Should we be getting behind Brexit by boycotting German cars
Discussion
RobM77 said:
Yes, indeed. It's shocking that the chain of events actually happened. If that's what's open for all to see, god knows what goes on in the background.
With regard to my analogy, yes, patients do get to decide for themselves what happens to them, if they are of sane enough mind. However, misleading or lying even at a fraction of the magnitude Farage et al did is illegal. It's the same with PPI (as we all know!), so I've no idea how it's ok for Farage to lie like that with an issue of such importance. You may have voted for genuine reasons, but what percentage of leave voters did do you think, and what percentage were swayed by the constant lies? If that gullible group is only 1% of leave voters, then we're leaving the EU on the basis of lies, and I think that is unacceptable.
To return that analogy again, patients alone have the ability to decide their future, if they are capable. In the referendum though, you decided my future and my family's future, not just your own. If such decisions have to be made for us, then I'd rather they were made through intelligent debate by experts, rather than the general public. What right does a bricklayer, lawyer or dentist have to decide whether I have to pay higher taxes, lose my job working for an EU company, or the ability to freely work, live and study all over Europe? How about the people of Cornwall, who receive £60m a year in funding to combat the London centric UK politic? Or all the people on help to buy schemes that are funded by EU banks? The classic problem with democracy has always been how to deal with the interests of minority groups against the will of the majority. To use another analogy, imagine if we had a referendum to decide whether people under 5'5" get a pension or not - being over that height, how would you vote? To stop the selfish majority getting carried away, we have a clearly defined set of checks and measures and a system of representative democracy founded on debate, which was all silenced in this instance to allow Brexit through (as described above). The fact that the government ended up in the high court in their attempts tells us all we need to know!
Amen! Such decisions should never be left directly to the public. We forget that the majority of people didn't have a clue back then what the repercussions were of either decision, and most of them still don't. Some are so deluded that they think that by boycotting German cars we'd all of a sudden be better off!With regard to my analogy, yes, patients do get to decide for themselves what happens to them, if they are of sane enough mind. However, misleading or lying even at a fraction of the magnitude Farage et al did is illegal. It's the same with PPI (as we all know!), so I've no idea how it's ok for Farage to lie like that with an issue of such importance. You may have voted for genuine reasons, but what percentage of leave voters did do you think, and what percentage were swayed by the constant lies? If that gullible group is only 1% of leave voters, then we're leaving the EU on the basis of lies, and I think that is unacceptable.
To return that analogy again, patients alone have the ability to decide their future, if they are capable. In the referendum though, you decided my future and my family's future, not just your own. If such decisions have to be made for us, then I'd rather they were made through intelligent debate by experts, rather than the general public. What right does a bricklayer, lawyer or dentist have to decide whether I have to pay higher taxes, lose my job working for an EU company, or the ability to freely work, live and study all over Europe? How about the people of Cornwall, who receive £60m a year in funding to combat the London centric UK politic? Or all the people on help to buy schemes that are funded by EU banks? The classic problem with democracy has always been how to deal with the interests of minority groups against the will of the majority. To use another analogy, imagine if we had a referendum to decide whether people under 5'5" get a pension or not - being over that height, how would you vote? To stop the selfish majority getting carried away, we have a clearly defined set of checks and measures and a system of representative democracy founded on debate, which was all silenced in this instance to allow Brexit through (as described above). The fact that the government ended up in the high court in their attempts tells us all we need to know!
Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 19th October 14:15
RobM77 said:
Yes, indeed. It's shocking that the chain of events actually happened. If that's what's open for all to see, god knows what goes on in the background.
With regard to my analogy, yes, patients do get to decide for themselves what happens to them, if they are of sane enough mind. However, misleading or lying even at a fraction of the magnitude Farage et al did is illegal. It's the same with PPI (as we all know!), so I've no idea how it's ok for Farage to lie like that with an issue of such importance. You may have voted for genuine reasons, but what percentage of leave voters did do you think, and what percentage were swayed by the constant lies? If that gullible group is only 1% of leave voters, then we're leaving the EU on the basis of lies, and I think that is unacceptable.
To return that analogy again, patients alone have the ability to decide their future, if they are capable. In the referendum though, you decided my future and my family's future, not just your own. If such decisions have to be made for us, then I'd rather they were made through intelligent debate by experts, rather than the general public. What right does a bricklayer, lawyer or dentist have to decide whether I have to pay higher taxes, lose my job working for an EU company, or the ability to freely work, live and study all over Europe? How about the people of Cornwall, who receive £60m a year in funding to combat the London centric UK politic? Or all the people on help to buy schemes that are funded by EU banks? The classic problem with democracy has always been how to deal with the interests of minority groups against the will of the majority. To use another analogy, imagine if we had a referendum to decide whether people under 5'5" get a pension or not - being over that height, how would you vote? To stop the selfish majority getting carried away, we have a clearly defined set of checks and measures and a system of representative democracy founded on debate, which was all silenced in this instance to allow Brexit through (as described above). The fact that the government ended up in the high court in their attempts tells us all we need to know!
While you are free to vote on the basis that you think you know what is best for everyone that is not really the idea. You may choose to vote in a way which you believe will be somewhat disadvantageous to yourself, but of benefit to many because you believe that is morally correct, doing so in a sense is still for your own benefit if it helps you sleep at night. In the end you vote the way you do for your own personal reasons, in the case of the EU referendum the situation is so complex that there is no way to even define what is best anyway, some kind of balance between highest average standard of living and smallest standard deviation of said?With regard to my analogy, yes, patients do get to decide for themselves what happens to them, if they are of sane enough mind. However, misleading or lying even at a fraction of the magnitude Farage et al did is illegal. It's the same with PPI (as we all know!), so I've no idea how it's ok for Farage to lie like that with an issue of such importance. You may have voted for genuine reasons, but what percentage of leave voters did do you think, and what percentage were swayed by the constant lies? If that gullible group is only 1% of leave voters, then we're leaving the EU on the basis of lies, and I think that is unacceptable.
To return that analogy again, patients alone have the ability to decide their future, if they are capable. In the referendum though, you decided my future and my family's future, not just your own. If such decisions have to be made for us, then I'd rather they were made through intelligent debate by experts, rather than the general public. What right does a bricklayer, lawyer or dentist have to decide whether I have to pay higher taxes, lose my job working for an EU company, or the ability to freely work, live and study all over Europe? How about the people of Cornwall, who receive £60m a year in funding to combat the London centric UK politic? Or all the people on help to buy schemes that are funded by EU banks? The classic problem with democracy has always been how to deal with the interests of minority groups against the will of the majority. To use another analogy, imagine if we had a referendum to decide whether people under 5'5" get a pension or not - being over that height, how would you vote? To stop the selfish majority getting carried away, we have a clearly defined set of checks and measures and a system of representative democracy founded on debate, which was all silenced in this instance to allow Brexit through (as described above). The fact that the government ended up in the high court in their attempts tells us all we need to know!
Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 19th October 14:15
If anything it was the supposedly better informed that failed to set sensible parameters for the use of the outcome of the referendum that decided your and your families future. These are the people you think would be able to formulate a plan for that is best for everyone?
Edited by Toltec on Thursday 19th October 15:26
sonnenschein3000 said:
I think you should just buy the car you like/suits your needs best regardless of the country it was made in / the country of the brand.
You narrow your choice down by involving politics, and it won't benefit you in any way.
You narrow your choice down by involving politics, and it won't benefit you in any way.
I'd hope that's what most people do! I've no idea why the OP thinks it's fair to abuse VW, Audi, Porshe or BMW to get at Merkel and then in turn to get at the EU. That's a rather immoral path to what he or she wants in my humble opinion.crankedup said:
Killboy said:
Just wondering, those that want to leave, would you agree Scotland should leave the UK? I'm guessing they could really just use the same arguments?
They should hold a referendum and act upon the outcome, oh, hang on. sec'!
My question is, would those moaning abut sovereignty and foreign rule back the Scots for wanting to leave? Or is it somehow different?
sonnenschein3000 said:
I think you should just buy the car you like/suits your needs best regardless of the country it was made in / the country of the brand.
You narrow your choice down by involving politics, and it won't benefit you in any way.
What? And miss out on making sarcastic remarks about the electrics/reliability/solidity of French or Italian cars off at every opportunity...?!?You narrow your choice down by involving politics, and it won't benefit you in any way.
Toltec said:
RobM77 said:
Yes, indeed. It's shocking that the chain of events actually happened. If that's what's open for all to see, god knows what goes on in the background.
With regard to my analogy, yes, patients do get to decide for themselves what happens to them, if they are of sane enough mind. However, misleading or lying even at a fraction of the magnitude Farage et al did is illegal. It's the same with PPI (as we all know!), so I've no idea how it's ok for Farage to lie like that with an issue of such importance. You may have voted for genuine reasons, but what percentage of leave voters did do you think, and what percentage were swayed by the constant lies? If that gullible group is only 1% of leave voters, then we're leaving the EU on the basis of lies, and I think that is unacceptable.
To return that analogy again, patients alone have the ability to decide their future, if they are capable. In the referendum though, you decided my future and my family's future, not just your own. If such decisions have to be made for us, then I'd rather they were made through intelligent debate by experts, rather than the general public. What right does a bricklayer, lawyer or dentist have to decide whether I have to pay higher taxes, lose my job working for an EU company, or the ability to freely work, live and study all over Europe? How about the people of Cornwall, who receive £60m a year in funding to combat the London centric UK politic? Or all the people on help to buy schemes that are funded by EU banks? The classic problem with democracy has always been how to deal with the interests of minority groups against the will of the majority. To use another analogy, imagine if we had a referendum to decide whether people under 5'5" get a pension or not - being over that height, how would you vote? To stop the selfish majority getting carried away, we have a clearly defined set of checks and measures and a system of representative democracy founded on debate, which was all silenced in this instance to allow Brexit through (as described above). The fact that the government ended up in the high court in their attempts tells us all we need to know!
While you are free to vote on the basis that you think you know what is best for everyone that is not really the idea. You may choose to vote in a way which you believe will be somewhat disadvantageous to yourself, but of benefit to many because you believe that is morally correct, doing so in a sense is still for your own benefit if it helps you sleep at night. In the end you vote the way you do for your own personal reasons, in the case of the EU referendum the situation is so complex that there is no way to even define what is best anyway, some kind of balance between highest average standard of living and smallest standard deviation of said?With regard to my analogy, yes, patients do get to decide for themselves what happens to them, if they are of sane enough mind. However, misleading or lying even at a fraction of the magnitude Farage et al did is illegal. It's the same with PPI (as we all know!), so I've no idea how it's ok for Farage to lie like that with an issue of such importance. You may have voted for genuine reasons, but what percentage of leave voters did do you think, and what percentage were swayed by the constant lies? If that gullible group is only 1% of leave voters, then we're leaving the EU on the basis of lies, and I think that is unacceptable.
To return that analogy again, patients alone have the ability to decide their future, if they are capable. In the referendum though, you decided my future and my family's future, not just your own. If such decisions have to be made for us, then I'd rather they were made through intelligent debate by experts, rather than the general public. What right does a bricklayer, lawyer or dentist have to decide whether I have to pay higher taxes, lose my job working for an EU company, or the ability to freely work, live and study all over Europe? How about the people of Cornwall, who receive £60m a year in funding to combat the London centric UK politic? Or all the people on help to buy schemes that are funded by EU banks? The classic problem with democracy has always been how to deal with the interests of minority groups against the will of the majority. To use another analogy, imagine if we had a referendum to decide whether people under 5'5" get a pension or not - being over that height, how would you vote? To stop the selfish majority getting carried away, we have a clearly defined set of checks and measures and a system of representative democracy founded on debate, which was all silenced in this instance to allow Brexit through (as described above). The fact that the government ended up in the high court in their attempts tells us all we need to know!
Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 19th October 14:15
If anything it was the supposedly better informed that failed to set sensible parameters for the use of the outcome of the referendum that decided your and your families future. These are the people you think would be able to formulate a plan for what is best for everyone?
As I said though, I'd rather the consensus of experts decided out future, rather than relying on them to sell it to the public, who then vote. A showman like Farage or Johnson is far better at selling things to people than a bunch of dry experts in grey suits. That's how Hitler's regime flourished, so there's a good precedence! As you can tell, I'm not a fan of politics...
TooMany2cvs said:
I know somebody who had no real opinion either way, but voted Leave because "I like Boris, he makes me laugh"...
And I'm sure you'll find plenty of folks who voted Remain because the orange lady 'expert' from the IMF told them it would be 'very very bad' if they didn't.fido said:
TooMany2cvs said:
I know somebody who had no real opinion either way, but voted Leave because "I like Boris, he makes me laugh"...
And I'm sure you'll find plenty of folks who voted Remain because the orange lady 'expert' from the IMF told them it would be 'very very bad' if they didn't.RobM77 said:
As you can tell, I'm not a fan of politics...
Neither am I, well, politicians anyway or bureaucracies for that matter.A meritocracy, as you suggest, may well be better than a democracy, though most of the current incumbants would form something more akin to an oligarchy. An enlightened or benevolent dictatorship may also work, unfortunately human nature being what it is this seems unlikely. These themes are often explored in science fiction, perhaps the closest thing to an ideal is approached in the Culture novels by Iain Banks or Polity novels by Neal Asher, in both cases AIs are running the show.
nickfrog said:
fido said:
TooMany2cvs said:
I know somebody who had no real opinion either way, but voted Leave because "I like Boris, he makes me laugh"...
And I'm sure you'll find plenty of folks who voted Remain because the orange lady 'expert' from the IMF told them it would be 'very very bad' if they didn't.Just thought I'd add an article...https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/13/imf-warns-stock-market-crash-house-price-fall-eu-referendum-brexit
Anyone experienced a stock market crash yet?
Edited by London424 on Thursday 19th October 15:55
TooMany2cvs said:
RobM77 said:
Oh yes, absolutely, how we decide on our vote is up to us.
I know somebody who had no real opinion either way, but voted Leave because "I like Boris, he makes me laugh"...http://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/what...
Clearly an awful lot of people hadn't got a clue what they were voting for.
RobM77 said:
The day after the referendum, the second most googled phrase in the UK was "what is the EU?"...
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/what...
Clearly an awful lot of people hadn't got a clue what they were voting for.
Mother of Christ.http://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/what...
Clearly an awful lot of people hadn't got a clue what they were voting for.
How on earth had people got through the preceding months without even briefly wondering what all the fuss was about...?
Here we are still trying to quantify last years referendum.
The same old tired arguments about people not knowing what they were voting on, that leave voters didn't know their arse from their elbow, that the only progressive way forward for the world was more EU.............
That vote is done, we are leaving the EU in March 2019, it would be far more constructive to talk about what the future brings and how to read the politics of the now than continuously tell everyone your view on a vote that is history.
Can we please move the debate on?
The same old tired arguments about people not knowing what they were voting on, that leave voters didn't know their arse from their elbow, that the only progressive way forward for the world was more EU.............
That vote is done, we are leaving the EU in March 2019, it would be far more constructive to talk about what the future brings and how to read the politics of the now than continuously tell everyone your view on a vote that is history.
Can we please move the debate on?
TooMany2cvs said:
jsf said:
we are leaving the EU in March 2019
Probably.jsf said:
it would be far more constructive to talk about what the future brings and how to read the politics of the now
Which would just be guesswork. Pure, 100% guesswork, with very little substance to base it on.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff