Brexit

[ruffrecords]

A two thirds majority is needed in parliament first though.

Very likely to get it

Anyway, elections should have been earlier, actually right after the referendum, as the election was also a vote against the ruling elite in Britain . British democracy seem to be taking it yet another notch down in my books.

It was a vote to tell the powers to leave the EU, not to call an election

First the referendum campaigning on both sides -- then the decision to treat a decision that was close in votes (but clearly less than the majority of the entire population) as the 'will of the people' -- then the attempt to circumvent any say of parliament and lords in the process -- and now new elections for self-serving objectives.

We have three major parties. Every election, the party that gets into power was voted for by less than 50% of the population that voted. AT least the referendum vote was more than 50% of those who voted. I have no sympathy for those who did not vote. I you cannot be bothered to get off your backside you don't deserve a voice.

I really fail to see how this is democracy in all its glory.

It never was and never will be perfect. If you have a demonstrably method of government I wold love to hear it.

Cheers

Ian

 

[DaveP]

then the decision to treat a decision that was close in votes (but clearly less than the majority of the entire population) as the 'will of the people' -- then the attempt to circumvent any say of parliament and lords in the process -- and now new elections for self-serving objectives.  I really fail to see how this is democracy in all its glory.

I realise that you are watching events from some distance, so I will explain how I see the situation now, as it has moved on from last year.

The fact that the economy has survived and even prospered and there are prospects for worldwide trade has changed the national landscape.  Even as a remainer I have picked up that most people just want the business settled ASAP, the government knows this very well too.  The Parliament is made up of  members from a pre-Brexit era and their composition needs to change to reflect this new reality.  The house of Lords is anachronistic and not really relevant today and they have no business trying to change what the house of commons has decided.  They get £300/day just for clocking on.

I would guess that the proportion wanting to leave the EU has grown now rather than shrunk.  The public has made an assessment that Corbyn's labour party is unfit to govern itself, let alone the country, so May has judged correctly that an election now will reflect  current public opinion and give her the majority she needs to get things done without hindrance.

I think she is a very safe pair of hands and I will vote for her, any dyed in the wool remainers will vote Liberal Democrat.  Corbyn's relish for an election brings turkeys and Christmas to mind.  The liberals will gain from Labour as will the Conservatives.

The Labour party are perceived as caring more about LGBT rights than the working class voters (UK Deplorables) who helped form the Labour movement over 100 years ago, they have been completely infiltrated by Socialist Worker militants (Momentum).

DaveP

 

[micaddict]

any dyed in the wool remainers will vote Liberal Democrat

And maybe some "lazy" youngsters are awake by now?

 

[mattiasNYC]

Look at the alternative if Europeans had never intervened in any way whatsoever.  The  people would have been left as a living  stone age museum exhibit, much like the Amazonian tribes now.  The population would have been kept stable by the food supply and unchecked and untreated disease at a much lower level than it is today.  The younger generation in Africa are embracing mobile phones and the internet, do you think they would have got there without colonisation and independence?

I just stumbled upon this again (clicked on read new posts, one which quoted the above), and it's fairly mind-boggling.....

I just can't resist asking just what it is that make these Africans incapable of evolving their societies without the help of Europeans. Is it genetics?

If it's not, then you should possibly remember that the human species is all from Africa, and that all societies on this planet had far humbler origins yet all evolved.....

I'm genuinely curious about the assertion above because it smells incredibly foul.

 

[Script]

I have no sympathy for those who did not vote. I you cannot be bothered to get off your backside you don't deserve a voice.

That sounds a bit radical, but I am with you on this one. If people can't be bothered to speak up... But that's not the point.

It was a vote to tell the powers to leave the EU, not to call an election

Yes, that. And it was a vote against foreigners for some, and a vote to bash the political elite for others, and a vote against old-fashioned branches of industry withering for those resistant to change, and a vote on god knows what else.

See, in my books it had been and still is a question of legitimacy.  I don't have a better way of government, but I think that voting (in elections and referendums) should be obligatory. Mind you, I don't think that this would have changed the outcome of the referendum. However, it would have given the follow-up government a firmer stand in pushing it through. Rule out doubt!That's what I'm referring to.

#

The fact that the economy has survived and even prospered...

Never thought it would not survive. But still not so sure about the prospering part. I said it before/elsewhere: Look at Japan and how they have tried to fire up their inflation for the good of the country. Well, it sure looks good on paper, but on paper only... I hate to quote Farage, but he had a point when he said that looking only at GDP numbers (all economic data for that matter) is nothing but a fetish.

The Parliament is made up of  members from a pre-Brexit era and their composition needs to change to reflect this new reality.

Exactly the reason why elections would have been in order directly after the referendum (which from a legal POV was never more than advisory, no matter what Cameron promised). As I said, it is a matter of legitimacy versus doubt -- and as such not so great for democracy.

 

[Script]

P.S.: Don't get me started on the state of democracy in Japan...

 

[JohnRoberts]

I just stumbled upon this again (clicked on read new posts, one which quoted the above), and it's fairly mind-boggling.....

I just can't resist asking just what it is that make these Africans incapable of evolving their societies without the help of Europeans. Is it genetics?

If it's not, then you should possibly remember that the human species is all from Africa, and that all societies on this planet had far humbler origins yet all evolved.....

I'm genuinely curious about the assertion above because it smells incredibly foul.

Arguing about hypotheticals is another waste of time, while I concede it might be amusing to ponder the pros and cons of colonialism after the fact.  India can point to their colonial past as the source of their democracy (and IPA beer), while colonial adventurism was mostly about exploiting somebody else's resources on the cheap. Any cultural exchange is mostly incidental, while missionaries seem like they are on missions (probably an even more dangerous job these days).

That said free trade (not colonial taking) tends to improve both trading economies (as described in "Wealth of Nations"), and cultural exchanges ancillary to the trade of goods likewise helps both cultures (generally while purists might disagree).

I have been following progress (or lack of) in Africa for years and they have unique challenges. Under developed regions will likely leapfrog some of the typical western infrastructure build out... When everyone is using wireless phones you don't need physical phone lines and telephone poles. When solar and wind power is used locally massive power distribution grids are less important.  There are projects with micro-banking performed over smart phones, not requiring that conventional bricks and mortar infrastructure. 

Africa is a huge continent with many different countries in different stages of development so it is not fair to generalize about stereotypical residents. I suspect their future will likely develop differently than ours, or we might predict.

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

I realise that you are watching events from some distance, so I will explain how I see the situation now, as it has moved on from last year.

DaveP

I think that is a fair and likely accurate summary.

Cheers

ian

 

[ruffrecords]

See, in my books it had been and still is a question of legitimacy.  I don't have a better way of government, but I think that voting (in elections and referendums) should be obligatory. Mind you, I don't think that this would have changed the outcome of the referendum. However, it would have given the follow-up government a firmer stand in pushing it through. Rule out doubt!That's what I'm referring to.

In a free society people have to be free to vote or not. If you force everyone to vote (I think they do this in Australia) you really need to give them the option to abstain if none of the choices is to their liking. Not voting is effectively that. In which case I think the referendum result would be largely unchanged. Those who cared voted and vice versa.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Script]

In a free society people have to be free to vote or not. If you force everyone to vote (I think they do this in Australia) you really need to give them the option to abstain if none of the choices is to their liking.

That's really a no-brainer. Say candidates A or B.. You could check A or B or both or none. Gets more interesting with three options.

Difference is that we'd have it in numbers. And we all know that numbers have that certain magic to them. It might help rule out doubt, prevent people from complaining afterwards, and even allow for different ways of summing votes (e.g.: A or C, but definitely not B).

Apart from that the question of legitimacy in the Brexit case still stands (from a politological point of view). -- I'm sure it will be noted in future history books, best alongside a note on how Britain joined in the first place. Probably two cases of the end justifying the 'means' (or rather political 'procedures') and where democracy didn't really shine.

Anyway, now I'm looking forward to the outcome of the elections (good luck with that) and hope that Britain will then strike the best deals for themselves and everybody else.

 

[tands]

If we want more globalization, we must either give up some democracy or some national sovereignty. Pretending that we can have all three simultaneously leaves us in an unstable no-man’s land.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/brexit-sophies-choice.html

 

[DaveP]

I just can't resist asking just what it is that make these Africans incapable of evolving their societies without the help of Europeans. Is it genetics?

If it's not, then you should possibly remember that the human species is all from Africa, and that all societies on this planet had far humbler origins yet all evolved.....

I'm genuinely curious about the assertion above because it smells incredibly foul.

Well I suggest you put the lid back on the pot named prejudice.

I am not suggesting that Africans are incapable of evolving on their own account, they are just as smart as anyone else.  What you need to ask is what made the Africans who left Africa 50,000 years ago evolve more quickly than those who stayed behind.  (yes, I do believe that we are all related via the Y Chromosome Adam and the Mitochondrial Eve).

Maybe it's because Europeans / Asians mated with Neanderthals, whereas Africans didn't, or maybe the difficulties in communicating in Africa over such vast distances, held up exchange of ideas?  Maybe it was the challenge of moving into a new environment after the receding ice?  Who knows, but the fact remains that it gave them an extra several hundred years of technological development by the time the colonial movement started.  I have no time for racial prejudice, but I don't deny that I detest cultures that repress, mutilate and subjugate women, they need to move on.

I hope that settles your mind

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

Well I suggest you put the lid back on the pot named prejudice.

I am not suggesting that Africans are incapable of evolving on their own account, they are just as smart as anyone else.  What you need to ask is what made the Africans who left Africa 50,000 years ago evolve more quickly than those who stayed behind.  (yes, I do believe that we are all related via the Y Chromosome Adam and the Mitochondrial Eve).

Maybe it's because Europeans / Asians mated with Neanderthals, whereas Africans didn't, or maybe the difficulties in communicating in Africa over such vast distances, held up exchange of ideas?  Maybe it was the challenge of moving into a new environment after the receding ice?  Who knows, but the fact remains that it gave them an extra several hundred years of technological development by the time the colonial movement started.  I have no time for racial prejudice, but I don't deny that I detest cultures that repress, mutilate and subjugate women, they need to move on.

I hope that settles your mind

DaveP

No it doesn't. It still reeks of prejudice. You leap effortlessly from "I have no time for racial prejudice, but" to "cultures that repress" etc. That after hinting at possible mating with Neanderthals puts the ball in the biology court right away.

You just have to forgive me, but as a darkie it all just smells foul. The "conservative" ancestor of colonialists talking about the virtues of colonialism because where else would these poor sods have been had it not been for colonialism?

 

[DaveP]

Matt,
I don't know if my words will ever convince you, you seem determined to follow the liberal dogma no matter what.

I gave you a range of possible reasons why Europeans were more advanced technologically 200-300 years ago, genetics might be one but it could have been something no-one has thought of yet, but it's irrelevant to this conversation.  It is just a fact that they were, otherwise they would have been destroyed in Africa and America and Australia.

You are sensitive because you are of African descent,  but we all are in fact.  I have worked in Africa and I  realised that horrible as the process of colonisation was, the results were not all bad for later generations, that is it period.  I see it as an unpleasant kick-start, but no doubt Africans could have got there on their own eventually too.

DaveP

 

[ruffrecords]

Anyway, now I'm looking forward to the outcome of the elections (good luck with that) and hope that Britain will then strike the best deals for themselves and everybody else.

Well Teresa has now begun to set out her manifesto and it is headlined by Brexit. So labour and the lib dems will be pledging to remain. Brexit has been debated endlessly since the referendum so nobody can say they have not had enough time or info to make up their mind.

Cheers

Ian

 

[mattiasNYC]

Matt,
I don't know if my words will ever convince you, you seem determined to follow the liberal dogma no matter what.

"liberal dogma"? If that isn't irony I don't know what is.

 

[JohnRoberts]

You are sensitive because you are of African descent,  but we all are in fact.

DaveP

I like that.... the genetic difference between black and white (or whatever labels are PC these days) are minimal, only affecting a handful of genes, and tell more about "where" people lived than who they are.  We're all brothers from pretty much the same great great great great... grandmother.

Humans do show some phenotypic and genotypic variation by geographical  origin. Geographic isolation after human migrations, and natural or sexual  selection, have resulted in some alleles being more frequent in some groups that in others, and ancestry determines the distribution of these gene variants, but this is only for a few genes. That is basically the whole concept of "race" from a biological point of view. It is a fuzzy one, because there is no precise demarcation between ethnic groups, as humans have been migrating and moving around the globe for a long time, in different migratory waves.

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-genetic-differences-between-races

The racial enmity seems to be a purely cultural construct (not based on science and biology).  We don't have to perpetuate this ugliness.

JR

PS: Genetic differences and similarities resulted from geography (where people lived for multiple generations). As we have become more mobile and intermarry between different geographical regions, the genome becomes even more diverse and diffuse. Race will eventually disappear as a notable distinction, while some will cling to it. There are even white people claiming to be black because that is how they self identify for whatever reason.

 

[fazer]

Dan Carlin and his History podcast has a segment that stuck with me. 

"What will the world look like in a thousand years?  The world will be brown. "

I'm paraphrasing but something to that affect.  How else could it go?  It somehow makes me feel more connected thinking about this.

 

[ruffrecords]

Dan Carlin and his History podcast has a segment that stuck with me. 

"What will the world look like in a thousand years?  The world will be brown. "

I'm paraphrasing but something to that affect.  How else could it go?  It somehow makes me feel more connected thinking about this.

That would be nice. It would be nice not to burn up in the sun.

Cheers

Ian

 

[sahib]

I gave you a range of possible reasons why Europeans were more advanced technologically 200-300 years ago, genetics might be one but it could have been something no-one has thought of yet, but it's irrelevant to this conversation.  It is just a fact that they were, otherwise they would have been destroyed in Africa and America and Australia.

Agreed.

Culture, socio-economic needs .... and so on. There can be gazillions of big and small reasons but the main part is the genetics.

Re-wind back 500 years. Europeans were nowhere near  technologically and scientifically as advanced as Arabs.

Obviously it would be idiotic to underplay da Vinci's genious but comparing to Al-Jazere he was a 'Johny come lately'  when it came to mechanical inventions. Al-Jazere invented the water pump but what matters is that how come the oil was first explored with European technology.?

Europeans learned zero from Arabs but how come Napier or Gauss did not come out of Arabia?

One of my family members' PhD thesis was the transcription of a 500 year old astronomy book in Ottoman (which uses different alphabet than modern Turkish). At that time peoples' heads were chopped off in Europe for daring to suggest that world was round . But how come Americans (essentially European descent) ended up in moon?

Of course one might argue that Einstein was Jewish, hence had Arabic in his DNA. A serious academic research also suggested that da Vinci's mother was Turkish ( I knew it!!!! ;D ) but do these make them Arabic or Turkish?  I don't think so.