untermensche
Contributor
It is always interesting when ignorant bigots are upset by simple truths.
-
Features
Why would a brexit vote come at a time with conservatives in the U.K. government?
- Thread starter ryan
- Start date
It is always interesting when ignorant bigots are upset by simple truths.
repoman
Contributor
Do you NOT understand what he meant by Europeans?
If I moved to Thailand (I am a white guy) and was finally a citizen, and you came there and saw me walking on the street, would you call me Thai? Would an ethnic Thai with family there for thousands of years call me Thai?
untermensche
Contributor
If I had some sophistication I would call you Thai.
If I was ignorant and thought all Thai were the same thing I might not.
Yeah. When I tried to verify it it seems to trace back to Haaretz--utterly not a credible source.
Bloody hell! I didnt realize that you where such an open racist/xenophobe/nazi/shitbag. Your culture doesnt matter!
repoman
Contributor
There is a difference between an ethnic Thai and legally being a Thailand citizen. White people can be Thai citizens, but not be ethnically Thai. Does pointing this out make me a nazi?
What did you mean by "your culture doesn't matter"?
Are Thai people racist? Does a history of colonialism make them not, or justify it?
ronburgundy
Contributor
There is nothing truthful about your statement. Not only is being born in Europe a standard dictionary definitions of European, but being both being decended from people who were born and lived in Europe is a standard secondary definition.
Why merely being an inhabitant of Europe at the moment is an alternative use of the term, its technically would include a person who is there overnight on vacation, thus is actually much less informative and less used a meaning of the term. Imagine a native of Zimbabwe Africa leaves his homeland for the first time at age 60 and stops in London for 6 months on his way to eventually live in the United States. By your abuse of language, he is English and European while in London and should be considered an immigrant from European when arriving in the US and recorded as such among those who keep track of immigration stats. According to all rational people at no point would it be accurate to refer to him as European or English.
untermensche
Contributor
Nonsense.
A European is merely somebody who lives in the area we call "Europe".
They are not any particular race or religion.
And there is no time requirement.
You are just pulling things from your backside for some strange reason.
repoman
Contributor
what about "native" European, in contrast to "native" American?
Which makes the term "African-American" a real head scratcher. Nearly everyone who identifies as that term has never even been to Africa. And pity the fool who fails to call someone who identifies as that term by that term. A person may look like they or their ancestors came from Africa, but with untermensche's wisdom now we know they aint. Ditto "Asian-American."
untermensche
Contributor
That would mean somebody born in some part of Europe. From Iceland to the Eastern shores of Russia.
They could be any race or religion and they could speak any language.
If you saw them on a London Street you couldn't tell if they were a "native" European.
untermensche
Contributor
That is no different from somebody labeling themselves an Irish American.
It is a designation of recent heritage but of course we are all Africans really.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
I agree with Unter. All this race stuff is silly. We are all from East Africa. All racial attacks, no matter how benign, should be confronted.
Somewhat yes. You can be white AND etnically thai. Has nothing to do with color.
ronburgundy
Contributor
No, I am "pulling" accurate information from the most mainstream dictionaries that convey the most common usasge of the term.
Mirriam-Webster
"Eurpoean
: a person born, raised, or living in Europe;
: a person who is descended from Europeans"
BTW, since you've proven minimal grasp of basic logic, the word "or" in any definition denotes that any one feature in the list is sufficient. And since you've proven minimal grasp of basic discourse rules, the order of things listed almost always signifies their importance or typicality, which in this case means that being "born" or "raised" in Europe are more typical requirements of being European than merely "living in". Also note that "living in" is fully satisfied by my example or the 60 year old African who lived in London even for just 2 weeks, on their way to the US. Thus by your absurd and extremely uncommon usage, this man would be just as European as they are African, and as a 60 year old who lived their whole life in London.
Last edited:
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
This is the term they have chosen. Rather than be called black, coloured or negro, they call themselves American but prefix it African. Thus as an American (with full rights) they also identify that their origins are from Africa.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,271
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
There were a few reasons why it was a good idea for the UK to remain in the EU.
There were no reasons at all to leave. But there were more than enough emotions to make up for that deficit.
When analyzing the voting patterns against various socio-economic indicators, by far the strongest correlation with the likelihood of voting 'Remain' was educational attainment.
The informed people voted to Remain; The ill-informed voted to Leave.
It took less than 48 hours for a sizable fraction of those ill-informed voters to have major regrets.
But to answer the OP question: Because David Cameron forgot the first rule of politics - Never ask a question unless you already know what answer you are going to get. He tried to save his arse from the inroads the neo-fascists were making into his party's vote, by promising something that he should never have considered for an instant - a referendum. And not a referendum on a subject the people clearly and unequivocally agreed with him on, but on a divisive subject that would arouse passionate hatred of the result in a sizable fraction of the country, whichever outcome won on the day.
The Conservatives let short-term party in-fighting lead them into a decision that was inevitably going to cause a catastrophe for the nation; and they did so because they thought that only the ordinary British people would suffer, not Members of Parliament - and certainly not the Conservatives themselves.
There is a reason why no country since ancient Greece has had a direct democracy. The British people may have spoken, but the people don't have the time, the knowledge, nor the inclination to grasp the meaning of the questions being asked, much less to come up with sensible or reasonable answers.
That's why modern democracies are representative democracies; The people elect representatives to study, consider, weigh up the evidence, and then decide what to do. That's the ONLY reason for the entire parliamentary and government structure - it is there to make decisions on behalf of the people, so that the people don't fuck things up. This is why MPs are paid the big bucks.
The very existence of referenda is an abdication of this duty on the part of the PM, and if David Cameron hadn't already announced his resignation, the British people would be justified in calling for it - NOT because of the result of the vote, but for asking for a vote AT ALL - it was his JOB to make a decision, rather than passing the buck. If he can't decide, or he can't get parliament to back his decision, then democracy should be invoked in the form of a General Election to bring in a parliament and a government that can do their job.
Referenda are simply an indication that government is broken; and a broken government needs to be replaced.
There were no reasons at all to leave. But there were more than enough emotions to make up for that deficit.
When analyzing the voting patterns against various socio-economic indicators, by far the strongest correlation with the likelihood of voting 'Remain' was educational attainment.
The informed people voted to Remain; The ill-informed voted to Leave.
It took less than 48 hours for a sizable fraction of those ill-informed voters to have major regrets.
But to answer the OP question: Because David Cameron forgot the first rule of politics - Never ask a question unless you already know what answer you are going to get. He tried to save his arse from the inroads the neo-fascists were making into his party's vote, by promising something that he should never have considered for an instant - a referendum. And not a referendum on a subject the people clearly and unequivocally agreed with him on, but on a divisive subject that would arouse passionate hatred of the result in a sizable fraction of the country, whichever outcome won on the day.
The Conservatives let short-term party in-fighting lead them into a decision that was inevitably going to cause a catastrophe for the nation; and they did so because they thought that only the ordinary British people would suffer, not Members of Parliament - and certainly not the Conservatives themselves.
There is a reason why no country since ancient Greece has had a direct democracy. The British people may have spoken, but the people don't have the time, the knowledge, nor the inclination to grasp the meaning of the questions being asked, much less to come up with sensible or reasonable answers.
That's why modern democracies are representative democracies; The people elect representatives to study, consider, weigh up the evidence, and then decide what to do. That's the ONLY reason for the entire parliamentary and government structure - it is there to make decisions on behalf of the people, so that the people don't fuck things up. This is why MPs are paid the big bucks.
The very existence of referenda is an abdication of this duty on the part of the PM, and if David Cameron hadn't already announced his resignation, the British people would be justified in calling for it - NOT because of the result of the vote, but for asking for a vote AT ALL - it was his JOB to make a decision, rather than passing the buck. If he can't decide, or he can't get parliament to back his decision, then democracy should be invoked in the form of a General Election to bring in a parliament and a government that can do their job.
Referenda are simply an indication that government is broken; and a broken government needs to be replaced.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
The UKIP reignited the debate in 1993 so there has been a lot of discussion on this. There are certainly a lot of working people who supported BREXIT. Public pressure and increasing support for this from Labour and Conservatives for this made the referendum possible. However there is a lot of information to support both sides of the argument. However the poor performance of the EURO and one bail out after another to the contradiction of the claims and rational arguments made by those afflicted with Europhilia only proved the BREXIT point.
Referendums are very rare, and this was justifiable because the main two parties are divided on this issue. The right-wing bogeyman is of course a straw man.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
This would be more persuasive if not so much of the leave support wasn't based completely on misinformation. For example most of the leave support was based on the idea that the UK was suffering from the EU's immigration policies, that if the UK was removed from the EU that they could restore control of their borders. This also seems to be the reason that so much of the American right is supporting the British exit, that immigration is out of control because of a failure of the political leadership.
But the UK always had complete control over their own immigration policies in the EU. They never accepted EU immigration policies. They could at an time have restricted EU workers. They didn't chose to, but they don't have to leave the EU to do it.
The failures of the EU are the failures of neoliberalism. The overly large and powerful banks that have to be bailed out and the lack of growth and the high unemployment for example. The UK is one of the founders and chief proponents of neoliberalism, that is, Thatcherism in the UK. To point that there seems to be no real opposition to it in the UK. Acceptance of neoliberal economic policies are what put the "New" into New Labour.
I can't see this changing if the UK finally does leave the EU. Do you?