Brexit

Lucien wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Photek wrote:

Garth wrote:

twitter.com/eucopresident/status/953190235948666880

A tweet that will enrage Brexiteers.

It should annoy more than leave voters. That tweet is a condescending and disrespectful statement against a democratic decision a country made (the decision and country are mostly irrelevant).

It’s not condescending, disrespectful or anti-democratic.

I think it is condescending and disrespectful. If you don't think it is then fair enough.

In what way is it condescending or disrespectful? Because it states that Brexit will have negative consequences? (Which it demonstrably will?)

I am anti this kind of democracy. We shouldn't have had a vote on Brexit any more than we should have a vote on bringing back hanging or kicking out brown people or nuking France for lols. The typical voter is a wanker and that's why we have a representative parliament rather than a direct democracy.

But even from my perspective, it's not anti-democracy to inform a country that it could change course if it wants to.

It's not anti-democracy to ask a country "Are you really sure?" after a large but not total percentage [Was it 72%?] of a fundamentally misinformed populace [NHS bus!] vote on an issue they don't understand [Bendy bananas!] to achieve goals that won't actually be achieved [Hard border! Control immigration! Send the Polish back!] while powerful people tell them that they will be better off even though they won't [Sick of experts!].

It's not anti-democracy to have a second vote if opinion polls suggest public sentiment is swinging the other way.

Lucien wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:In what way is it condescending or disrespectful?

It's talking down to a subject (a sovereign nation in this case) saying effectively "Your decision is wrong. We're still here with the right way". If he'd not put the "with all its negative consequences" it'd have been passable.

The decision is wrong, though. It is wrong because of those "negative consequences". Imagine if he said "yeah, you'll be alright without us I'm sure, but the door is always open for you to change your minds". That would have been condescending.

Brexit almost makes me wish the ability to vote was a privilege locked behind a test of understanding the issues rather than a right given to everyone above a certain age.

So your issue is his pointing out the factual reality that Brexit will have, and has already had, negative consequences?

Lucien wrote:

Karl wrote:I am anti this kind of democracy. We shouldn't have had a vote on Brexit any more than we should have a vote on bringing back hanging or kicking out brown people or nuking France for lols. The typical voter is a wanker and that's why we have a representative parliament rather than a direct democracy.

Deciding the politcal system your country has is different to nuking France.

You're right. If it were a small nuke and it went off in unpopulated countryside, it's conceivable that nuking France would have no long-term impact on France's economy or standard of living.

There's sod all wrong with direct democracy or referendums as long as what people are voting on is strictly defined and the result isn't open to differing interpretations.


Having a referendum to bring back hanging as a punishment for murdering a child? That's fine, even if I wouldn't be in favour of such a measure.


Having a referendum to bring back hanging on some crimes but we haven't decided which ones yet? Shouldn't be put to a referendum.

In Ireland we are going to have a referendum this year about finally getting rid of our stupid tooth fairy law governing abortion and it's probably going to be a horrible, bitter and divisive campaign. When all is said and done though people will be going to the polling station and voting on a very clearly defined question. There won't be room for politicians to use the result as a way to push through their own agenda after the fact. That's how referendums should be.


The whole idea that there shouldnt be referendums because some people are arseholes/thick is something I fundamentally disagree with.

Lucien wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:The decision is wrong, though. It is wrong because of those "negative consequences". Imagine if he said "yeah, you'll be alright without us I'm sure, but the door is always open for you to change your minds". That would have been condescending.

I thought you'd say that. You're too caught up in your subjective opinion of Brexit to see the more objective reality of Tusk's comment. If you remove your bias and think it's not disrespectful however that's fine.

Come off it. I suspect it's far more to do with your Brexit bias that you're somehow finding this tweet patronising.

Thick people to tend to think people talk down to them a lot for some reason. So I can imagine Brexiteers will feel that way.

And all those world leaders telling off North Korea are being really patronising too. They should stop being so smug and condescending and let the North Koreans do whatever they want in their own sovereign state.

Lucien wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:The decision is wrong, though. It is wrong because of those "negative consequences". Imagine if he said "yeah, you'll be alright without us I'm sure, but the door is always open for you to change your minds". That would have been condescending.

I thought you'd say that. You're too caught up in your subjective opinion of Brexit to see the more objective reality of Tusk's comment. If you remove your bias and think it's not disrespectful however that's fine.

Come off it. I suspect it's far more to do with your Brexit bias that you're somehow finding this tweet patronising.

I'd have found it patronising if any nation did it to another, and my opinion of the decision being right or wrong wouldn't matter. If Theresa May stood up and talked down a nation joining the EU (for example) I'd find it similarly disrespectful.

This might be a daft question but here goes: do you disagree that Brexit will bring negative consequences, and if so why?

Lucien wrote:It's talking down to a subject (a sovereign nation in this case) saying effectively "Your decision is wrong. We're still here with the right way". If he'd not put the "with all its negative consequences" it'd have been passable.

I read his quote in the BBC article earlier, I read negative consequences as referring to both the UK and Europe. I can see it being a more distasteful comment if he meant it as negative only for the UK. There are negative affects on both parties, so I took it as "if you change your mind that'd be great for all of us" rather than "you should change your mind or else".

Hexx wrote:Thick people to tend to think people talk down to them a lot for some reason. So I can imagine Brexiteers will feel that way.

This, I've no skin in the game (anymore) but I never thought the tweet was 'talking down' to anyone, I also think it was sincere, nobody in Europe wants this to happen.

Lucien wrote:

Karl wrote:And all those world leaders telling off North Korea are being really patronising too. They should stop being so smug and condescending and let the North Koreans do whatever they want in their own sovereign state.

I said on the last page not all decisions are equal, so there was no need to give an example like the above; as I said to you previously, choosing a political system is not the same as nuking France.

Yeah, this is my bad. Usually when I use a hyperbolic example I get a chuckle and maybe people have a little think about why their position is so readily compared to absurd scenarios. But you've defeated me and I crown you King of Deliberately Misunderstanding Arguments on the Internet.

Let's break this down:
1. No, Brexit isn't the same as a nuclear war. (It's also not the same as abject racism - though there was plenty of implied racism from EDL skinheads in the guise of 'controlling immigration' that seeped into the debate! - or bringing back hanging.) My point was that both of these things are or would be considered ridiculous by experts who understand them - as they are both pointless acts of petty nationalism that damage both us and our neighbours - and so neither should be put to plebiscite (to allow people who don't understand them to vote on them) in the first place.
2. No, the UK isn't the same as North Korea. World leaders commenting on the actions of other world leaders and on other prominent geopolitical issues is a part of global politics. All the more so if those issues directly affect the people they represent or lead. This is why it's OK for the EU to continue to officially comment that they feel the UK is making a bad decision. It's also why it's OK for various world leaders to tell North Korea to do one.

I spent ten minutes of my working day explaining this and I'm not sure I preferred it to doing actual work.

Though I did go have a pee in the middle of writing it so at least something productive came of it.

Karl wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Karl wrote:And all those world leaders telling off North Korea are being really patronising too. They should stop being so smug and condescending and let the North Koreans do whatever they want in their own sovereign state.

I said on the last page not all decisions are equal, so there was no need to give an example like the above; as I said to you previously, choosing a political system is not the same as nuking France.

Yeah, this is my bad. Usually when I use a hyperbolic example I get a chuckle and maybe people have a little think about why their position is so readily compared to absurd scenarios. But you've defeated me and I crown you King of Deliberately Misunderstanding Arguments on the Internet.

Let's break this down:
1. No, Brexit isn't the same as a nuclear war. (It's also not the same as abject racism - though there was plenty of implied racism from EDL skinheads in the guise of 'controlling immigration' that seeped into the debate! - or bringing back hanging.) My point was that both of these things are or would be considered ridiculous by experts who understand them - as they are both pointless acts of petty nationalism that damage both us and our neighbours - and so neither should be put to plebiscite (to allow people who don't understand them to vote on them) in the first place.
2. No, the UK isn't the same as North Korea. World leaders commenting on the actions of other world leaders and on other prominent geopolitical issues is a part of global politics. All the more so if those issues directly affect the people they represent or lead. This is why it's OK for the EU to continue to officially comment that they feel the UK is making a bad decision. It's also why it's OK for various world leaders to tell North Korea to do one.

I spent ten minutes of my working day explaining this and I'm not sure I preferred it to doing actual work.

I preferred reading it to doing actual work, if that helps.

Brexit is causing negative consequences for my mental health, that's for sure.

What positive consequences will it bring? The ability to negotiate a trade deal that lowers UK standards and takes years to actually negotiate before it can be implemented?
The ability to change our passport colour that we could always do anyway?
The ability to control migration from the EU that we could always do anyway?
The ability to become a tax haven with barely any financial regulation?

Lagamorph wrote:What positive consequences will it bring? The ability to negotiate a trade deal that lowers UK standards and takes years to actually negotiate before it can be implemented?
The ability to change our passport colour that we could always do anyway?
The ability to control migration from the EU that we could always do anyway?
The ability to become a tax haven with barely any financial regulation?

You deliberately left out the bendy bananas. Lefty snowflake bias confirmed.

Lucien wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:The decision is wrong, though. It is wrong because of those "negative consequences". Imagine if he said "yeah, you'll be alright without us I'm sure, but the door is always open for you to change your minds". That would have been condescending.

I thought you'd say that. You're too caught up in your subjective opinion of Brexit to see the more objective reality of Tusk's comment. If you remove your bias and think it's not disrespectful however that's fine.

Come off it. I suspect it's far more to do with your Brexit bias that you're somehow finding this tweet patronising.

I'd have found it patronising if any nation did it to another, and my opinion of the decision being right or wrong wouldn't matter. If Theresa May stood up and talked down a nation joining the EU (for example) I'd find it similarly disrespectful.

If thats your rule surely all politics is 'patronising', because all politics is about pushing a world view, whether you are a member of UKIP, the EU or the Labour party? Its so simplistic to call it patronising or disrespectful, because everyone pushes their own political agenda. To pretend the EU is pushing theirs and no-one else is can not be seen as anything BUT bias. I am not blind to Tusk pushing an agenda he wants to happen (because everyone does), but I have to put up with a Brexiteer agenda every waking day that I believe would have been better placed in a bin 18 months ago, so why shouldn't you be subjected to opposing views? I actively encourage the debate.

To start using words like traitorous, undermining etc....is just boiling politics down to a set of simplistic values, when politics is all about making hard calls every day. He can say anything he strawberry floating wants, as can May, Johnson, Gove.