Brexit

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    Voted, because the postal form turned up and I thought why not.
    The area I live is so tory, that voting for anyone else is a complete waste of time.

    So I picked someone who a) would support remain and b) who has zero chance of winning.
    But I'd have picked them anyway.

    But it's a local election and, however much significance the media give it, it's pretty meaningless.
    My vote will also make no difference to the outcome locally - so I only went because my OH wanted a lift. But you are wrong to think that it has no impact, it has a lot. Even if you ignore the fact that your local council spends quite a bit of your money and have one eye on the size of the opposition when they spend it then every party will be studying the results today and considering what it means for their policies. The EU elections will have a greater impact.

    Comment


      Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
      Dunno about you, but it's a lot more than I get paid, so a few weeks campaigning and then staying at home doesn't bring a bad reward...
      Like I said, that's a pretty good ulterior motive.

      Comment


        More gems from John. He makes a good point asking why Theresa would deliberately make herself so unpopular.
         I don't want Theresa May to disappear into well-deserved obscurity to save the Conservative Party. I want her dismissal to be a very important first step: the first step we take in abandoning denial of Alt State takeover, and starting the process of getting our free-speech Democracy back. That culture is under threat from narcissist…

        Comment


          How true is this: "In the Brave New World of blocs, there is no room for direct, free-speech democracy. There is no room for Presidents who defy the Military-Globalist-Surveillance State, or Prime Ministers who call a Referendum and then lose it, or Gilets Jaunes, or Italian Coalitions, or nationalists like Viktor Orban." In fact we are not even allowed to know about what is happening in Paris. Very interesting JKO. Not sure I buy the whole theory but thought provoking nonetheless.
          Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

          Comment


            What does "Military-Globalist-Surveillance State" mean?
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              Something about there being globalist pressure to divide the world into blocs and control the people so criticism is not allowed...as I say I don't buy the whole theory though there were stories a few weeks ago about the EU making criticism of itself a criminal offence...!
              Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

              Comment


                Googling " "Military Globalist Surveillance State" finds seven instances of the phrase.
                They're all copies of the same article.

                I can't make it mean anything.
                Who is it meant to refer to? A country or an international organisation or conspiracy?
                And which president defied it? (Trump, Kennedy?)

                What is the Alt State and how is it taking over?
                And what's that got to do with Brexit?
                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                  Googling " "Military Globalist Surveillance State" finds seven instances of the phrase.
                  They're all copies of the same article.

                  I can't make it mean anything.
                  Who is it meant to refer to? A country or an international organisation or conspiracy?
                  And which president defied it? (Trump, Kennedy?)

                  What is the Alt State and how is it taking over?
                  And what's that got to do with Brexit?
                  At the risk of inflaming paranoia further - international conspiracy of "the elite"

                  https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/

                  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/t...profiling.html

                  https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...ld-armed-force

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                    Googling " "Military Globalist Surveillance State" finds seven instances of the phrase.
                    They're all copies of the same article.

                    I can't make it mean anything.
                    You can't make it mean anything because it doesn't have any real meaning.

                    Phrases like this are made up as propaganda tools. They sound impressive to people who aren't going to bother thinking too much about what they actually mean, and give those people the impression that there is a genuine global conspiracy aimed at controlling the "average citizen".
                    If the people who write this sort of crap tried to write it in easily understood language, without making up terms like this, pretty much everyone reading it would see right through the BS and laugh at them.

                    One thing that the sort of conspiracy nutter who invents, or copies, terms like this believes is true though:
                    There genuinely are people trying to control what large numbers of people think by carefully manipulating them with BS and lies.
                    The people behind this false propaganda though is the conspiracy theorists themselves, not the governments (etc.) who they try to blame.


                    There are some major problems with modern society that have led to rubbish like this (and, for example, the supposed "benefits" of Brexit) being considered to somehow be valid by a significant portion of society:
                    1. People aren't taught how to think critically and properly evaluate what they are told.
                    2. There is a false belief that, for media, etc., to be unbiased equal time has to be given to "both sides" of any discussion. This leads to people (who haven't learnt how to critically evaluate things) getting the false impression that both sides are equally valid.
                    3. The fact that "both sides" of any dispute are so readily available, especially now that anyone who wants to can readily publish anything they like online, means that people can easily find "justification" for their position (although this is typically nothing more than confirmation bias, as they are unlikely to seriously consider whether or not claims that seem to support what they want to believe can really be upheld).

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Macromia View Post

                      You can't make it mean anything because it doesn't have any real meaning.

                      Phrases like this are made up as propaganda tools. They sound impressive to people who aren't going to bother thinking too much about what they actually mean, and give those people the impression that there is a genuine global conspiracy aimed at controlling the "average citizen".
                      If the people who write this sort of crap tried to write it in easily understood language, without making up terms like this, pretty much everyone reading it would see right through the BS and laugh at them.

                      One thing that the sort of conspiracy nutter who invents, or copies, terms like this believes is true though:
                      There genuinely are people trying to control what large numbers of people think by carefully manipulating them with BS and lies.
                      The people behind this false propaganda though is the conspiracy theorists themselves, not the governments (etc.) who they try to blame.


                      There are some major problems with modern society that have led to rubbish like this (and, for example, the supposed "benefits" of Brexit) being considered to somehow be valid by a significant portion of society:
                      1. People aren't taught how to think critically and properly evaluate what they are told.
                      2. There is a false belief that, for media, etc., to be unbiased equal time has to be given to "both sides" of any discussion. This leads to people (who haven't learnt how to critically evaluate things) getting the false impression that both sides are equally valid.
                      3. The fact that "both sides" of any dispute are so readily available, especially now that anyone who wants to can readily publish anything they like online, means that people can easily find "justification" for their position (although this is typically nothing more than confirmation bias, as they are unlikely to seriously consider whether or not claims that seem to support what they want to believe can really be upheld).
                      But that's exactly what you would say if you were one of the conspirators, or ignorant of the conspiracy.

                      Comment


                        [QUOTE=Macromia;n1066604]


                        3. The fact that "both sides" of any dispute are so readily available, especially now that anyone who wants to can readily publish anything they like online, means that people can easily find "justification" for their position (although this is typically nothing more than confirmation bias, as they are unlikely to seriously consider whether or not claims that seem to support what they want to believe can really be upheld).[/QUOT

                        Isnt that just what you are doing?

                        The most successful lies as based on truths. The EU has its drawbacks, it's agricultural policies have favoured large farms and been bad for the environment, fishery policies are poor too. Globalisation is not benefiting the poor. People see the rich getting richer while they get poorer. There is an elite and they have ways of keeping the likes of you and me out of it.

                        The fallacy is that leaving the EU will produce any improvement.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by JK0 View Post

                          But that's exactly what you would say if you were one of the conspirators, or ignorant of the conspiracy.
                          Yes it is - but it's also what I would say when there is very obviously no conspiracy to be part of, or ignorant of.
                          The truly ignorant people are usually those who don't know enough to know that the sort of conspiracy that they are suggesting is impossible.





                          Originally posted by buzzard1994 View Post
                          Originally posted by Macromia View Post
                          3. The fact that "both sides" of any dispute are so readily available, especially now that anyone who wants to can readily publish anything they like online, means that people can easily find "justification" for their position (although this is typically nothing more than confirmation bias, as they are unlikely to seriously consider whether or not claims that seem to support what they want to believe can really be upheld).
                          Isnt that just what you are doing?
                          No - but it's a fine line between the two, and very difficult to actually 'prove' which side of the line someone falls on in some cases.

                          I generally view all claims skeptically, unless the claim is sufficiently supported with verifiable evidence - and I'm open to changing my mind if a claim that is verifiable contradicts my previously held position.
                          Confirmation bias is accepting a claim that isn't properly supported because it agrees with your previously held position (one of the more extreme examples linked to Brexit is the number of leavers who readily share the false "Lisbon Treaty" claims that, among other things, say that we would have to change to the Euro in 2020/2022 if we remain in the EU). Sometimes confirmation bias is obvious because even the most basic fact checking would show that the claims are false (e.g. the "Lisbon Treaty" claims), but it is possible for some false claims to be legitimately accepted, even after fact checking, for example if they are close to the truth or refer to complex matters that can easily be misunderstood.



                          Originally posted by buzzard1994 View Post
                          The most successful lies as based on truths. The EU has its drawbacks, it's agricultural policies have favoured large farms and been bad for the environment, fishery policies are poor too. Globalisation is not benefiting the poor. People see the rich getting richer while they get poorer. There is an elite and they have ways of keeping the likes of you and me out of it.

                          The fallacy is that leaving the EU will produce any improvement.
                          I agree.

                          I would never claim that the EU is perfect and wouldn't benefit from change. I also agree that the rich generally benefit disproportionately from globalism - but that's because most policies are largely based on principles of capitalism, and capitalism will always benefit those who have money more than those who don't (it's much easier to make money if you already have money).

                          I am still waiting for anyone who supports leaving the EU to actually give a coherent explanation of how the UK would benefit that they can justify with reference to verifiable supporting evidence. The best that they seem to have is ideas that might sound good but which aren't grounded in reality.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Macromia View Post
                            I am still waiting for anyone who supports leaving the EU to actually give a coherent explanation of how the UK would benefit that they can justify with reference to verifiable supporting evidence. The best that they seem to have is ideas that might sound good but which aren't grounded in reality.
                            For some people "not being in the EU" is, in itself, a benefit to the UK.

                            A further problem is that there also needs to be an explanation of how we're going to not be hugely disadvantaged by the removal of the EU's infrastructure.

                            The EU has evolved over time, and so has the UK within it. So there are hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of fairly invisible benefits that are there because of the EU and hundreds of thousands of problems that aren't there becase of the EU.

                            The government deal is an attempt to address as many of those issues as possible, which is why it's so vast and (frankly) unreadable.

                            And it's why it's impossible to get approval for it - for the people who want to leave it looks like it's replicating the EU regulations in a new treaty and for the people who want to remain in some kind of harmony with the EU it highlights where there are gaps (like not being in a customs union).
                            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                            Comment


                              As Verhofstadt and his mates said on camera the other night the deal is to make us a colony. It does not address issues in a way that is favourable to us only to the EU. I would love to hear about the millions of benefits the EU has brought us and hundreds of thousands of problems that do not exist because of the beloved EU...but they are all invisible so I suppose I should just believe the likes of Blair and bow down to the glorious leaders. That did sound a little like a North Korean statement JP I'm afraid!
                              Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                              Comment


                                [QUOTE=islandgirl;n1066675]As Verhofstadt and his mates said on camera the other night the deal is to make us a colony. It does not address issues in a way that is favourable to us only to the EU. I would love to hear about the millions of benefits the EU has brought us and hundreds of thousands of problems that do not exist because of the beloved EU...but they are all invisible so I suppose I should just believe the likes of Blair and bow down to the glorious leaders. That did sound a little like a North Korean statement JP I'm afraid![/QUOTE

                                But when they are pointed out to you - you know things like being able to get goods in and out of the country quickly - you'll just deny they exist. The only way to convince you is to remove the benefits and let you see how you get on without them. Then you discover that farage can not deliver on any of his promises and we are forced to rejoin the EU on a less favourable deal than we have now - and even more unfavourable than we had when this mess started. Farage tells you what you want to hear so you believe him - and will probably go on doing so when he's proved to be a liar, because you'll find someone else to blame rather than admit he was a liar.



                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X