UK forum members, BREXIT?

[diyaudio]

This thread is filled with subliminal racism. disgusting.

[Kjelt]

People are angry because it affects them. But what people do not realize is that being part of a larger group the leaders of that group main concern is the welfare of the group and not so much the welfare of the individual. So that means from small to larger scale:

Your local municipality does not care about you personnaly but your neighbourhood, if building a two story elderly flat behind your house brings in more money and other benefits they don't care your house price plummets.
Your government does not care about your local town if there are larger benefits on a larger economic scale. They are going to build that carfactory at 2 miles distance from your town if they have the opportunity.
The EU does not care about individual countries perse, if there is a larger benefit for the entire EU.

[G7PSK]

I live in Norfolk UK and most people are not worried about immigration (which seems mostly Latvian here) Its the EU bureaucracy and crazy judgements by the EU courts that they talk about, the immigration thing seems to be  the media especial y TV who wander around until they find someone who will spout the magic word first in the interview.

[rch]

I live in Norfolk UK and most people are not worried about immigration (which seems mostly Latvian here) Its the EU bureaucracy and crazy judgements by the EU courts that they talk about, the immigration thing seems to be  the media especial y TV who wander around until they find someone who will spout the magic word first in the interview.

It would be a shame if anyone voted against the EU based on "crazy judgements by the EU courts",  because the European Court of Human Rights is absolutely nothing to do with the EU, apart from being based in the same continent.

[G7PSK]

I live in Norfolk UK and most people are not worried about immigration (which seems mostly Latvian here) Its the EU bureaucracy and crazy judgements by the EU courts that they talk about, the immigration thing seems to be  the media especial y TV who wander around until they find someone who will spout the magic word first in the interview.

It would be a shame if anyone voted against the EU based on "crazy judgements by the EU courts",  because the European Court of Human Rights is absolutely nothing to do with the EU, apart from being based in the same continent.

But people see it as symptomatic of the whole problem of foreign interference in UK sovereignty. It is also the very same court that uses the European human rights act to keep us from deporting very dangerous people back to where they came from.

[Kjelt]

But people see it as symptomatic of the whole problem of foreign interference in UK sovereignty. It is also the very same court that uses the European human rights act to keep us from deporting very dangerous people back to where they came from.

I don't know about that, the biggest problem our country is facing sending illegal immigrants or economical immigrants that did not gain their visum back to their country of origin is that this country does not want them back and refuses to let them in. So you can't sent them back! That is not going to be solved with your country leaving the EU, it is getting worse, the EU will not accept them either 
Besides there are countries that did close their borders and do not accept any immigrants, this is ofcourse not going well in negotiations with the other countries but obviously it could have been done.

[VK3DRB]

The poms leaving the EU is contagious. I heard AUSTRALIA is considering leaving the AU.

And rename our country to STRALIA. 

[VK3DRB]

I think the Brexit is a lot more than leaving the EU. Many people in the Western world have have a gut full of slick salesmen politicians who do not represent the people who voted them in but represent other interests.

In Australia it is illegal to telemarket. Except for our politicians who live by a different set of rules. Our government created a law to allow politicians to make telemarketing phone calls on private citizens. Just tonight I got two dickheads call me on the phone - a recording from the out-of-touch Prime Minister Turnbull  and some Labor Party drone earbashing the listener on how to vote in the federal election coming up. Like the Indian telemarketers, they tend to call when people are settling down to dinner around 6-7pm. As a result, I will not be voting for either of these dickheads or their parties. Politicians think they have the God given right to invade your home, your space, your time and your privacy.

Did the politicians in the UK spruik their wares about staying or leaving the EU by making unsolicited phone calls?

[apis]

This whole thread has been incredibly interesting and disgusting to watch.

For a people with a rich history of democracy, hundreds of years of "enlightenment", many of you are downright mean and barbaric to your fellow countrymen simply because they exercised their civic duties and voted in a way you disapprove of. They are called unworthy, stupid, uneducated, .......

Hitler was nicer to Jews than you were to your fellow countrymen. Thank God that you have no power whatever over other people's life. Or what damage you could have done to humanity.

You should really be ashamed of yourself.

If you're going to criticize people for name-calling maybe you shouldn't compare them to Hitler in the next sentence? Just sayin'

[apis]

I live in Norfolk UK and most people are not worried about immigration (which seems mostly Latvian here) Its the EU bureaucracy and crazy judgements by the EU courts that they talk about, the immigration thing seems to be  the media especial y TV who wander around until they find someone who will spout the magic word first in the interview.

It would be a shame if anyone voted against the EU based on "crazy judgements by the EU courts",  because the European Court of Human Rights is absolutely nothing to do with the EU, apart from being based in the same continent.

But people see it as symptomatic of the whole problem of foreign interference in UK sovereignty. It is also the very same court that uses the European human rights act to keep us from deporting very dangerous people back to where they came from.

The universal declaration of human rights has its roots in the magna carta in which the once proud English people demanded certain unalienable rights from the tyrannical King John of England. Forcing the King to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It has very much inspired the american constitution and bill of rights. The special Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafting Committee was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. It is a document everyone should be proud of but especially the British and Americans.

[apis]

And Trump just might get elected.

[rch]

I live in Norfolk UK and most people are not worried about immigration (which seems mostly Latvian here) Its the EU bureaucracy and crazy judgements by the EU courts that they talk about, the immigration thing seems to be  the media especial y TV who wander around until they find someone who will spout the magic word first in the interview.

It would be a shame if anyone voted against the EU based on "crazy judgements by the EU courts",  because the European Court of Human Rights is absolutely nothing to do with the EU, apart from being based in the same continent.

But people see it as symptomatic of the whole problem of foreign interference in UK sovereignty. It is also the very same court that uses the European human rights act to keep us from deporting very dangerous people back to where they came from.

But voting to leave one organisation because you don't like being a member of an entirely separate organisation suggests a certain lack of clarity of thought.   

[3db]

I live in Norfolk UK and most people are not worried about immigration (which seems mostly Latvian here) Its the EU bureaucracy and crazy judgements by the EU courts that they talk about, the immigration thing seems to be  the media especial y TV who wander around until they find someone who will spout the magic word first in the interview.

It would be a shame if anyone voted against the EU based on "crazy judgements by the EU courts",  because the European Court of Human Rights is absolutely nothing to do with the EU, apart from being based in the same continent.

As far as I'm aware the EU courts have the final word.
If not why did it take UK a decade to get rig of one of our terrorist nut jobs.
They found in favour of him on a number of occasions.   
 

[rch]

I live in Norfolk UK and most people are not worried about immigration (which seems mostly Latvian here) Its the EU bureaucracy and crazy judgements by the EU courts that they talk about, the immigration thing seems to be  the media especial y TV who wander around until they find someone who will spout the magic word first in the interview.

It would be a shame if anyone voted against the EU based on "crazy judgements by the EU courts",  because the European Court of Human Rights is absolutely nothing to do with the EU, apart from being based in the same continent.

As far as I'm aware the EU courts have the final word.
If not why did it take UK a decade to get rig of one of our terrorist nut jobs.
They found in favour of him on a number of occasions.   

Well I'll say it again:   the European Court of Human Rights, set up post-war by treaty (edit:  1953, I looked it up) as a result of the European Convention of Human Rights, is nothing whatever to do with the EU.   They both involve European countries, but that is not surprising and also applies to the Euro 2016 football which is also not part of the EU.  I note the Brexit vote did not enable us to beat Iceland either.

[jancumps]

There's a European Court of Justice, judging over laws related to treaties of the EU.

[Simon]

The universal declaration of human rights has its roots in the magna carta in which the once proud English people demanded certain unalienable rights from the tyrannical King John of England. Forcing the King to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It has very much inspired the american constitution and bill of rights. The special Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafting Committee was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. It is a document everyone should be proud of but especially the British and Americans.

I was not as far sighted as that, it gave the nobles rights with respect to the king. The nobles could still kick their surps up the arse whenever they felt like it.

[rch]

There's a European Court of Justice, judging over laws related to treaties of the EU.

There is indeed.  It does not increase our treaty obligations but in the case of dispute it can decide whether we have met them.  Are there any ECJ decisions you feel have been harmful to us?

[rch]

The universal declaration of human rights has its roots in the magna carta in which the once proud English people demanded certain unalienable rights from the tyrannical King John of England. Forcing the King to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It has very much inspired the american constitution and bill of rights. The special Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafting Committee was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. It is a document everyone should be proud of but especially the British and Americans.

I was not as far sighted as that, it gave the nobles rights with respect to the king. The nobles could still kick their surps up the arse whenever they felt like it.

Yes, which goes some way to explain the French and American revolutions.   We haven't had one yet, which explains a lot.

[apis]

The universal declaration of human rights has its roots in the magna carta in which the once proud English people demanded certain unalienable rights from the tyrannical King John of England. Forcing the King to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It has very much inspired the american constitution and bill of rights. The special Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafting Committee was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. It is a document everyone should be proud of but especially the British and Americans.

I was not as far sighted as that, it gave the nobles rights with respect to the king. The nobles could still kick their surps up the arse whenever they felt like it.

Considering it was signed 1215 I would say it was very far sighted indeed, even if it still allowed "the nobles to kick the surps up the arse". What's sad and ironic is seeing an English person complain about having their governments sovereignty being limited by human rights. The declaration of human rights is an English invention and something to be proud of.

[dannyf]

"Well I'll say it again:   the European Court of Human Rights, set up post-war by treaty (edit:  1953, I looked it up) as a result of the European Convention of Human Rights, is nothing whatever to do with the EU. "

I think you are correct on that but too literal , seeing the trees but not the forest kind of literal.

If you step back, the whole thing is about loading control of your own country,  having someone unconnected to your community imposing their values onto you.

Whether the commission is EU or not is unimportant to understanding of the anger.

[CJay]

Some days I'm ashamed to be British, any space in 'stralia?

[Brumby]

Yeah ... We've got a bit out back......

[3db]

I live in Norfolk UK and most people are not worried about immigration (which seems mostly Latvian here) Its the EU bureaucracy and crazy judgements by the EU courts that they talk about, the immigration thing seems to be  the media especial y TV who wander around until they find someone who will spout the magic word first in the interview.

It would be a shame if anyone voted against the EU based on "crazy judgements by the EU courts",  because the European Court of Human Rights is absolutely nothing to do with the EU, apart from being based in the same continent.

As far as I'm aware the EU courts have the final word.
If not why did it take UK a decade to get rig of one of our terrorist nut jobs.
They found in favour of him on a number of occasions.   

Well I'll say it again:   the European Court of Human Rights, set up post-war by treaty (edit:  1953, I looked it up) as a result of the European Convention of Human Rights, is nothing whatever to do with the EU.   They both involve European countries, but that is not surprising and also applies to the Euro 2016 football which is also not part of the EU.  I note the Brexit vote did not enable us to beat Iceland either.

Then if you looked it up you will know that THE highest court in the EU is the ECJ.
The ECJ tends to accept precedents set by the ECHR.
There are also plans for the EU to accept fully the ECHR.
Who gives a shit about football ?
I suggest you go look up a few more things.

[G7PSK]

https://youtu.be/woaS1b_seEM

[Kalvin]

If you think the decision process involved in the Brexit-vote (whether vote for "Leave" or "Remain") for each and every voter, and compare it to the forum posts regarding designing a simple power supply "I need to build an adjustable lab power supply" or designing a simple active load "I want to build a simple active load using a MOSFET and op amp" there are quite a lot of similarities. People want quick and fast solutions without having to think too much.

You may say that the task of designing a simple power supply or active load seems pretty simple. But in reality it is actually pretty difficult and you need to have rather good knowledge about the electronics in order to get that right, not ending with a oscillating design or a design with the magic smoke coming out. The task will be very difficult when you need to have it right at first try, no second design allowed, similar to the Brexit-vote.

Typically the designs are based on the simplified application notes or the designs found floating in the Internet which are missing the needed circuit elements to make the design stable and robust. Butt the designer doesn't really really have the knowledge and understanding that is needed in order to make a judgment what is a good design. Actually the designer with limited knowledge and experience typically have a genuine feeling that they do know how to design it properly, and only at later stage find out that the are lacking the needed knowledge.

Similar thing with this Brexit-vote: Very few voters really understand the big picture, how the things are interrelated, how the decision is really going to affect the voter, his/her family, and how the complex society and economics work in general. The voters want to have a simple, quick-fix for the current problem like immigration, current-government-suck, NHS needs more funding, and do not see how their decision will affect their lives and the general economics tomorrow. And the voters may really genuinely think that they have all the information needed to make the right decision.