UK forum members, BREXIT?

[dannyf]

If you mention race you feed the racist opinion machine

Being a liberal, i'm an avid listener of NPR. Today, they had a discussion with some race experts who  lamented at people's unwillingness to have an honest discussion on race. One guy (non-white) said that he couldn't understand why people were so afraid of discussing racial relationships and another said that it was just so unfair that young african-americans were disproportionately killed by police.

I thought that issue of disparaty is easy to fix: we should just randomly select people from all racial groups and age groups and have them executed by police so the reported disparaty would go away.

[bitslice]

another said that it was just so unfair that young african-americans were disproportionately killed by police.

People need to watch the youtube videos for all these killings and note the behaviour of the African-Americans involved.

In many cases they are arguing back, running around or behaving erratically. Basically not complying.
I believe that this is a cultural difference that white cops find unnerving, so they shoot first.
(it's racist too, obvs, but that's too simplistic I feel)

White people I think are more likely to sit there and comply, possibly because they don't feel the same level of threat that black people do in the same situation.

I note a recent case of a white person arguing back, behaving erratically and basically not complying.
He was Tasered to death.

It's not always skin colour that gets you shot, but acting like a dickhead will always work.

[george.b]

In my simple mind, if you're going to live in another country, you're expected to abide by the laws and customs of that country. Is there anything wrong with this idea?

[Zero999]

The point I was trying to make was that even in Sweden with its 10 M people, some still complain about power being too centralized and want independence for Skåneland or Jämtland, etc, . And English complaining about power being centralized in Brussels is also sort of ridiculous considering what their own union with Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales looks like. As some 'mericans are saying here, California might as well be broken up in smaller states. You can keep breaking things up until you only have 1 person kingdoms, which would be the same as anarchy, which most people agree isn't a good way to organize things.

A similar sort of thing is true in many countries but the difference between them and the EU is one government rules a population with a similar culture. The US may be large but it's culturally more homogeneous than Europe, which is very diverse.

Problems start to arise when certain areas of a country have a totally difficult cultural identity to the rest. This is seen in the UK, Ukraine, Ireland etc, and if it's strong enough and a peaceful outcome can't be found then there's trouble, especially when there are other economic and social problems.

I agree that the EU is a good thing, in that it allows many smaller countries to stick together but I think too much power has been sucked into the commission. Some central power is necessary for trade and security but I believe it's past its optimum. It's also dominated by the richer countries of which the UK is one and I doubt the British would have been able to negotiate so many opt outs if it wasn't.


Democracy works better on a more local level because those in power are more aware of the needs of the population.

[bitslice]

In my simple mind, if you're going to live in another country, you're expected to abide by the laws and customs of that country. Is there anything wrong with this idea?

I can't really defend the British in this regard, because we sailed the world putting our flag onto other peoples soil and claiming it for ourselves.
That Islam would repeat the same process in the 21st Century should not be unexpected, as we share basically the same supremacist ideologies.

[zapta]

I have no reason to doubt that a large part of the Swedes actually truly believe that the official immigration policy is the only reasonable way for decent people to act.

If so, they cornered themselves mentally into a cultural suicide by eliminating any self defense option. Good luck for them.

[GEuser]

In my simple mind, if you're going to live in another country, you're expected to abide by the laws and customs of that country. Is there anything wrong with this idea?

Looks like I'm in your Club too , so now it's "our" club ..

[kaz911]

Having worked closely with Police in Denmark for many years - I can say until about 2012 all Danish crime stats detailing religion or origin was not allowed. About 2012 they have opened up slightly. But the Politicians are scared to show the real impact of immigrants in the justice system. So statistics are still not showing the full picture - much to the annoyance of anyone working in the field.

My brother is a manager for 6 fire-stations (a council full). Dependent on area - they need police escort to make certain they can get access - and things wont get stolen out of their trucks.Often they have bricks and stones thrown at them. Sometimes they even get Molotov cocktails thrown at them. At traffic incidents/accidents they often have to REMOVE unrelated "1 & 2 generation" immigrants with FORCE - to help the person(s) in need - as the immigrants are busy filming with their phones and "lifting" valuables out of the accident cars - despite not having any relation to neither cars or victims. Helping the victims - not at all.

And remember - there are plenty of Arabic countries where Syrians, Algerian, Moroccan etc. people could go and live if they could support themselves and live between people of their own religion. But does the fellow Muslims from Saudi, Kuwait, UAE and Oman want to help their brothers and sisters in need? Nope not at all. Haram! (Haram is an Arabic exclamation stating something is sinful and/or against the will of Allah)

So the refugees travel to the north- where they then want to impost their religion on our people and have us accept that their religions have precedence over our laws and ethics. The christian Bible says we can not depict god as a man - just like the Quran does. But we do not kill people who do anyway. God, Jesus and every single apostle & prophet has been depicted in anything from Christian texts to cartoons. Western religion has moved on from the black and white interpretation written ? 2000 years ago.... (with a few exceptions)

So helping people in need - yes - pulling our pants down and saying "rape us from behind" - no thanks.

[tggzzz]

Democracy works better on a more local level because those in power are more aware of the needs of the population.

Interesting point, but there are limits. In the UK this will be sorely tested by the long-term devolution of central powers to "local people", including parish councils.

If you choose too small a population size, then it is likely a single dominant individual to emerge. Whether that individual is "good" or "bad" is a matter of luck. In theory the democratic victor represents all their constituents; in practice that doesn't always work. A classic failure mode is that it becomes easier for "outside interests" to find and (subtly or unsubtly) bribe key people.

Thus democracy at the village level is a hit-and-miss affair, whereas at the city level it is more reliable. Where's the boundary? 10k is too small, 100k is probably large enough.

[tggzzz]

I get the impression that Brexit was largely to voice displeasure at the immigration policies being imposed on them by bureaucrats in the EU.

That was largely the swing vote used by demagogues to rouse people that don't normally vote. There is a much larger vote that is concerned with the effects of globalisation.

The latter can be summed up by a meeting discussing the economic benefits of remaining and economic problems of leaving. When presented with an argument that remain leads to increased GDP, the popular response was "that's your GDP, not my GDP".

[Tepe]

Having worked closely with Police in Denmark for many years - I can say until about 2012 all Danish crime stats detailing religion or origin was not allowed.

In the 1990s it was basically impossible to get official figures for how many immigrants there were in the country. There is one difference - which I think is very important - when comparing Denmark to Sweden. There is, and has been all along, a discourse about immigration and the pros and cons of it in Denmark. I think that has been instrumental in avoiding the kind of extremism that can be found in Sweden. It serves as a safety valve that makes it difficult for neo-nazi style groupings to gain traction simply because it is possible to debate the issue instead of just pretending that it doesn't exist. Not surprisingly the left regularly complains about this discourse and would prefer it could be stopped like in Sweden.

[G7PSK]

In my simple mind, if you're going to live in another country, you're expected to abide by the laws and customs of that country. Is there anything wrong with this idea?

I can't really defend the British in this regard, because we sailed the world putting our flag onto other peoples soil and claiming it for ourselves.
That Islam would repeat the same process in the 21st Century should not be unexpected, as we share basically the same supremacist ideologies.

The Muslims are not doing this for the first time, they did it in the 7th century and now see the world that they used to own as still belonging to them and they must take it back at all costs. It is their religious duty to do so or die in the attempt according to the Koran and the fundamentalist mullahs, that is what Osama bin Laden Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Isis is about and the preaching's coming out of Saudi Arabia.   

[Simon]

In my simple mind, if you're going to live in another country, you're expected to abide by the laws and customs of that country. Is there anything wrong with this idea?

I can't really defend the British in this regard, because we sailed the world putting our flag onto other peoples soil and claiming it for ourselves.
That Islam would repeat the same process in the 21st Century should not be unexpected, as we share basically the same supremacist ideologies.

Islamic did just that centuries ago! We should stop apologising for ourselves. I personally never went over to any country and stuck my flag it white should I feel guilt the something I did not do? There is actually a theory that the Islamic religion was quite literally created out of nothing to unite a people which in whichever century it was but not very many after Christ united under this religion conquered much of the Mediterranean world and had an empire after the Romans had done the same. Every few centuries in our history so far a culture had spread itself either benignly or through warfare. Hopefully in our new global world we no longer need to do this in order to trade share currency and do business and generally get along. The EU started from the horror of the Second World War where tiny countries would happily go to war with each other, today this would not happen we live in a different world. Intercountry communication in those days was non-existent you couldn't communicate with people across borders except with prohibitive priced phone calls or by snail mail. These days you can have a face-to-face conversation via a Internet video link with somebody on the other side of the world at no cost.

What we need in this century is less centralisation of power but more cooperation between countries using modern tools. You will find it is people who are middle-aged and over who still hold grudges against other countries are racist and have what we generally deem to be outdated views. Younger people are much more likely to have friends abroad and be used to dealing with people around the world with out seeing any borders. Diversity doesn't have to be divisive. If we ended up with an EU state it will be so large and unmanageable it would be a nightmare and there will be one body of people making laws. On the other hand individual countries running themselves would be a lot more efficient and democratic and if one country comes up with a good way of doing something why it shouldn't the others followed suit?

I don't know how true the fact is but I read on Facebook that in Germany there is a law that in the event of a traffic jam all cars are to pull to the respective edge of the road to create an opening down the middle if it is a dual carriageway to allow emergency vehicles access. This is one of those simple laws which we should all have I don't benefit anybody directly until certain situations happen where actually you are thankful they were created it is a law that is just common sense but most people don't have common sense. Would such a law be created in a European Parliament that had to govern the whole of Europe?

[tggzzz]

What we need in this century is less centralisation of power but more cooperation between countries using modern tools.

Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.

Power finds a way. Where political power wanes, corporate power becomes ascendant. Unlike political power, corporate power is not accountable to the likes of thee and me; it is only accountable to its shareholders.

That way lies the TTIP.

[Simon]

What we need in this century is less centralisation of power but more cooperation between countries using modern tools.

Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.

Power finds a way. Where political power wanes, corporate power becomes ascendant. Unlike political power, corporate power is not accountable to the likes of thee and me; it is only accountable to its shareholders.

That way lies the TTIP.

Yes and that is my concern with the EU it is the one stop shop for corporations to to their deals far far away in the eyes of the people who will not even know they are being shafted but for leaks. I think these corporations should be made to deal with each and every country where the debate will happen at a national level rather than behind closed doors in the EU government. On the one hand a very sensible group of centralised people is great because it means that in one fell swoop they can disapprove of unfair rules that corporations would like but it's a double-edged sword because if and when corporations do get their way with this oversized government we all get the decision.

The problem I find is that people are not involved or interested in politics except for when it comes to complaining about their losses and they generally just blame the wrong person. Making your governance less complex and bringing the debates closer to the people I hope will inspire more people to get involved and allow more to understand what is going on. How many debates in the UK have we had about TTI P? The BBC won't even mention it by name. From my memory and I listen to a lot radio 4 stuffed full of political news I have only heard the name once or twice and it has only been referred to by name after a lot of attention was generated by grassroots organisations. If the BBC has to refer to it it usually just calls it a controversial trade deal after all we don't want to give people a name we don't want to objectify it because once you have identified it you can talk about it properly but the BBC which is the servant of our government does our government is bidding and we have a Conservative government which loves privatisation loves corporate interests and will happily let this happen without telling us about it. Obama threatened that we will be last in line for any trade deals with America will I tell you what bring it fucking on he can now stick to that not that I think he or his successors or underlings will.

[doobedoobedo]

You will find it is people who are middle-aged and over who still hold grudges against other countries are racist and have what we generally deem to be outdated views. Younger people are much more likely to have friends abroad and be used to dealing with people around the world with out seeing any borders.

This is just plain wrong. Racists can be any age any colour and any nationality.

I'm probably what you would think of as middle aged, I've been working with people from around the world for many years.

I don't know how true the fact is but I read on Facebook that in Germany there is a law that in the event of a traffic jam all cars are to pull to the respective edge of the road to create an opening down the middle if it is a dual carriageway to allow emergency vehicles access. This is one of those simple laws which we should all have I don't benefit anybody directly until certain situations happen where actually you are thankful they were created it is a law that is just common sense but most people don't have common sense. Would such a law be created in a European Parliament that had to govern the whole of Europe?

We most certainly don't need laws which are obvious common sense. Have you even seen how quickly people get out of the way of an ambulance in what appears to be gridlocked traffic in the UK?

Making laws on common sense issues is infantilisation of the populace. It sends a very clear message of "you're to stupid so we'll decide everything for you" and where does that then stop?

We've already seen from the referendum cries of "old people shouldn't be allowed to vote - they're all racists!", "poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote - they're too stupid!"

[Simon]

You will find it is people who are middle-aged and over who still hold grudges against other countries are racist and have what we generally deem to be outdated views. Younger people are much more likely to have friends abroad and be used to dealing with people around the world with out seeing any borders.

This is just plain wrong. Racists can be any age any colour and any nationality.

I'm probably what you would think of as middle aged, I've been working with people from around the world for many years.

I don't know how true the fact is but I read on Facebook that in Germany there is a law that in the event of a traffic jam all cars are to pull to the respective edge of the road to create an opening down the middle if it is a dual carriageway to allow emergency vehicles access. This is one of those simple laws which we should all have I don't benefit anybody directly until certain situations happen where actually you are thankful they were created it is a law that is just common sense but most people don't have common sense. Would such a law be created in a European Parliament that had to govern the whole of Europe?

We most certainly don't need laws which are obvious common sense. Have you even seen how quickly people get out of the way of an ambulance in what appears to be gridlocked traffic in the UK?

Making laws on common sense issues is infantilisation of the populace. It sends a very clear message of "you're to stupid so we'll decide everything for you" and where does that then stop?

We've already seen from the referendum cries of "old people shouldn't be allowed to vote - they're all racists!", "poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote - they're too stupid!"

I'm not saying that all middle-aged and older people are racist et cetera what I'm saying is that they were around in a time when Europe and the world was less connected and more divided and that if you compare the amount of people who are older to those who are younger that distrust Europe et cetera you will find that it is the older ones that have more mistrust because of history and they may yet be right young people so far have grown up in a free and connected world where they don't see the barriers that older people grew up with. I don't particularly endorse anything that anybody is saying about the referendum because at the moment everybody is only seeing their angle.

Yes I have seen how fast people move out of the way of emergency vehicles, most panic and don't know what to do for example they just slow down despite there being nowhere for the vehicle to overtake many don't seem to give a toss. I seem to be one of the few people that has an inbuilt "interrupted request" that responds immediately to the suggestion of a blue light or siren sound and immediately no matter how far away or how blocked up the traffic is seek to find where it is coming from and where it is trying to go to. I've not forgotten sitting in blocked traffic in my local town and being the car 20 cars ahead of the ambulance that had to show the ones with the ambulance right behind them that if they just pulled up onto the pavement the ambulance would be able to get through the clearing in fact started from further away from the ambulance not from right in front of it. The comments I saw on Facebook was actually about dual Carriageway's where when traffic grinds to a halt there is no way for anybody but a motorbike to get past unless it's a motorway with a hard shoulder and if you listen to the news we are already talking about cutting costs and using motorway hard shoulders as main lanes so if on a dual carriageway with no dedicated emergency access the cars on the inner Lane pulled to the inner curve and the cars on the outer lane called as far over as they could it will create a lane down the middle for things like ambulances. I have sat in many a traffic jam and indeed we all just sit there and it would take an emergency vehicle a long time to plough its way through. In this country too many people are brought up to think they are the centre of the universe and nobody gives a toss about anybody. Sometimes I miss living in Italy.

[george.b]

In my simple mind, if you're going to live in another country, you're expected to abide by the laws and customs of that country. Is there anything wrong with this idea?

I can't really defend the British in this regard, because we sailed the world putting our flag onto other peoples soil and claiming it for ourselves.
That Islam would repeat the same process in the 21st Century should not be unexpected, as we share basically the same supremacist ideologies.

Who is "we"? Who still claims whose soil?
Are present-day Brits to blame for what Brits did in the past?
The fact that Britain has invaded other countries in the past means it should accept invasion as something positive today?

[Simon]

In my simple mind, if you're going to live in another country, you're expected to abide by the laws and customs of that country. Is there anything wrong with this idea?

I can't really defend the British in this regard, because we sailed the world putting our flag onto other peoples soil and claiming it for ourselves.
That Islam would repeat the same process in the 21st Century should not be unexpected, as we share basically the same supremacist ideologies.

Who is "we"? Who still claims whose soil?
Are present-day Brits to blame for what Brits did in the past?
The fact that Britain has invaded other countries in the past means it should accept invasion as something positive today?

Quite so. We could have a go at the Egyptians those who now live in what was Mesopotamia, Rome, Turkey, Palestine (for any avoidance of doubt the old Islamic Empire which conquered much of South Europe), Germany and anybody else who in the last 5000 years went into somebody else's country. Fact is we used to do things in a certain way, fact is we don't do that anymore.

[jancumps]

another said that it was just so unfair that young african-americans were disproportionately killed by police.

People need to watch the youtube videos for all these killings and note the behaviour of the African-Americans involved.

In many cases they are arguing back, running around or behaving erratically. Basically not complying.
I believe that this is a cultural difference that white cops find unnerving, so they shoot first.
(it's racist too, obvs, but that's too simplistic I feel)

White people I think are more likely to sit there and comply, possibly because they don't feel the same level of threat that black people do in the same situation.

I note a recent case of a white person arguing back, behaving erratically and basically not complying.
He was Tasered to death.

It's not always skin colour that gets you shot, but acting like a dickhead will always work.

Police corpses in other countries manage to deal with erratic behaviour during traffic controls without the shooting.

All of this doesn't *have* to happen.

[george.b]

Police corpses in other countries manage to deal with erratic behaviour during traffic controls without the shooting.

Forgive me for imagining zombie policemen doing traffic control

[jancumps]

yeah I may have translated that one a little too literally from Dutch

[tggzzz]

All of th arguments arguments below point towards the TTIP being less likely in the EU and more likely in the UK.

What we need in this century is less centralisation of power but more cooperation between countries using modern tools.

Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.

Power finds a way. Where political power wanes, corporate power becomes ascendant. Unlike political power, corporate power is not accountable to the likes of thee and me; it is only accountable to its shareholders.

That way lies the TTIP.

Yes and that is my concern with the EU it is the one stop shop for corporations to to their deals far far away in the eyes of the people who will not even know they are being shafted but for leaks.

Exactly the same point can be made about any one country. So that isn't a valid point against the EU.

It is also easier for corporations to bribe/bludgeon/ignore politicans in one country than in 28 countries.

I think these corporations should be made to deal with each and every country where the debate will happen at a national level rather than behind closed doors in the EU government.

Any such debate would be behind closed doors in the individual countries. So that isn't a valid point against the EU.

On the one hand a very sensible group of centralised people is great because it means that in one fell swoop they can disapprove of unfair rules that corporations would like but it's a double-edged sword because if and when corporations do get their way with this oversized government we all get the decision.

In the EU each country has slightly different internal politics, so even if X appeals to one or more countries, it is more or less guaranteed that some group somewhere will raise the alarm. Think of it as the political equivalent of FOSS's "many eyes".

Note that the French politicians (and some others) are currently against the TTIP, whereas many of our politicians are in favour of it.

The problem I find is that people are not involved or interested in politics except for when it comes to complaining about their losses and they generally just blame the wrong person. Making your governance less complex and bringing the debates closer to the people I hope will inspire more people to get involved and allow more to understand what is going on. How many debates in the UK have we had about TTI P? The BBC won't even mention it by name. From my memory and I listen to a lot radio 4 stuffed full of political news I have only heard the name once or twice and it has only been referred to by name after a lot of attention was generated by grassroots organisations. If the BBC has to refer to it it usually just calls it a controversial trade deal after all we don't want to give people a name we don't want to objectify it because once you have identified it you can talk about it properly but the BBC which is the servant of our government does our government is bidding and we have a Conservative government which loves privatisation loves corporate interests and will happily let this happen without telling us about it. Obama threatened that we will be last in line for any trade deals with America will I tell you what bring it fucking on he can now stick to that not that I think he or his successors or underlings will.

I don't follow that chain of reasoning. But I do agree about people blaming the wrong thing - blaming the EU in this case.

If you look at local politics (down to the town level) about local issues that directly affect local people, they still don't get involved. Why would that be any different at a national level?

[Simon]

The problem is that the too long people have grown up having it too good. People only start to take note when they are being directly affected and having being mollycoddled and taught to compete with their neighbours they obey unquestioningly and ignore everything else around them. I believe we can thank Maggie Thatcher for that.

The problem with big decisions made in the EU is that they are very remote. The only things I have heard about TTI P have come from grass roots organisations not from my politicians who officially have no access to the dealings in fact even my MEP has no access to the dealings and severe restrictions were put on MEPs viewing the information. I am sorry but I deem this untenable and unworkable if this is how the EU is working in reality then I'm afraid is not fit for purpose and I'm glad we are out. By that I am not saying that our own politics are any better the problem we also have in this debate is that by complaining about one party we are assumed to be lauding another which is totally wrong. I have no faith in any political structure at the moment and the only way of getting any faith is to get some sort of say and see change and it is more probable that that will happen at a lower level than a higher level. All I have heard is that the EU is wonderful that we admit there are flaws and we should reform it but so far nobody has come up with a plan to reform it so I think we are best out.

[tggzzz]

I agree with much of what you say and your motivations.
I don't see the EU being the cause of the problem.
I do see the EU being where the problem is manifested, because that's where the relevant power lies.
When the relevant power lies in the UK, exactly the same problems will manifest themselves in the UK.

Summary: I agree with your starting point, but your conclusions are misguided and won't solve the cause of your (and my) dissatisfaction.

Corollary: when the majority of brexiteers realise they were sold something under false pretenses and their dissatisfaction isn't going to be addressed, where will they turn? That's what happened in the 1930s Weimar Republic, and look how that ended

The problem is that the too long people have grown up having it too good. People only start to take note when they are being directly affected and having being mollycoddled and taught to compete with their neighbours they obey unquestioningly and ignore everything else around them. I believe we can thank Maggie Thatcher for that.

The problem with big decisions made in the EU is that they are very remote. The only things I have heard about TTI P have come from grass roots organisations not from my politicians who officially have no access to the dealings in fact even my MEP has no access to the dealings and severe restrictions were put on MEPs viewing the information. I am sorry but I deem this untenable and unworkable if this is how the EU is working in reality then I'm afraid is not fit for purpose and I'm glad we are out. By that I am not saying that our own politics are any better the problem we also have in this debate is that by complaining about one party we are assumed to be lauding another which is totally wrong. I have no faith in any political structure at the moment and the only way of getting any faith is to get some sort of say and see change and it is more probable that that will happen at a lower level than a higher level. All I have heard is that the EU is wonderful that we admit there are flaws and we should reform it but so far nobody has come up with a plan to reform it so I think we are best out.