what do you think about Britian leaving the EU? I don't read European politics so I don't have an opinion but im sure there are enough people here with opinions to have a thread.
however massive profits were split into countries part of the EU, kind of like a taxation of some sorts
(I don't know if the idiot does understand the analogy)
That's good, wish more people would stay away from voting when not sure (or care).
It is going well for Switzerland though, so see no reason that it would be different for UK. Think Norway is not in EU either if I'm not mistaken.
If you honestly believe the main reasoning is immigrants then you obviously are one of those "moderate to far lefties"
Liberal western democracies, for all their failings, will always be superior for their respect and dignity of the individual.
A philosophical discussion would be if he contested it and argued for it, or cited some philosopher who did.
I mean... people need access to better condoms. Too many mistakes out there.pro birth control = anti christian = atheist = communist = stalinist
Globalization is the goaloh no, globalization in a world ever more connected.. how did it come to that?
of fat rich powerful people to keep the cattle controled.you're saying this like it's something about to happen.. leeel
keep the cattle controled
if 55% wanted out and 45% wanted in, the remain camp would have won despite the majority saying otherwise.Thats the whole point of a supermajority... You just stated what it means without making any kind of argument because your assumption is that a direct democracy is best.
you are saying that like we haven't already lost through less trading outside the eu for many years and allocatively inefficient immigration into the ukMy argument is assuming that leaving the EU will be bad the UK, which is the consensus among economists and other experts.
a direct majority is indeed the best one because it is the only FAIR one. a supermajority is nothing more than a hedge to try to protect those who lose.It's a hedge to maintain the status quo, which is a good thing because stability is good for a modern first world country. It's a choice between keeping things the same (a UK which is one of the biggest economies and banking industries in the world, and one of the most desirable places to live) versus uncertainty.
likewise with general elections, the economics behind a country choosing one party over another is also irreversible because of the trickle-down effects over the years and one party taking over the deficits and problems of another after inheriting their problems.Because at some point a country has to run itself and choosing a government has to be done. You keep taking my arguments and pushing them to absurdity. The tangible differences between different governments are usually not huge (compared to say, leaving the EU) and their actions are limited by fixed term times. This analogy doesn't really make sense because remaining in the EU is a perfectly viable choice while not electing a government isn't.
the point you're missing is that there was also an equally huge uncertainty with entering the eu in the first place, more so than not entering, yet we still had the referendum to do so with 50/50 split, which was fundamentally fair.Where did I say that the the referendum in the 70s should not have required a super majority?
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said today that the European Union would not include national parliaments of EU member states in the final decision on the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA)
I would rather lose that money and remain in control of our borders, laws
So because some young people are getting beaten up in Germany you are ok with the UK navigating itself in a disadvantageous position. I could now ask, how many crimes are done by muslims. And which social background do they have. And then compare that to crimes done by non muslims. Having the same social background. I know the results. I bet you do not and i bet you do not care.