in the creation of the British empire? Great Britain has had Scottish monarchs, Scottish - and Welsh - Prime Ministers, and Scottish business, academic and literary figures influencing the culture for centuries.

See what happens when an Australian makes a film like Braveheart? Americans mistake it for a documentary

As for Ireland, with all her troubled history, the last thing the North needed during the troubles in the late 20th century, was the funding of terrorist groups by Americans with Irish surnames, and a sentimental identification with a nation they knew nothing about.

I respectfully suggest that US citizens with a sentimental attachment to a mythical Ireland which is as alien to them as Asgarth, focus on righting the wrongs done to the Sioux and Choctaw nations etc.

 

[Stevicus]

I hope not. Because the implication would be that you are always giving the current government the power to decide how you should vote.

I would say the implication is just the opposite. If a government or politician fail to deliver on their promises, then it shouldn't be a surprise if the voters go against them at the next election.

Politicians don't think long term. They can't afford to. It is for voters to demand that they act in a responsible way.

Can it be that the British truly do not care about their present and future enough to even try to learn about their own politics?

Scary thought.

So you don't think the voters are demanding that the politicians act in a responsible way? It seems that the voters have been patient enough to wait 30+ years for the politicians' promises to come to fruition. That has not happened for a sizable percentage of the population, so now they reject those same politicians' promises today. The people care enough to learn that the agenda of their politicians has done nothing for them or their well-being.

Can it be that the capitalists and other elite wealthy who push for things like the EU, NAFTA, and other free trade agreements do not care enough about the well-being of their national economy or the people's standard of living to even try to learn about the consequences about what they've supported for the past several decades?

That's an even scarier thought.

Why is it so difficult for you to admit that the ruling classes are comprised of dishonest, myopic, foolishly greedy people who have screwed themselves and their own nation's economies? Why is it so difficult for you to understand that when working people have been lied to for so long by the same elite, they're going to stop listening?

 

[LuisDantas]

That seems an odd point. Such as, if Irish reunification and Scottish independence happen it will be because of a sense of nationalism and righting centuries of wrongs done to those nations.

Perhaps. But I don't take that into consideration. At all. It is all make believe to me.

I am Brazilian. I am all too aware that we are the descendants of the killers of our own native people. Nationalism has no value whatsoever to me.

I support Scottish independence mainly because it protects the Scottish people from Brexit. Similarly for North Ireland.

In fact most places that have been colonized, invaded and occupied, and had their very cultural foundations robbed of them resort to nationalism as a means to unite and fight against the oppressors.

Which is quite the wrong motivation far as I am concerned. In fact, it would be very contradictory for me to value nationalism in any way, shape or form.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would say the implication is just the opposite. If a government or politician fail to deliver on their promises, then it shouldn't be a surprise if the voters go against them at the next election.

What is your reading of David Cameron's reasons for the 2016 referendum?

So you don't think the voters are demanding that the politicians act in a responsible way?

They certainly refused to back in 2019 when they gave the Tories their current majority under a Boris Johnson government.

To the best of my understanding, their motivation was much closer to "let's get Brexit done anyway" to "let's be responsible".

It seems that the voters have been patient enough to wait 30+ years for the politicians' promises to come to fruition. That has not happened for a sizable percentage of the population, so now they reject those same politicians' promises today. The people care enough to learn that the agenda of their politicians has done nothing for them or their well-being.

Blind protest votes are only slightly less submissive than blind conformity votes. If at all.

True political participation requires some effort at being informed. Which clearly isn't a cultural trait of the English at present.

Can it be that the capitalists and other elite wealthy who push for things like the EU, NAFTA, and other free trade agreements do not care enough about the well-being of their national economy or the people's standard of living to even try to learn about the consequences about what they've supported for the past several decades?

Of course. Which makes the apparent lack of interest from English voters in understanding current events all the more surprising to me.

Why is it so difficult for you to admit that the ruling classes are comprised of dishonest, myopic, foolishly greedy people who have screwed themselves and their own nation's economies?

I don't think that I am the one having that naiveté.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that when working people have been lied to for so long by the same elite, they're going to stop listening?

I understand that. But I hoped that at some point they would defend themselves by paying attention to events and criticisms before automatically protest voting.

Of course, events proved me wrong, both here in Brazil and in the UK. People can and will vote directly against their own well-being if incensed in quite the right way by people following the teachings of Steve Bannon and Olavo de Carvalho.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What centuries of wrong have been done to the Scots? You do realise they were equal partners in the Union, and enthusiastic participants in the creation of the British empire? Great Britain has had Scottish monarchs, Scottish - and Welsh - Prime Ministers, and Scottish business, academic and literary figures influencing the culture for centuries.

Slavery, butchery, repression, oppression, sure the English found some arse lickers loyal to their cause but unfortunately such twats who betray their own exist everywhere.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Slavery, butchery, repression, oppression, sure the English found some arse lickers loyal to their cause but unfortunately such twats who betray their own exist everywhere.

Oh ffs. What is it with Americans and their tenuous grasp of history?

Acts of Union 1707 - Wikipedia

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh ffs. What is it with Americans and their tenuous grasp of history?

Acts of Union 1707 - Wikipedia

Their history goes back further than 1707.

 

[Stevicus]

What is your reading of David Cameron's reasons for the 2016 referendum?

Can't say. In the final analysis, it doesn't really matter what the politicians say. What matters more is the results of their policies. Actions and results speak louder than words.

They certainly refused to back in 2019 when they gave the Tories their current majority under a Boris Johnson government.

To the best of my understanding, their motivation was much closer to "let's get Brexit done anyway" to "let's be responsible".

It depends on one's perception. If one believes that Britain joining the EU was irresponsible to begin with, then leaving that organization would be considered a responsible act. Foot-dragging or resistance to doing so would be considered irresponsible and may provoke further response from the people demanding responsibility.

Blind protest votes are only slightly less submissive than blind conformity votes. If at all.

True political participation requires some effort at being informed. Which clearly isn't a cultural trait of the English at present.

"Informed" about what, specifically? Maybe you need to be informed that policies which make the rich richer and the poor poorer aren't exactly good or "responsible." On a national level, they're practically suicidal.

Of course. Which makes the apparent lack of interest from English voters in understanding current events all the more surprising to me.

A bit more elaboration on your part might be helpful here. In a world of nearly 200 countries and almost 8 billion people, there are many, many "current events" going on right now, and it's impossible for any individual to know about all of them. So, which specific "current events" are you referring to which English voters should try to understand better that could help them improve their current situation?

What is it that they need to understand? That it's necessary for them to live in squalor just so people in Beverly Hills, Manhattan, or London can enjoy the lifestyles of the rich and famous? If they don't like such wanton disparities and express their dislike, are you seriously going to blame them for allegedly not understanding current events?

I don't think that I am the one having that naiveté.

Maybe, although earlier in this discussion, you seemed to be expressing confusion, as if you didn't understand or see the connection between voter angst and their perceptions of the economy and their standard of living. Bill Clinton once said "It's the economy, stupid." Have we forgotten this already?

I understand that. But I hoped that at some point they would defend themselves by paying attention to events and criticisms before automatically protest voting.

Of course, events proved me wrong, both here in Brazil and in the UK. People can and will vote directly against their own well-being if incensed in quite the right way by people following the teachings of Steve Bannon and Olavo de Carvalho.

But the whole bottom line is this: All of this could have been avoided. There's absolutely no sensible reason (and no excuse) for the Powers That Be to have stood by and allowed large segments of their economy and large regions of their country to fall to ruin like that. Absolutely no excuse.

It's been going on for decades under their watch. They should have seen and known what was going on; it's not as if it was any great secret and that there weren't countless people out there screaming and crying for help and relief.

You don't like people following the teachings of Steve Bannon? Then why would anyone support and advocate policies which give people like that an opportunity? Why leave a wide opening for such people to make inroads towards gaining more political power?

I noticed earlier that you stated you are an anti-nationalist. So am I. However, I think history has shown that one of the more effective ways of countering malignant nationalism is to simply mind the store and stick to the basics. It's not just about the redistribution of wealth - although that can be an effective tool to keep the masses happy.

Such policies worked for a time in the Western liberal democracies which were still essentially capitalist yet gave some measure of just and fair consideration for the lower classes, such as better support for the labor movement, civil rights, social welfare programs, economic justice, etc. Those same Western liberal democracies fought tooth and nail against the malignant nationalist regimes of the Axis, and they seemed committed to quashing such notions within their own countries as well.

So, if we want to stop nationalism, why not follow the example of those who were actually successful in achieving that goal? Why continue to embrace a set of failed policies which bring about economic ruination and widespread despair in large sections of the country?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Their history goes back further than 1707.

Of course. But while it’s good to understand the past as best we can, it’s foolish to live in it. Especially when our misconceptions about the past feed our resentments in the present, which is the case imo with every nationalist movement ever.

These ancient tribal enmities are exactly what it was hoped the EU would resolve, from Armagh to Alsace and Azerbaijan. Reviving a sense of grievance about Culloden, The Battle of The Boyne or Trafalgar helps no one. Especially when the enmity comes from Americans, who funded a civil conflict in Ireland which with all due respect, they had **** all experience or understanding of.

 

[LuisDantas]

But the whole bottom line is this: All of this could have been avoided. There's absolutely no sensible reason (and no excuse) for the Powers That Be to have stood by and allowed large segments of their economy and large regions of their country to fall to ruin like that. Absolutely no excuse.

Community managers will always be neglectful unless they are demanded otherwise by the community members.

How or why that would make support for Brexit reasonable, I have no idea whatsoever.

 

[Rival]

Community managers will always be neglectful unless they are demanded otherwise by the community members.

How or why that would make support for Brexit reasonable, I have no idea whatsoever.

If I'm not mistaken, you are asking why did we blame the EU instead of our own government, yes?

 

[LuisDantas]

If I'm not mistaken, you are asking why did we blame the EU instead of our own government, yes?

That thought certainly crossed my mind often enough.

But here I am talking mainly about the need for transparency and questioning.

I should probably add that I think that we have much to learn from the UK's political system. The existence of an official shadow cabinet and of the regular PMQs - to say nothing of Parlamentarism itself - go a long way towards achieving those needs.

Which makes my puzzlement over the apparent political apathy of the British that much greater, alas.

 

[Stevicus]

Community managers will always be neglectful unless they are demanded otherwise by the community members.

How or why that would make support for Brexit reasonable, I have no idea whatsoever.

If a policy isn't working as intended, then people will be inclined towards changing it. That's ostensibly what the community members demanded - a change in policy. You seem to be suggesting that the change they made was unreasonable and irresponsible.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Of course. But while it’s good to understand the past as best we can, it’s foolish to live in it. Especially when our misconceptions about the past feed our resentments in the present, which is the case imo with every nationalist movement ever.

These ancient tribal enmities are exactly what it was hoped the EU would resolve, from Armagh to Alsace and Azerbaijan. Reviving a sense of grievance about Culloden, The Battle of The Boyne or Trafalgar helps no one. Especially when the enmity comes from Americans, who funded a civil conflict in Ireland which with all due respect, they had **** all experience or understanding of.

Saying that 'Americans funded a civil conflict' is either a complete overstatement or deliberately disingenuous.

And American influence was also important in getting Sinn Fein to sign Peace Accords at the start of this millenium.

 

[LuisDantas]

If a policy isn't working as intended, then people will be inclined towards changing it. That's ostensibly what the community members demanded - a change in policy. You seem to be suggesting that the change they made was unreasonable and irresponsible.

I am stating that outright, rather.

Clearly many a British person concluded that membership in the EU was harmful or at least reasonably suspicious.

On what grounds besides the ferocious smear campaign from the likes of the Sun, the Telegraph and the Spectator, that I just don't know. Part of it has to be lack of information about the reasons for EU membership and the benefits that came from that.

All my sources make it very clear that there is and never was a good rationale for expecting Brexit to be helpful for the UK. Unless you are a supporter of Irish unification or Scottish independente, I suppose. Or a Tory politician seeking visibility with no regard for the cost paid by the community. Or someone like Nigel Farage or whoever earns money from the average British newspaper. Or GB News...

 

[Rival]

Clearly many a British person concluded that membership in the EU was harmful or at least reasonably suspicious.

On what grounds besides the ferocious smear campaign from the likes of the Sun, the Telegraph and the Spectator, that I just don't know.

Our local realities. Our poverty, our suffering, out joblessness, our lack of mobility. We voted based on the social issues affecting us. Isn't that what everyone does?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Saying that 'Americans funded a civil conflict' is either a complete overstatement or deliberately disingenuous.

And American influence was also important in getting Sinn Fein to sign Peace Accords at the start of this millenium.

Throughout the 70s and 80s, almost every bar in Boston and New York with a shamrock over the door had a NORAID collection tin sitting on the bar, so I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say private US citizens helped fund that conflict. NORAID was ostensibly raising money for charitable causes in Ireland, but it was widely known by everyone where that money was going.

NORAID - Wikipedia

While the US certainly helped persuade Sinn Fein to sign up to Good Friday Agreements, it’s no coincidence that the chair of the International Commitee on Decommissioning was the Canadian John de Chastelain; a US chairman would never have been acceptable as an honest broker, to certain parties to that agreement.