Brexit Thread

[Husar]

How often does legislation get voted upon by MEP's that dont get approved by the Comission? Around 0% or so?

What does it matter if the result is usually the same? Seems like nitpicking.

It's the most important because without it's consent nothing gets voted on; it is the only body that can present legislation for vote, the parliament can only say yes or no it cannot alter or rewrite anything the comission puts out.

It's performance thus far might not be as tyranical as some believe but it is much less representative of the people and is basically impossible for the people to hold it to account if it doesnt present what the people wants it to. Britain's House of Parliament despite it's faults is a better democratic body than it is.

Yes, but what your member of the Commission wants can be influenced by who you vote for nationally?
Is Britain such a special snowflake that noone else in the EU every agrees with it or where is the issue?
Doesn't Britain have quite a few exceptions regarding EU membership? How did that ever happen if all the other mean countries are constantly bullying poor little Britain?

Finally lost hope Husar?

I hope the shock will be enough to reform it, I really do.

You're assuming that I ever had the kind of hope you are referring to. Maybe Britain getting out will finally allow the EU to reform.

[Pannonian]

Only one idiot actually showed disrespect on this board and he was a 5 post blunder that dissapeared after getting rejected, we arent at the level you say we are quite yet.

Someone else also called the other political side "scum".

[Greyblades]

Yes in response to others disrespecting the dead for political points. Kinda appropriate use of the word really.

[Pannonian]

Yes in response to others disrespecting the dead for political points. Kinda appropriate use of the word really.

Political points like finding far right links in the killer's background? I've seen rightists accusing the liberal left of avoiding uncomfortable facts, so should we avoid these facts just because the right is uncomfortable with him sharing their platform?

[Fragony]

keep your cool's man, left and right don't exist

[edyzmedieval]

3 days to go, and as far as exit polls go, the Leave camp is ahead in the polls.

[Beskar]

Guardian: Brexit is the only way the working class can change anything
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-eu-referendum

Social Party: Why socialists should leave the EU
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/22495

Message from the Dutch about their recent referendum:

DEAR BRITS,
Allow us a minute of your time to tell you an anecdote about democracy in the European Union.
Last April, the Netherlands held a national referendum on the EU Association Treaty with Ukraine. We, the organisers, wanted to have a more direct say in European Union developments, because we are worried about the ongoing and highly undemocratic expansionism of the EU. No government in Europe should be allowed to make far-reaching decisions without a majority consent.
So we set out to do something about it, and thanks to a successful Internet campaign and nearly half a million signatures, we forced our government to hold a referendum.
On April 6, a convincing 61 percent of the Dutch voters said “No” to the undesirable Association Treaty. So was that the end of that? Was democracy saved from the talons of the EU technocrats?
..And then we were ignored
Unfortunately, no. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, forced by his betters in Brussels, decided to completely ignore the outcome of the referendum. The Dutch voter was shunned by their national leaders, and, once again, democratic voices were muffled by the unelected officials of the European Union.
As the organizers of the Dutch referendum, we are not here to meddle in your national business. Dear Lord no — We’re not Brussels. But we do feel a need to tell you our story. Because democracy matters. And in the European Union – the people’s voices are silenced and shunned.
Read and share our story. Decide for yourself how highly you value the sovereignty of your national democracy. And cast your vote accordingly on June 23rd.
With love,
Your democratic friends from the Netherlands

[Fragony]

We also voted no to a fargoing europian constitution, they just call it something else and do it anyway. The pvv of Wilders is the only party that wants referenda to be binding, and also want out, biggest party in the polls. The bewildering argument of ignoring the outcome is that people who didn't vote should also be heard, wut. Really ugly all this, it has been sabotaged from the start, reducing places to vote, press ignoring it untill they couldn't anymore. Moral victory is ours but we gained nothing. People who argue that a lot of people voted no just because they can and did that at the expense of the Ukrainians have a point I won't deny that, but there are very good reasons why most voted against it.

[InsaneApache]

How has it been discredited?
We keep getting more and more poor people and social issues, we almost have to shoot even poorer people to keep them from trying to come here while others try to blow us up because they hate us, when will Capitalism solve that?
Your own country wants out of the EU because the EU is too capitalist and doesn't care about the fishermen, no?

Let's see.

USSR.

Cambodia.

North Korea.

Argentina.

Venezuela.

Etc.

Perhaps you can point to a socialist country that has prospered?

Oh and capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty these last thirty years then any other system.

[Beskar]

Perhaps you can point to a socialist country that has prospered?

Norway?

Depends on what you call 'socialist' too. The faux-communist countries you listed are not socialist, but there are great many examples of democratic socialism in Europe such as Scandinavian countries and even post war Britain.

Also there is an issue on what you call 'capitalist' too. Since there is the corrupt hypercapitalism in places like the USA where corporates buy the government.

[CupHead5998]

@Beskar
Adolf Hitler was a nationalist SOCIALIST.
Jus saying he was pretty successful.
Now that's not to say that he was to bad
you know what i'm not gonna continue with this post it'll get me banned
probably.

[Beskar]

Adolf Hitler was a nationalist SOCIALIST.
Jus saying he was pretty successful.
Now that's not to say that he was to bad
you know what i'm not gonna continue with this post it'll get me banned
probably.

I have to be honest, only ignorance on the subject would be responsible for a retort like that. I will show you something.

Do you know North Korea full title is "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" - now is North Korea democratic? No it isn't. Is North Korea a republic? No, they have a monarchy. The United States, a nation built on democracy and it is a republic, are they the same as North Korea because North Korea's name? That is what you're currently arguing.

Hitler hated socialism. He was foremost a Nationalist. When he came into power, first things he did was ban the socialists from government, and sent them off to prison camps, and later exterminated them. He saw himself as an antithesis to socialism and capitalism, the "third way", and created a totalitarian regime. The reason for the name was because after WW1, there are effectively two camps, the socialists and the nationalists. His party was an 'experiment' in trying to unite two opposing factions under his banner.

On a side note: "i won't give away who I am voting for in presidental election as he is quite controversial" .. there is only 1 male candidate, Donald Trump.

[CupHead5998]

I have to be honest, only ignorance on the subject would be responsible for a retort like that. I will show you something.

Do you know North Korea full title is "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" - now is North Korea democratic? No it isn't. Is North Korea a republic? No, they have a monarchy. The United States, a nation built on democracy and it is a republic, are they the same as North Korea because North Korea's name? That is what you're currently arguing.

Hitler hated socialism. He was foremost a Nationalist. When he came into power, first things he did was ban the socialists from government, and sent them off to prison camps, and later exterminated them. He saw himself as an antithesis to socialism and capitalism, the "third way", and created a totalitarian regime. The reason for the name was because after WW1, there are effectively two camps, the socialists and the nationalists. His party was an 'experiment' in trying to unite two opposing factions under his banner.

On a side note: "i won't give away who I am voting for in presidental election as he is quite controversial" .. there is only 1 male candidate, Donald Trump.

Hmph Bested me there. However there was a faction running with Hitler that did interpret Socialist part of the message as literal Marxist socialism though, i think his name was Otto if i can recall correctly.
also Hey you guessed right.
didn't mean to come off angry if that's what my post relayed.

[CrossLOPER]

ignorance on the subject

I have to be honest, that is an extremely tame way of putting it.

[Beskar]

I have to be honest, that is an extremely tame way of putting it.

It is however, unlike you stated by altering the quote, not displaying ignorance on the subject.

Unlike many, who either flock to 'remain' or 'leave', then demonize the otherside, I have criticized both. I find the decision to be difficult due to conflicting personal views. I have also read a lot on the subject. So trying to dismiss one of the least ignorant people on the subject as "ignorant" only reflects poorly on yourself.

[Husar]

Perhaps you can point to a socialist country that has prospered?

Germany, Britain, Norway, Netherlands.

And since you mentioned Argentina, that one was ruined again by a capitalist. Are capitalists proud of kicking people who already lie on the ground?
I still think that a capitalism that is heavily restricted by socialism is probably best until we find and try a system that works better than both, but I guess the world just has to be black and white...

Oh and capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty these last thirty years then any other system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povert...ed_States..PNG

That was in the 50s and 60s, since then, not so much.

[InsaneApache]

Also there is an issue on what you call 'capitalist' too. Since there is the corrupt hypercapitalism in places like the USA where corporates buy the government.

There's world of difference between 'crony capitalism i.e corporatism and real capitalism.

And since you mentioned Argentina, that one was ruined again by a capitalist

Argentina was at the beginning of the 20th century the equal of the USA in GDP. A few decades of socialist policies soon put an end to that caper.

Are capitalists proud of kicking people who already lie on the ground?

Yes I kick puppys too.

[Husar]

There's world of difference between 'crony capitalism i.e corporatism and real capitalism.

You mean just like there is a world of difference between a socialist in Germany or Britain and the leaders of the communist dictatorships that you mentioned as failures of socialism?

Argentina was at the beginning of the 20th century the equal of the USA in GDP. A few decades of socialist policies soon put an end to that caper.

And then a capitalist came along and socialized his losses to bring the country to its knees once more. Maybe there is a socialist even in the biggest capitalists, just wait until they end up on a losing streak in the big lottery of capitalism and/or see an opportunity to socialize their losses. It's easy to say socialism failed due to the way humans are, but then I'd argue that capitalism devolves into corporatism all the time for the same reasons.

Yes I kick puppys too.

*puppies

[Beskar]

There's world of difference between 'crony capitalism i.e corporatism and real capitalism.

You mean just like there is a world of difference between a socialist in Germany or Britain and the leaders of the communist dictatorships that you mentioned as failures of socialism?

I think this is exactly the point. We could point at extreme examples, then tar everyone with the same brush.
Does InsaneApache as a capitalist want to sell off his mother? Does Husar who believes that people should have a fair wage, want to send people off to gulags? The answer to both of these are no (I hope) and would be silly to suggest otherwise.

[Pannonian]

You mean just like there is a world of difference between a socialist in Germany or Britain and the leaders of the communist dictatorships that you mentioned as failures of socialism?

And then a capitalist came along and socialized his losses to bring the country to its knees once more. Maybe there is a socialist even in the biggest capitalists, just wait until they end up on a losing streak in the big lottery of capitalism and/or see an opportunity to socialize their losses. It's easy to say socialism failed due to the way humans are, but then I'd argue that capitalism devolves into corporatism all the time for the same reasons.

*puppies

The socialist theorist that I admire most is George Orwell. That's someone who formed his ideas by attempting to live the lives of the oppressed, analysing their position in relation to those who are in power, and coming up with ideas to improve lives. And not ducking any difficult questions that arise from factional politics. His socialism is non-factional, but grimy with sweat.

[Lizardo]

Wow you're really into that non existent oppression malarkey aren't you, I don't think you can conjure up the homeless of France as oppressed, Have you even read down and out in Paris and London not once did he mention the homeless as oppressed, he even mentions you become homeless due to the choices you make in life. George Orwell wasn't socialist theoreist at all he even despised socialism as a dogma a route to communism or totalitarianism, went into the Spanish Civil War as an Communist/Socialist and came home with a lot of anarchist ideals the books he wrote such as Animal Farm and 1984 will testify to that.

However George Orwell was undogmatic, and dissaproved of dogmatism in socialism.

[Gilrandir]

Perhaps you can point to a socialist country that has prospered?

Germany, Britain, Norway, Netherlands.

Norway?

All wrong. The correct answer is China.

[Greyblades]

And from her constituents' testimonies, Cox believed in that kind of socialism too.

Makes it all the more tragic, people like her are going to among the sort of people we need in power after we leave to make it work.

[Husar]

Here's the video you've all been waiting for to hate it:

[CupHead5998]

John oliver is a bushist through and through,
and he thinks he can tell Americans what we "need" despite being a Brit who knows nothing of life here other than hollywood.
Now when i say bushist i mean somebody like a clinton or a Jeb bush Trumpism is the newest form of politics, well in america anyway and it seems to have destroyed bernism or well bushism beat bernism. eithey way i already saw that LWT on 8ch