Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Information Analyst said:
Yes, we should have been able to elect MEPs... oh... err...
Click to expand...
If all the MEPs were elected by Britain, and all the Commissioners and Eurocrats and such were appointed by Britain, and the EU President was British, etc, I'd probably like the EU a lot better.

And of course, the other EU nations would not object to this. Because if they did, they'd be xenophobes. And we all know that's not the case! :)
 
3point14 said:
That's not what I asked. For you, personally what cost, either foreseen or forthcoming, would cause you to decide / realise it wasn't worth it?
Click to expand...

What exactly do you expect me to answer?

Okay. Twenty three. If the cost is higher than twenty three, I'll change my mind. :D
 
Seismosaurus said:
You think it's xenophobic that a person would prefer that British people decide how Britain is governed? That the non-xenophobic point of view to have is that Britain should be governed by the nations of Europe collectively?

Curious. But to each their own.
Click to expand...

My own view is that that argument is nonsense. The UK is not "governed by the nations of Europe" any more than all the other EU members are. What makes us so *********** exceptional?
 
Seismosaurus said:
What exactly do you expect me to answer?

Okay. Twenty three. If the cost is higher than twenty three, I'll change my mind. :D
Click to expand...



How much would you accept falling off the economy? 10%? 20%?

How much would you accept in falls in tax take? 10%? 20%?

How much would you accept in terms of job losses? 10%? 20%?

How much would you accept in terms of increased administration costs? 10%? 20%?


Have you thought it through at all? If you haven't, if there is no circumstance you can foresee that would lead you to conclude that this is a bad decision then you're not using logic, you're using ideology.

The fact that you can't even think of what the negative consequences might be indicates that you really, really haven't thought this through.
 
Last edited:
Seismosaurus has already said this is a "feels" thing, and not something that's been deeply rationalised.

It's a futile exercise to try and rationalise someone out of a position they haven't rationalised themselves into...or attempt to understand the reasoning for that position because there is none, other than it feels nicer.
 
3point14 said:
How much would you accept falling off the economy? 10%? 20%?

How much would you accept in falls in tax take? 10%? 20%?

How much would you accept in terms of job losses? 10%? 20%?

How much would you accept in terms of increased administration costs? 10%? 20%?
Click to expand...
And how do those things scale in comparison to one another? If it's 10% of the first, 15% of the second, 20% of the third, and 5% of the fourth... is that better than if it's 5% of the first, 25% of the second, 15% of the third, and 20% of the fourth? And what about the other dozens if not thousands of factors?

To say "how much damage would it take" is a nonsense question because "damage" is a nebulous concept not amenable to easily being quantified.

Have you thought it through at all? If you haven't, if there is no circumstance you can foresee that would lead you to conclude that this is a bad decision then you're not using logic, you're using ideology.
Click to expand...
Those are not two mutually exclusive things. Logic cannot tell one what one's goals should be. It can only tell one how to best achieve one's goals. The goals themselves stem from ones ideology.

The fact that you can't even think of what the negative consequences might be indicates that you really, really haven't thought this through.
Click to expand...
That's not actually a fact.

But by all means, feel about my views however you wish. It really doesn't affect me one way or the other.
 
Tolls said:
Seismosaurus has already said this is a "feels" thing, and not something that's been deeply rationalised.

It's a futile exercise to try and rationalise someone out of a position they haven't rationalised themselves into...or attempt to understand the reasoning for that position because there is none, other than it feels nicer.
Click to expand...


Totally up to speed now. My thanks for saving my time.
 
I suppose you will object to the conditions imposed on us by the other nations in the WTO?
 
Seismosaurus said:
If all the MEPs were elected by Britain, and all the Commissioners and Eurocrats and such were appointed by Britain, and the EU President was British, etc, I'd probably like the EU a lot better.

And of course, the other EU nations would not object to this. Because if they did, they'd be xenophobes. And we all know that's not the case! :)
Click to expand...

That is why dictatorships are best, it is all about one man one vote. The dictator is the man and he has the vote.

This whole government should represent different areas it governs is for the birds!
 
Seismosaurus said:
If all the MEPs were elected by Britain, and all the Commissioners and Eurocrats and such were appointed by Britain, and the EU President was British, etc, I'd probably like the EU a lot better.

And of course, the other EU nations would not object to this. Because if they did, they'd be xenophobes. And we all know that's not the case! :)
Click to expand...
Okp

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk
 
ponderingturtle said:
That is why dictatorships are best, it is all about one man one vote. The dictator is the man and he has the vote.

This whole government should represent different areas it governs is for the birds!
Click to expand...
That sounded kind of xenophobic. Just sayin.

Francesca R said:
You liked the Empire huh?
Click to expand...
Bit before my time. Besides, I don't think there were too many MEPs in the Empire. It felt the lack keenly, I'm sure.
 
Seismosaurus said:
If all the MEPs were elected by Britain, and all the Commissioners and Eurocrats and such were appointed by Britain, and the EU President was British, etc, I'd probably like the EU a lot better.

And of course, the other EU nations would not object to this. Because if they did, they'd be xenophobes. And we all know that's not the case! :)
Click to expand...

Britain elected all the MP's in Westminster, thats going well at the moment.
 
By Lothian's reasoning, the main reason for the existence of the Scottish National Party must be xenophobia.
 
Mr Fied said:
Britain elected all the MP's in Westminster, thats going well at the moment.
Click to expand...

See it would be so much better if it was only the english. No welsh, northern Irish or scottish. That would clearly be a marked improvement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom