Brexit to the right

1 year ago #9497045          

Please do one about how they then lost to Iceland in the EURO 2016

1 year ago #9497050          

@Daniel72 the Brits I work with looked like someone kicked their puppy.


....the Irish I work with.....acted like they'd kicked it.

1 year ago #9497080          

@Daniel72 I'm an English National and even I was rooting for Iceland... then again I kind of want Iceland as a nation to just adopt me.

1 year ago #9500354          

@Daniel72
Accidently hit the report button. My bad

1 year ago #9500430          

@Daniel72 Seconded!

1 year ago #9506522          

@Daniel72 I would love that! :3

1 year ago #9497124          

Let it be a lesson for democracy: A vote is a vote. It has consequences. Don't vote for someone just because he said something funny on TV. You never know which part of his program he really will make comme true.

And don't redo the referendum until you get the result you like. It just kill the principe of democracy where the mind of everyone is taken into account.

1 year ago #9497439          

@Belgianfish I see nothing inherently wrong with re-doing the referendum. You wouldn't say Scotland shouldn't have another independence referendum now, just because they had one in 2014. It's 2016, and things are different for them. Now just after Brexit the landscape has changed. People are thinking about it differently and I wouldn't see a problem with a 2nd. There'd be no reason to have a 3rd though.

1 year ago #9497725          

@SvalTheBard Redoing the referendum simply because you got lied to? And lost? The UK gonna do referendums until either side wins with 60%+ votes?

It's called manipulation and being gullible. And it worked wonderfully on the younger generation with no experience at all with politics. The media have obvious agendas, and so does politicians. The Liberals and the Left have unfortunately been lying ever since the beginning. Had you at least listened to people such as Nigel Farage and his arguments you wouldn't be so fast as to jump the gun.

Besides. Everyone who have half a brain would do their own research, their own fact finding and come with a conclusion on their own, and not let the media and what people around you decide for you.

But once BANKERS start vouching for either side, worry. They have ONE agenda: Money, power and control. They are not interested in the public. They don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Neither does the Elite.

Personally I am glad the UK is going out. The EU is a sinking ship, politically, socially, demographically and economically.

1 year ago #9497843          

You going to be happy about losing Scotland and N Ireland? We're both not very pleased with being forced out of the EU by the English. Scots only stayed last time in order to remain in the EU. Now we've got no motivation to submit to you Brits. We're out, we're taking our oil, and kicking your subs out of our port.

1 year ago #9498229          

@Yakamaru No shit the bankers oppose it, you've seen how much the Pound has fallen. I don't like bankers very much either, but occasionally their interests do coincide with yours.

And yes, I have heard what Nigel Farage says. He said he would redirect the EU money to the NHS. Until he won, that is.

Let me reiterate: There will be no need for a third referendum. I will not be pushing for revotes until I win. If the remain side loses again I would accept it and grab my popcorn.

1 year ago #9498299          

@SvalTheBard Third referendum? There won't even be a second.

The bankers, just like the Left Liberals, listened blindly to the media without questioning it. Of course they freaked out. The bankers hate instability. But, here's the thing: Currencies fluctuate all the time. This was inevitable. But it will recover. And now with the EU not being able to drag the UK down economically and politically, there will be a lot more money to be invested on domestic issues such as housing, healthcare, etc. Once the economy really start taking off, the banks will say that they were voting for Brexit the entire time, or won't say anything on the issue.

Nigel Farage did not say anything of the sort. Prove it, with a video of him saying it. He is an MEP, not MP. He has no authority, nor is he a member of the UK government.

Nor did the Leave campaign made a actual promise of the £350m a year to the NHS. They did campaign for it, yes. But until Article 50 is actually invoked, Brexit can't do shit, as they do not have any power whatsoever. So until then no one knows what they will actually do.

http://leftfootforward.org/images/2016/05/rsz_cikhd7axaaiklxc.jpg
^ Please tell me where it says "promise". It doesn't.

However though. It's not even been a WEEK since the referendum. We most likely won't see any changes for perhaps a minimum of 3 months.

Honestly I'd try and get Farage into the Parliament. He knows his shit, and and have been correct on every prediction so far for the past 17 years. He also fought for the UK and its citizens in the EU Parliament who absolutely HATED his guts, which a lot of the clips from the Parliament no doubtedly show.

1 year ago #9498406          

@Yakamaru http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html

If it was a mere "suggestion" used to garner support, not a promise, that's simply dishonest.

1 year ago #9498410          

@SvalTheBard You're not listening to what he is saying, are you?

1. He is not promising anything.
2. He is saying that those £35m a day SHOULD rather be spent on the NHS.
3. He is not a part of the Leave campaign.
4. Whether the Leave campaign can actually do good on their promise is up to the government, which also btw, does not have anything to do with the Leave campaign.

He can make suggestions and push for it, but ultimately, he have no power. Nor is he part of the government.

Get your facts straight, and stop taking shit out of context. Not to mention twist what he is saying. There's a reason he does not take any of you seriously because you are HEARING what he is saying, but not listening and understanding.

Instead of blindly listening to the media I would recommend trying to get to actually find facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0ktojE6WQA

^ Full clip, which the "Independent" did NOT add. So I call bullshit on your claim.

1 year ago #9498429          

@Yakamaru

> He is not a part of the Leave campaign.

He's literally the leader of UKIP... If you're going to talk out of your ass you may as well just stop talking.

1 year ago #9506097          

@Yakamaru The same Nigel Farage that admitted he lied about everything and never even wanted to leave the EU (cause that is stupid) but instead wanted to lose marginally so that he could say "well, we tried" and fool naive morons like yourself to vote for UKIP in the future?

But hey, have fun being irrelevant in world politics while also having worse trade deals pretty much everywhere. Don't worry, it'll be fine!

1 year ago #9500431          

@Belgianfish A good lesson that democracy demands a lot from us. Meanwhile, pass the popcorn, please. Been a while since good old UK has provided us with such a show.

1 year ago #9500535          

@Wexteen : Yup, all the politicians who created this mayem have ran away from their responsabilities. There is no way to tell what will happen next. There is even more suspence than in Game of Thrones.

1 year ago #9497718          

Saying that chaos will entail is just outright bollocks and a lie. Unfortunately for you Humon you do not seem to understand how the EU is operating and how the Euro is fucking up everything. The EU is not democratic. It is directly anti-democratic.

There WILL be uncertainty, yes. There will be economical uncertainty, yes. If that is your definition of chaos, I wonder what you would define it as if a country went into a state of anarchy.

This is what happens when you blindly follow what the media and politicians say. Not to mention bankers. Bankers ALWAYS have an agenda: Money. If you can't figure that one out, then you are not even listening to the other side of the argument.

But, like in 1972 and 1994 when Norway were thinking of joining the EU, we voted no. Both times. Both times the EU used moronic scare and fearmongering saying that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost, economical turmoil and lots of people would become homeless. Well. They were wrong. On both occasions. And so far, they have for the most part been wrong on a whole plethora of issues.

I am sorry, but this is bullshit. I cannot support a state that is turning anti-democratic and using fascist tactics to silence the opposition.

1 year ago #9497727          

@Yakamaru

What you're writing is bullshit! Things are a lot more complicated than you make them out to be. The EU is very, VERY democratic, perhaps even too democratic at times, which is why the law-making process takes so long! Everybody must be heard several times. And who is scaring who? Have you even followed the campaigns? Haven't you heard that the big scary EU is making all the decisions for us? That we are about to be overrun by refuges and cheap labor because of the EU? That the EU is about to collapse (and has so for what, 30-40 years now!) and the faster we leave /cut ourselves loose the better? That all our countries values are disappearing in the international EU? So who's scaring who?!

I wrote this as part of a response to another comment. It's long, but I hope you'll take the time:

"Even if Norway wanted, we couldn't just get a deal like Switzerland! Nobody can because after that deal was constructed everybody realized just how complicated it made everything. Norway is already getting a sweet deal with the EU but if anything, that's going to change in the future. That's why out prime-minister thought Norway could get away with paying the same amount of money to stay in the EEA but ended up paying a lot more. And that will only get worse in the future for several reasons, above all that we need them more than they need us! Norway needs to keep its access to the internal marked of the EU because the EU is by far our largest trading partner. It is more costly to produce things in Norway and if you add import tariffs we simply can't compete. At the same time, to protect our own marked and farmers, we put a heavy tariff on all food, plants and other things that other countries would like to sell us. That's why that even though we have one of the worlds largest exporters of pork right south of out border, we actually drive our on pork to Denmark, have it processed on a separate line and then have it returned to be resold in Norway because it is much cheaper than just having it imported! And the same with "Spanish" serrano ham that we have send all the way to Spain! We want to sell our stuff in other countries but we won't let them sell their stuff in Norway and guess what! - they're getting more and more annoyed with us because it is costing, especially our neighbors, a lot of money and jobs. We have been getting away with it because we are a small country but now that GB is seeking a similar deal, we can no longer expect to get by unnoticed. And the EU can't let us because that would make other countries wonder why they should be a part of the EU when we apparently don't have to and yet appears to get all the advantages. Yes, we pay money for that privilege but there's a reason why we keep making that deal!

And the thing about is that even though we get to put heavy tariffs on foreign products, we still have to follow most of the rules even though we, because we're not a member of the EU, don't get to make those rules. That's why you've probably notices all phone commercials on TV where the companies are being nice to us by making it a lot cheaper to use data abroad in Europe. They did it last year too and they'll do it again next year. Here's what they don't tell you: they, along with other European phone companies, have spend millions of euro fighting this because they have been using the disadvantage of tourists to make them pay extremely high fees that in no way corresponds with their actual cost. The EU made them change this, just like they limit the amount of dangerous chemicals in our hairspray and toys children, hold facebook and google responsible for not deleting the data they are collecting on us and many, many, many other things in our daily lives that we never hear about, because we live in our Norwegian bubble of ignorant bliss. But we don't get to make those rules that effect us because we're not in the EU, so we just have to hope that they other countries that are do what's best for us.

The EU-debate in Norway is practically non-existent and when it's finally pops up, it's always negative and one-sided. How could it be any different when our own politicians and companies takes credit for everything positive that comes out of the EU while they blame the EU whenever something is unpopular. And the media cares more about what their readers want to read and what gives them clicks on their web-pages than they do about giving us information that we might actually need. And us, the people, the voters, we are the ones that are truly to blame because we don't hold anyone accountable. We don't because, even though we know that we probably should make the effort, we don't take the time to get what we need to make informed decisions. So we blame the politicians, we blame the companies, we blame the media, we blame the EU but in the end, all we blame them for is our own guilty conscience for not staying informed. Not all things in life are easy and when you have to make very complicated decisions on complicated matters, you need to put in some effort. You don't skip class all year and then right before the exam expect the teacher to explain the entire curriculum in two minutes or less. That's how you create a lot of myths and false information about the EU. That's the trap we have fallen into."

1 year ago #9497760          

@NorwegianDane Unless you've noticed, the EU makes laws and legislations that the member countries can't veto.

So far the EU have made 72 legislations, all of them forced upon the UK.

Ever seen one of Nigel Farage's videos and his arguments? Go do so before saying the EU is democratic. Because it's not. It's turning into an oligarchy.

The Euro is failing. Simple as that.

Look at all the fucking bailouts. And all the stagnant economies in the countries with a forced currency. Once the UK leaves the EU it will show once and for all that Pro-EU people are wrong on this issue.

1 year ago #9497771          

@Yakamaru In what sense is the EU less democratic than the UK? What's the closest correspondence to the House of Lords in the EU? As far as I am aware, no position in the EU is either "for life" or "for life, inherited".

1 year ago #9497783          

@RandomSwede

1. Accountability.
2. Voting ability.
3. Decide whether laws and legislations can be implemented or not,
4. Being able to make petitions for MP's to resign if their policies are against the majority of people.

Currently the EU and its Parliament is not answering to anyone. Not even the European people. They can make laws without the people having a say in the law making process. This is not a democracy. This is the opposite of a democracy.

You can't vote them out, either. The members. Nor can you vote out the Presidents of the different parts of the EU.

You also do no have a right to recommend and vote for laws and legislations to be implemented. 60% of laws and legislations in the UK are made in Brussels and not Westminster. This is not democratic. Even if only 6% of the laws were made in Brussels, it's a matter of principle.

How do you feel if a nation other than your own can create and forcefully implement laws and legislations in your country? You'd be pissed, right? Laws and legislations you can't even vote on to be implemented or not. It's not democratic in any sense of the word. It's an oligarchy.

The UK Parliament however is democratic. If people does not like someone, they can quite easily vote to kick them out.

1 year ago #9497790          

@RandomSwede
"In what sense is the EU less democratic than the UK?"

In that UK at least in words have promised to curb mass immigration, while EU hasn't.

On page 36:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_first_en.pdf

If 56% of the citizens of the EU member states want to limit immigration from outside of EU, and if 34% would want no limits to immigration, then the probability (of representative democracy) that 23 EU member states out of 28 would vote FOR limitless immigration is about 230 parts per billion.

If the standard deviation of polling results is 1,5%, then the confidence bounds for 6-sigma would be 9% from the mean. Even at that 6-sigma confidence border, the probability of 23 out of 28 states voting FOR limitless immigration would be about 1/40000.

So the chances that we are dealing with a democracy are pretty slim.

Edit.
http://vassarstats.net/binomialX.html
n=28
k=23
p=0.34
P: 23 or more out of 28
Method 1. exact binomial calculation: 2.3022e-7 (that was the 230 parts per billion)
P: 23 or more out of 28
p=0.43 (the 6-sigma confidence border, if standard deviation is 1,5%)
Method 1. exact binomial calculation: 0.0000258 (that is the 1/40000)
P: 20 or more out of 28
p=0.43
Method 1. exact binomial calculation: 0.0022 (that is 2 parts per thousand)

Perhaps I should also note that Brussels has had more than 12 months to do something significant about EU external borders and instead they have spent all that time to come up with cunning schemes on how to redistribute.

1 year ago #9497829          

@Yakamaru

So your idea of democracy is that a majority of the European politicians don't get to make any rules for the minority? Even though there are many rules on how to protect the minority?

I think you are about to get a very scary wake-up that you self-confidence and schadenfreude for the rest of Europa is severely misplaced.

I know Farage, I know what he stands for. How much fact-checking did you to on him and his claims? How do you feel about the way he's retracting statement after statement after the election?

As for democracy I refer to this that I wrote to another user:

"If you only count direct democracy as true democracy, then not even Switzerland are truly democratic! We have a representative democracy. If you don't, as an American, know how the EU judicial system works, then I'd be happy to briefly describe why it's very democratic!

We have a commission elected from the elected governments across Europe and a parliament elected directly at national elections. Unlike the US that only has 2 major parties, just about all European countries have many more parties, not making it a red/blue choice. Most countries even elect politicians to the parliament that want out of the EU like UKIP in England or in the case of Denmark the peoples movement against the EU on the left wing and The Danish Peoples Party on the right wing. Both parties are represented in their own group in the parliament.

But back to the the law making that I refereed to as being almost being too democratic and which slow down the legal process. Each proposal has to go through 3 rounds of treatment before in can become a law. In each round, lobbies and organizations on both sides of the matter has to have to time to research, propose changes and have the time to talk with the politicians, not only in the EU but also in the separate countries. The countries also has to have some time to figure out how it effects them and given the chance to protest. All this means that it takes about 2 years on average for a bill to become a law, but the democracy doesn't stop there!

On top of this there are councils to make up guide lines for the European policy of the future. There are meetings of the prime ministers / president, but also just the separate ministers of fishing or agriculture.

But wait, there's more! Most of the laws that comes from the EU are actually not laws but directives! That means that they are not forcing legislation on to the countries, but rather giving the national governments a time frame to make their own rules on a topic. For instance, at what range farmer can use maneuver close to a river."

1 year ago #9498166          

@NorwegianDane Context is important. Do you know how the EU work? Laws? The Parliament? Who the Presidents are? How many different factions there are? Do you know who the current President of the EU are? If your answer is no to these questions, then they answer for themselves.

Reality check. The EU is NOT democratic. It is anti-democratic. Whoever told you the EU is democratic is a lunatic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6QmH-7fu68

^ Irish vote in 2008. NO to the Lisbon Treaty. Got forced anyway.

Go look up the 2005 Lisbon Treaty.

1 year ago #9498338          

@Yakamaru
What you mean by forced, is that they got to do another referendum on it after its revision. They voted yes, and while the results tell us a lot about the reliability of referendum results and public opinion in general, I wouldn't call it any less democratic than the first time. In these things people vote with their emotions which means that the results are pretty wafty at the best of times.

1 year ago #9498383          

@Sprout
Well, the revision was arguably only a change of paper colour and title for the most part. In these conditions, making people vote again can easily be interpreted by them as saying "You didn't get it right the first time, now give the good answer."

If it still doesn't convince you, know that Irish weren't the only one to vote NO against the Lisbon Treaty. French people did to. And they were not allowed to have a say a second time in the matter when the treaty was renamed a passed anyway. This, is a serious scar on the legitimacy of the European Union from the point of view of many french citizen.

1 year ago #9499742          

@Yakamaru It's true that the EU has it's issues, and that we (Ireland) were made to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty, but at the same time the EU has been crucial in Ireland's development from one of the poorest countries in Europe to the 4th richest per capita in the world in 2004 (We've since managed to mess that up, but that's another story). That change would not have been possible without Common Agricultural Policy and EU funding & support. To say we were 'forced' is very strong, and the fact that we accepted Lisbon the 2nd time around must mean that some people who voted 'no' the first time changed their mind. Ireland overall is pro-EU, so don't try and drag us into any anti-EU argument.

1 year ago #9497763          

@NorwegianDane

"The EU is very, VERY democratic, perhaps even too democratic at times, which is why the law-making process takes so long! Everybody must be heard several times."

Who is this "Everybody" you speak of?
You don't know the distinctions between democracy and republicanism, and seem also to be confusing democracy and bureaucracy.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Roman-republic-differ-from-Athenian-democracy

1 year ago #9497826          

@anonymousskimmer

If you only count direct democracy as true democracy, then not even Switzerland are truly democratic! We have a representative democracy. If you don't, as an American, know how the EU judicial system works, then I'd be happy to briefly describe why it's very democratic!

We have a commission elected from the elected governments across Europe and a parliament elected directly at national elections. Unlike the US that only has 2 major parties, just about all European countries have many more parties, not making it a red/blue choice. Most countries even elect politicians to the parliament that want out of the EU like UKIP in England or in the case of Denmark the peoples movement against the EU on the left wing and The Danish Peoples Party on the right wing. Both parties are represented in their own group in the parliament.

But back to the the law making that I refereed to as being almost being too democratic and which slow down the legal process. Each proposal has to go through 3 rounds of treatment before in can become a law. In each round, lobbies and organizations on both sides of the matter has to have to time to research, propose changes and have the time to talk with the politicians, not only in the EU but also in the separate countries. The countries also has to have some time to figure out how it effects them and given the chance to protest. All this means that it takes about 2 years on average for a bill to become a law, but the democracy doesn't stop there!

On top of this there are councils to make up guide lines for the European policy of the future. There are meetings of the prime ministers / president, but also just the separate ministers of fishing or agriculture.

But wait, there's more! Most of the laws that comes from the EU are actually not laws but directives! That means that they are not forcing legislation on to the countries, but rather giving the national governments a time frame to make their own rules on a topic. For instance, at what range farmer can use maneuver close to a river.

I can keep going if there's something specific you're wondering about? I've also lived in the US if you want to compare?

1 year ago #9498202          

@NorwegianDane

"Each proposal has to go through 3 rounds of treatment before in can become a law. In each round, lobbies and organizations on both sides of the matter has to have to time to research, propose changes and have the time to talk with the politicians, not only in the EU but also in the separate countries."

Lobbyists are not democracy.

I'm temperamentally a loner, and I know that significant chunks of the world population are as well. We are not organized as parties or other groups. Our only realistic shot at true representation is a democracy. Not a republic or proportional parliaments.

1 year ago #9498000          

'@anonymousskimmer'
A person asserting a difference in modern use of democracy and republicanism is almost always riding an irony car directly toward a wall. Case in point.
Also sexual intercoursein lol at using "quora" as a source.
In actual modern use democracy refers to representative democracy, and "republic" is a increasingly meaningless term that almost every country without a monarchy uses.
You don't actually know more than all the other folks, you know less. Citing (poorly) even outdated or rarely used meanings of terms like they're someone superior to the common usage is a massive demonstration of being the most clueless person in the room.

1 year ago #9498199          

@sagas

Have you heard of Glarus or Appenzellinnerrhoden?

1 year ago #9498210          

'@anonymousskimmer'
Direct democracy (as the two part term implies) is not the only form of democracy.
I've also heard that the latter only gave women the right to vote in 1991, yes thats nineteen ninety one, so lol if this was also supposed to double as a "Look how cool and advanced that system is!".

1 year ago #9498444          

@NorwegianDane "The EU is very, VERY democratic, perhaps even too democratic at times" Uh yeah no the fact that individual nations are not allowed to outlaw specific chemicals that have been proved dangerous is basically a proof of the lack of democracy in the union. Because that exact rule was not created by the EU parliament but directly by the Court of Justice, meaning that an un-elected group of people is directly deciding stuff regarding the health of the individuals countries population on a argument of economic growth.

1 year ago #9497729          

@Yakamaru It literally already happened. The value of the pound plummeted, Scotland and Northern Ireland are already preparing to leave the UK, and the English economy is already in shambles. It's not theoretical anymore, we can literally see the result.

1 year ago #9497738          

@Tommy Plummeted? Its value got reduced by 30p and people freak out like they've seen a ghost.

The GBP is already on the rise, and I would love for you to show me evidence of the economy being in shambles.

1 year ago #9497747          

@Yakamaru If you haven't already seen the evidence, you are intentionally not looking. I don't intend to waste time on someone whose opinion cannot be changed regardless.
The pound is at its lowest value in 30 years, the UK has dropped from the fifth to the sixth highest economy in the world and probably won't even exist for more than a few more years, and your own
experts have already spelled out what this means for the GDP and overall economic growth. The only way a person could think this is a good move is if they are a nationalist and a fool.

1 year ago #9497767          

@Tommy I AM looking. And what I see are UK having trading partners and a way better economy than ever before. The Pound Sterling was at these levels TWO years ago, not 30. Get your facts straight. It is already going up again.

Several independent nations have already said they want to open negotiations with the UK once the UK leaves the EU. Some of them includes South Korea and Australia, not to mention Japan.

Go learn economics. Are you an economic? No? Then stop spouting crap. This doom and gloom from regressives, Liberals and the Left is becoming annoying.

Once you blindly follow the media and what the politicians you are basically intellectually incapable of listening to opposing views. And gullible.

It's not the end of the UK. The Pound Sterling is a strong as fuck currency. Thinking it will go down is just outright dumb.

Once BANKERS start vouching for either side, worry. They are only interested in money, power and control. And it shows. And, like the PEOPLE they are, they also listen to fear and scare tactics, and aren't immune to being manipulated.

Go listen to Nigel Farage and his arguments. If you don't want to, that's fine. But no not claim crap you have no idea of what is going to happen.

The economy will recover, and once Article 50 is invoked even faster so. Will give the Brexit government actual power to do anything.

The Left and Liberals are proven again and again that they are wrong on a whole plethora of issues. It's about time you are proven wrong once more, and hopefully for good.

1 year ago #9497784          

@Yakamaru Nigel Farage is a racist and an idiot. Everything you have stated is factually and demonstrably false.

1 year ago #9497787          

@Tommy

Prove to me that he is a racist and an idiot. He has been right for 17 fucking YEARS.

Calling someone a racist and an idiot is not an argument. It's a poor attempt at an argument, and frankly, a shit ad hominem attack.

Attack the arguments, not the individual. BASICS of a democracy and a debate.

1 year ago #9497789          

@Yakamaru I don't have to attack the arguments, because as I said before, his side won and the results are now occurring. The results are shit, therefore the arguments were shit. He hasn't been right at all, and now that's borne out. The fact that you don't want to acknowledge the facts doesn't make them less true.

1 year ago #9498303          

@Tommy Not even a week and you are talking shit. Out of your ass. Where your head reside.

Hey, I can do pointless ad hominem too.

No, seriously. This was an inevitable temporary outcome.

Also, I would recommend sourcing your shit on him being wrong on the past 17 years of correct predictions. Please, go on. Prove it.

The ones making a statement is obliged to support his/her shit with sources, facts and statistics. Otherwise they are only an ignorant moron.

1 year ago #9498421          

@Yakamaru Like I said, he won. He won because of dipshits like you, not because he's right though, and we are seeing what is happening as a result. Not temporary by the way, since it won't be long before the UK ceases to exist at all.

1 year ago #9498425          

@Tommy Going to quote you on that when the UK actually blooms economically, socially and globally.

1 year ago #9498428          

@Yakamaru Feel free. I do wonder what UKIP is going to rename itself. After Scotland and Northenr Ireland leave, I think we've decided to call what remains "Wangland."

1 year ago #9497749          

@Yakamaru That is the most conservative and closed-minded things I've ever heard. Are you one of those people who talk down to others for having a different opinion? That's cool. Why don't you go vote fir Trump and burn down a Muslim's home whilst you're at it?

1 year ago #9497786          

@GracieTheGlaceon No. I am stating facts. And the facts are, the EU is a failed experiment. And so is the Euro.

Continued bailouts. Only 11 out of 28 countries with a GDP that is actually growing, the rest is either stagnant or have a negative growth. Forcing a common currency on countries with an already unstable economy, not allowing it to correct itself is outright dumb and will affect everyone.

You are allowed to voice your opinion regardless of what it is.

What I DO NOT enjoy are people not even bothering to look up facts on both sides and their arguments and stating things, out of context, without looking up whether things are true or not. Not to mention blindly following the opinions of others, especially the media and politicians.

When bankers start taking a side, worry. Worry a lot. They have only one agenda: Money, power and control. Banks HATE uncertainty and instability.

Suggestion: Listen to Nigel Farage and his arguments. You'd be surprised how right he has been over the 17 YEARS he's been a member of the EU Parliament.

Economy or freedom. Pick one. You can't have both.

1 year ago #9499383          

@Yakamaru
You keep complaining about people not sourcing their arguments while not mentioning a single source yourself besides Nigel Farage who is a populist, keeps retracting statement after statement since the vote and in my opinion is not a good source for facts. I would hardly discribe the EU as an experiment and am wondering in what way it is failing in your opinion? When hearing positions like yours, I always wonder, have you ever considered, that bailing out other countrys and including them in the € might just be helping to stabilize them and (at least trying to) improve their peoples lives? While I don't think the british economy will fall apart completely I still very much think it is a stupid and unnecessary move to leave the EU, especially for Britain.

Also Nigel Farage totally is a racist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4dDirsf-Ss

1 year ago #9497779          

@Yakamaru No one's asking you to, it's just a comic. That's a comic with character reactions, it's not necessarily her own opinion, and it is 'anti-democratic' to attack her and call her work bs. just because you're upset her characters don't think like you do. If she *is* against Brexit, that's her choice, but this isn't her representation of HER opinion, it's a comical representation of how stereotypical personifications of countries are responding to Brexit. And they are comical stereotypes, because I've been to Norway several times and I have never seen someone walking around with a fish on their head. Not once. If someone has a picture of that, I'd love to see it.

I appreciate that you're trying to stick up for England's decision, but not like this, mate. We don't need people getting offended on our behalf; we're very capable of doing that ourselves. We're also very good at sticking up for ourselves, I promise, we are a wily bunch of cynical, sarcastic b*st*ds. But if you do have any ideas of what England can do after the EU, please direct them to the English Parliament, 'cause they haven't got a clue. At the moment, not many of us seem too convinced that leaving the country in the SOLE care of fear-mongering, lying English politicians who answer to no one is much better than when we were subject to a union of fear-mongering, lying politicians from other countries who answered to each other.

And because of that, this comic is hilarious. If Monty Python was still a thing, they'd be coming out with something similar. I expect Have I Got News For You already has. And I didn't read the comic as, 'Brexit is the worst idea ever,' I read it as, 'Lots of countries think this is a bad idea and we've pissed off Scotland and Ireland' - which is VERY true, check the news.

1 year ago #9498070          

@Yakamaru
The Euro is fucking up everything? Maybe, maybe not. I'd like to point out that Britain uses the Pound though. They do not use the Euro. So what has that to do with their leaving?
And what, precisely, is directly anti-democratic about the EU? Some details, please?

1 year ago #9498191          

@Myrica The Euro is not connected to Britannia, but it will directly affect everyone once it fails on its own. The Euro is affecting every country in a negative way. The Euro will not affect Britannia directly, but it will affect every currency.

You do not force different countries that are different in every single aspect onto a common currency. Especially not on a country with an unstable country. Not on a country that does not meet the requirements. Numerous bailouts because the EU forced currencies on unstable countries. I believe the next and last bailout will bankrupt the EU.

And if you force a common currency onto a country with an unstable economy both the Euro and the country will suffer, but the country will suffer a whole lote more. The Euro does not allow for the currency's value to fluctuate, to allow the economy to adjust for the fluctuations to prevent problems, and to make sure the economy is going in the right direction: Up and positive.

Once Britannia leaves the EU, the Euro will take a massive hit, as Britannia is around 10-12% of total trade, if there were to be no trade deals, Britannia would only lose £25 billion. The EU would lose £42 billion. In trade. Not to mention on tariffs, regulations, etc. The EU will lose a lot more. The Euro would take a much larger hit, as there are countries that have pretty much stagnant economical growth. Affect the Euro, affect the countries. It's all a huge domino effect.

However, this is only if the EU decide to be morons instead of sensible adults and negotiate much better deals with Britannia. Norway have trade with the EU as well, however these is rotten and needs to be fixed. Same as Switzerland, but theirs are actually better.

Britannia also pays tens of billions in Pounds to the EU. Simply for being a member. This will also hit the EU once Britannia leaves. Once it does, I would recommend watching the Euro closely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6QmH-7fu68

^ 2008 Irish vote. The Irish people, Prime Minister of Ireland and the VAST majority of the EU Parliament were against forcing Ireland into the Lisbon Treaty. The non-elected beaurocrats just used the backdoor, causing an economical shitstorm.

Whoever say the EU is democratic have no idea on how it actually work. How all the different factions and Presidents work. Who the Presidents and members of the EU Parliament are.

The EU is not answering to anyone. There is no way to politically influence their voting and law processes. Hell, most of the laws are made behind closed doors. Netherlands, France, Denmark, etc have on several occasions had majority vote on opting out of the EU. They were all ignored. Several times.

The Lisbon Treaty is practically a constitution but made to sound nice. "The European Constitution" does not exactly sound good, does it? And if you are in it, you WILL follow laws, legislations and policies or there will be consequences. A lot of them. If you are an EU member, you will most likely be forced into it regardless of popular vote.

This is the kind of crap Nigel Farage have had to deal with for 17 years. Non-elected beaurocrats who force laws, legislations and rules regardless of the majority vote and against the people's wishes.

I believe it was the 2005 Lisbon Treaty when it was made that Nigel Farage stopped being nice guy and decided to call the EU out on their anti-democratic bullshit every time he had the chance, and boy did he. Every week.

Some may call Nigel Farage rude, but he is right every time, and so have all his predictions. I would recommend watching him take the EU on their stupid shit. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, to name a few.

Whoever say that Nigel is a fascist, racist, etc are all morons. They do not even know the crap that Nigel deals with on a daily basis. In the EU fucking Parliament.

Up until now the EU have forced upon EU members 72 legislations that pretty much everyone in the EU Parliament voted AGAINST. Nigel and the UK voted against all of them. 90% of them were forced through regardless of vote. And this will continue unless the EU are stopped.

At this rate the EU will turn into Russia, basically.

1 year ago #9498395          

@Yakamaru
While I agree with you for the most part, I have to point out that you are mistaking Russia for USSR. USSR was a supranational unelected bureaucratic authoritarian regime, just like the EU is slowly turning to. Russia is only an independent state with an awfully popular president (in his own country).

1 year ago #9498402          

@MaitreLudard Yeah, sorry. I meant the USSR. Need to check if I have shit correctly written or not. :P *slaps himself*

1 year ago #9498773          

'@Yakamaru'
It's not going to be "Brittania" when Scotland leaves lol.
I wonder what creepy nationalist word you'll use to refer to England/Wales.

1 year ago #9498781          

@sagas Anglo-Saxons. British.

Once EU and its Euro fails in the next 5-10 years I am going to just laugh once Scotland begs to come back. Believe me, this will happen.

1 year ago #9498796          

'@Yakamaru'
Anglo-Saxon doesn't work to describe a location haha. What the heck? "WHERE AM I FROM?? I'M FROM AMERICAN!".
Also lol "British" , the island is Great Britain. British and Britannia are (get this) the same exact sort of word. England isn't the whole island or even most of it, am I really gonna have to tell a dude the geography of his own country here? Yikes. I mean poor education would make sense given the rest of what you believe I suppose... but nonetheless yikes.

1 year ago #9497495          

Kind of guessed Humon would be on the Anti-Leave side.

I'm disappointed as Humon manages to mostly be objective and make a comic which both sides of an issue can laugh at. Things that she could have done to do so would be to include Wales being on England's side here as they voted for leave as well. And we in Norway aren't panicking. We're a bit worried, a bit scared, but we aren't panicking. Actually what is happening is that some in Norway are now pressing for a discussing to leave the EEA and join a trade-deal like Switzerland has now. Various people have proposed this. Our politicians are against Brexit and most of the media, but I find that most of us Norwegians are for Brexit or we're split on it. And though Norway might be bit against Brexit, all the other EFTA-nations are saying this brings oppurtunity.

Other things would be to include countries that would like to follow Britain's example, like the French who are discussing an exit, the Dutch who are discussing and exit, the Czech republic who are discussing an exit and even Belgium which is discussing an exit. Or that a certain non-European country *cough**cough*Turkey*cough**cough* is about to join and wants to flood Europe with their.... "workers".

And of course, you should have Russia in the background smugging and folding his hands saying "Goood, gooood". Have Scotland and Ireland cry over the result demanding a revote, threatening to leave Britain, while Wales and England celebrate, high fiveing and with the BBC which speculating that this will trigger the end of the world.

And I'm surprised, and disappointed, that Switzerland is not in this comic. They're also outside the EU. Iceland who is also outside the EU, would also be supportive as you have the Icelandic president praising Brexit and saying it's good for Norway. (http://www.thelocal.no/20160627/iceland-president-brexit-is-good-news-for-norway) That would fit well into this, having Iceland trying to calm down a very nervous and uncertain Norway

All this would make for a better comic which both sides of the debate could laugh at and enjoy.

1 year ago #9497502          

@NorwaySwedenDenmark Goood, gooood comment

1 year ago #9497505          

@MiskisM Russia's reaction

1 year ago #9497527          

'@NorwaySwedenDenmark'
If Turkey is non-European you need to kick out Greece and like half the Balkans. Though probably you're ok with that judging by the sharp cool dude views you otherwise have.

1 year ago #9497672          

@sagas The reason Turkey isn't European is due to geography. Whatever it is that you think makes Greece and "half the Balkans" different from other European countries isn't a factor in this regard. Turkey is geographically in the Middle East, not Europe.

1 year ago #9497731          

@darniil Turkey is as european as Russia. Both have a part of their countries in Europe, and the rest in Asia. Geography is a pretext for EU politicians to push Turkey out of negociations, but the real reason is that Turkey (nearly 80 million inh.) will send a very lot of underpaid workers and that could lower wages much and/or increase unemployment in Western Europe.

1 year ago #9497839          

'@darniil'
Where Europe and Asia end geographically is actually still a completely manmade concept based on fairly arbitrary things. That Turkish Thrace is Europe but not the general Marmara area and Aegean coast is some silly shit. Like seriously, the whole Aegean sea is Europe, but not the east coast? Buh??
All of this is even sillier if coming from people who consider Georgia, Armenia and Cyprus as Europe.
And lo and behold Cyprus is in the EU, a country closer to Syria and Lebanon than it is to Greece.

Its not like I don't disagree that like half of Turkey is Middle East, starting somewhere in central Anatolia, past Anakara I'd say. But the idea that just Turkish thrace is for some totally random reason is super silly.

What makes Greece and the Balkans different than Europe? No you misread me. I'm saying they're part of a distinct cultural sphere that is certainly in part European, and that Turkey is also part of that sphere. At least the western half of it. That cultural sphere also bleeds further east into the Levant in general.
Fact is that whole former Ottoman area has lots of cultural common features. The idea that it just ends at the Bosphorus is silly.

1 year ago #9501647          

@sagas
http://i.imgur.com/jLZTk9I.jpg
No, seriously. I do.

> Like seriously, the whole Aegean sea is Europe, but not the east coast? Buh??

Well, why stop with the Aegean Sea? Why not the entire Mediterranean Sea? I mean, the Aegean could be considered a small part of the overall Mediterranean, and since we have the north coast of the Mediterranean in Europe, why not the south coast?

The question obviously becomes, "Where do you draw the line?" Is "Europe" based on physical location, or is it based on culture? No matter where the line is drawn, yes, it'll be completely arbitrary. This much is true. We could go with political borders, declaring that Russia is entirely Europe, (even though it's geographically in Asia), and then arbitrarily decide that Mongolia and Kazakhstan are not Europe "just because", even though they border a European nation. (The same could be said for Georgia and Azerbaijan.) Then we could slingshot that west through the Black Sea into the Aegean, (by way of Turkey's northwestern border), and bisect the Mediterranean through the Strait of Gibraltar. (But then, oh no, do we include Greenland as part of Europe, or is that North America?)

Going back to the second sentence of the preceding paragraph, whether the arbitrary line that is drawn is political, geographic, or cultural, something's going to get cut off in the middle. Like, if we go with the cultural demarcation, do we include East Thrace as part of Europe but not the rest of Turkey, cutting the country into a European and a Middle Eastern part? What about with Russia? The farther east one goes, the farther away from Moscow and the rest of Europe, how culturally European are the locals? In fact, what does it even mean to be "culturally European"? (I don't think there is such a thing as "culturally European" - Europe has many different cultures and subcultures, but there is no overarching culture that is "European". The Portuguese are quite different from the Finns, the Irish from the Ukrainians.)

And for a geographic/geologic interpretation, using water as a border has been done for countless generations. Mountains, too. As mentioned earlier, the Mediterranean would be an obvious choice for a line of demarcation - "north" of the Mediterranean is Europe, "south" is Africa. "West" isn't a concern, due to the Strait, but "east" does become problematic. Hopping northeast a bit, the Caucasus Mountains are a convenient natural formation to mark the limits of Europe. But how do we link the Mediterranean and the Caucasus? The obvious route is via the Black Sea. But, again, we reach the problem of Turkey when we hit the Bosphorus, as you mentioned. And we have a similar problem with Russia: the Caucasus connect to the Caspian Sea to form a nice border with that body of water, but where do we go from there? Do we follow the Volga River north into Russia to the Rybinsk Reservoir, to Lake Beloye, Lake Onega, and then to the White Sea? (The idea almost smacks of the reverse of post-War border-drawing, but instead of merging disparate cultures into one country because of physical proximity, we're dividing political nations based upon geographic formations.)

> The idea that it just ends at the Bosphorus is silly.

You're absolutely right. It is silly. What's also silly is including a large portion of a country that is not European in the EU just because a smaller portion of it happens to be in physical proximity to European nations and happens to have a culture similar to Europe's. (Again, whatever "culturally European" means.)

Since whatever decision is made will end up being arbitrary, I say we combine the political and geographic aspects. Exclude Turkey and Russia from "Europe", and let the rest of the western nations on the Eurasian Plate (plus Iceland, and Greenland if they want) be "Europe".

1 year ago #9501815          

'@darniil'
"Well, why stop with the Aegean Sea? Why not the entire Mediterranean Sea? I mean, the Aegean could be considered a small part of the overall Mediterranean, and since we have the north coast of the Mediterranean in Europe, why not the south coast?"

If you cross from France to Algeria, from Spain to Morocco, Italy to Libya, there is a noticeably HUGE cultural shift. Even a huge physical geographic shift.
If you cross from Athens to Izmir, there is not.

"
The question obviously becomes, "Where do you draw the line?" Is "Europe" based on physical location, or is it based on culture? No matter where the line is drawn, yes, it'll be completely arbitrary. This much is true. We could go with political borders, declaring that Russia is entirely Europe, (even though it's geographically in Asia),"

There is no definition that describs Russia as geographically in Asia, just that the majority of it is.

" and then arbitrarily decide that Mongolia and Kazakhstan are not Europe "just because", even though they border a European nation."

Mongolia and Kazakhstan border Asian Russia, and in the latter's case kinda sorta European Russia (though not with a populated area on both parts. The major cities and capials of Kaz are deep in Central Asia, and Mongolia isn't even on the table.
You say all this like Russia has to be an either/or proposition, which it doesn't.

"Going back to the second sentence of the preceding paragraph, whether the arbitrary line that is drawn is political, geographic, or cultural, something's going to get cut off in the middle. Like, if we go with the cultural demarcation, do we include East Thrace as part of Europe but not the rest of Turkey, cutting the country into a European and a Middle Eastern part? What about with Russia? The farther east one goes, the farther away from Moscow and the rest of Europe, how culturally European are the locals? In fact, what does it even mean to be "culturally European"? (I don't think there is such a thing as "culturally European" - Europe has many different cultures and subcultures, but there is no overarching culture that is "European". The Portuguese are quite different from the Finns, the Irish from the Ukrainians.)"

I agree with most of this, but perhaps part of my problem is the insistence on demarcation in the first place. Why can't certain countries be considered transitional, both at once. Rather than awkwardly tossed this way or that way.

"And for a geographic/geologic interpretation, using water as a border has been done for countless generations. Mountains, too."

Yes, but usually with actual importance and heft to them. I've been to the Bosphorus, its not remarkable as a border in the slightest. No more than the lower Hudson river anyway.

"You're absolutely right. It is silly. What's also silly is including a large portion of a country that is not European in the EU "

Your all over the place here. You were talking about how the cultural definition is vague and subjective, and that the Bosphorus if anything was just a convenient bit of unimportant standard setting, and yet all of a sudden now Turkey can't join the EU because "it isn't in Europe". This is completely inconsistent. By your own arguments you have no reason to sharply exclude the nation of Turkey from the EU, you refused (even here) to exclude it culturally, and the idea that the semi-arbitrary physical standard decides the fates of a matter of human geography is completely ridiculous. The logic your following isn't leaning toward exclusion, and it's self admitted shallow grounds for it.

"Since whatever decision is made will end up being arbitrary, I say we combine the political and geographic aspects. Exclude Turkey and Russia from "Europe", and let the rest of the western nations on the Eurasian Plate (plus Iceland, and Greenland if they want) be "Europe"."

Except there's a little issue here that above all else highlights the absurdity of Turkey being excluded.
Malta and most of all Cyprus are in the EU. And are not on the Eurasian plate. Malta at least has heavy proximity to Italy, Cyprus isn't even close to Greece by the distance standards of the region. The majority of Turkey is farther northwest toward Europe than it is.

1 year ago #9497616          

@NorwaySwedenDenmark Actually countries like France aren't considering something like this: those French are indeed a minority (at least 62% are pro remain correct me if it is wrong). Those minorities are always present in democratic states.
And Turkey isn't entering in EU! They have started the process to enter but they are far from entering. What they have done recently is a treaty with EU which allows them to free travel in Europe and take some money's from the EU but they have to keep/take back immigrants.
We should say that (at least in Italy) many politicians are now calling for unity. For example this group which is in the European Parliament is on the side of Farage, but now call unity for EU by saying that "EU isn't a good thing right now. But you haven't to throw it away but to change it. And you do this by staying In and not by going Out"(those are not the exact words. The group is called "Movimento 5 stelle")

1 year ago #9497628          

@Svervegian 41 % says they'd vote to leave though, which is a really high number and not such a small minority. And France is the country in the EU with the highest negative opinion of the union with the exception of Greece and the Czech Republic.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3660013/Could-FREXIT-French-far-right-leader-Marine-Le-Pen-calls-referendum-France-s-EU-membership-wake-Brexit-vote.html
http://www.vg.no/spesial/2016/eu-ut-eller-bli/

Sir John Major has said that Turkey could join in as little as a decade, so it's not like they're not going to join in the year 3000 as mr. Cameron claimed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3655236/Nailed-four-big-EU-lies-Talks-Turkey-stall-Brexit-WON-T-spark-trade-war-say-Germans-Brussels-NOT-reform-open-borders-deportation-jobless-EU-migrants-myth.html

1 year ago #9497664          

@Svervegian I want to apologise for spreading misinformation. Sir John Major didn't claim that Turkey could join in as little as a decade, but that they wouldn't join for at least two or three decades and was taken out of context. I will be more careful next time.
Still, that doesn't mean that Turkish membership draws nearer and that they are about to join soon.

Reforming the EU would be a very nice thing and I wish it could come to that, but frankly, I have no hope for such a miracle as they have countered every move to try to.

1 year ago #9497624          

@NorwaySwedenDenmark Yeah not really the funniest most objective comic from Humon :/ though it shows most of what is happening right now rather accurately. I am very much pro leave though. The whole idea behind Eu is great and all but the idea was flawed at execution and at this point it is too damn broken to be fixed.

1 year ago #9497630          

@thorbjorn42gbf I think it shows the chaos and doomesday talking clearly, but Scotland and Northern Ireland are not represented in an honest way here. They're like "Yeah, we'e gonna leave. Have fun on your own". When how they're really acting is more like "HOW DARE YOU VOTE TO LEAVE! YOU PROMISED THAT IF I (Scotland) REMAINED THAT YOU'D NOT LEAVE! I DEMAND A SECOND REFERENDUM" "On the EU or Scottish Independence?" asks England. "BOTH!!!"

1 year ago #9497666          

@thorbjorn42gbf It "shows [things] rather accurately", but it's not objective?

1 year ago #9497649          

@NorwaySwedenDenmark

Long time fan of Humon but I created an account today just to reply to BS you're writing! I'm sick and tired of the EU discussion in Norway being filled with myths and false data about the EU. Our self-absorbed nationalism makes us think that all that is great must come from Norway while all that is bad must come from the outside and the rest of Europe is just holding its breath to please us.

Even if Norway wanted, we couldn't just get a deal like Switzerland! Nobody can because after that deal was constructed everybody realized just how complicated it made everything. Norway is already getting a sweet deal with the EU but if anything, that's going to change in the future. That's why out prime-minister thought Norway could get away with paying the same amount of money to stay in the EEA but ended up paying a lot more. And that will only get worse in the future for several reasons, above all that we need them more than they need us! Norway needs to keep its access to the internal marked of the EU because the EU is by far our largest trading partner. It is more costly to produce things in Norway and if you add import tariffs we simply can't compete. At the same time, to protect our own marked and farmers, we put a heavy tariff on all food, plants and other things that other countries would like to sell us. That's why that even though we have one of the worlds largest exporters of pork right south of out border, we actually drive our on pork to Denmark, have it processed on a separate line and then have it returned to be resold in Norway because it is much cheaper than just having it imported! And the same with "Spanish" serrano ham that we have send all the way to Spain! We want to sell our stuff in other countries but we won't let them sell their stuff in Norway and guess what! - they're getting more and more annoyed with us because it is costing, especially our neighbors, a lot of money and jobs. We have been getting away with it because we are a small country but now that GB is seeking a similar deal, we can no longer expect to get by unnoticed. And the EU can't let us because that would make other countries wonder why they should be a part of the EU when we apparently don't have to and yet appears to get all the advantages. Yes, we pay money for that privilege but there's a reason why we keep making that deal!

And the thing about is that even though we get to put heavy tariffs on foreign products, we still have to follow most of the rules even though we, because we're not a member of the EU, don't get to make those rules. That's why you've probably notices all phone commercials on TV where the companies are being nice to us by making it a lot cheaper to use data abroad in Europe. They did it last year too and they'll do it again next year. Here's what they don't tell you: they, along with other European phone companies, have spend millions of euro fighting this because they have been using the disadvantage of tourists to make them pay extremely high fees that in no way corresponds with their actual cost. The EU made them change this, just like they limit the amount of dangerous chemicals in our hairspray and toys children, hold facebook and google responsible for not deleting the data they are collecting on us and many, many, many other things in our daily lives that we never hear about, because we live in our Norwegian bubble of ignorant bliss. But we don't get to make those rules that effect us because we're not in the EU, so we just have to hope that they other countries that are do what's best for us.

Which bring us to Turkey that you claim is about to join the EU. Here's the funny thing about that: if Norway HAD been a member of the EU, we could actually veto that! All members of the EU has to accept a new member, which is one of the reasons why Turkey can't join because you can't have a member of the EU that doesn't recognize another member of the EU, like in the case of Turkey and Cypress that is already a member. Even if that should change and even if they solve the many, many other problems, there's already a bunch of countries that have said that they will veto Turkey becoming a member of the EU. All that has changed lately is that they've begun discussing the problems and I actually don't think that's a bad thing. In the past, that process alone brought many positive changes to Turkey from a European perspective and it was when the negotiating stopped that things took a turn for the worse in Turkey.

The EU-debate in Norway is practically non-existent and when it's finally pops up, it's always negative and one-sided. How could it be any different when our politicians and companies takes credit for everything positive that comes out of the EU while they blame the EU whenever something is unpopular. And the media cares more about what their readers want to read and what gives them clicks on their web-pages than they do about giving us information that we might actually need. And us, the people, the voters, we are the ones that a truly to blame because we don't hold anyone accountable. We don't because, even though we know that we probably should make the effort, we don't take the time to get what we need to make informed decisions. So we blame the politicians, we blame the companies, we blame the media, we blame the EU but in the end, all we blame them for is our own guilty conscience. Not all things in life is easy and when you have to make very complicated decisions on complected matters, you need to put in some effort. You don't skip class all year and then right before the exam expect the teacher to explain curriculum in two minutes or less. That's how you create a lot of myths and false information. That's the trap we have fallen into.

1 year ago #9497651          

@NorwegianDane Welcome to the forum. Hope you like it here.

1 year ago #9497846          

@NorwaySwedenDenmark Despite your scaremongering about the imminent arrival of a bunch of scary brown people, Turkey is nowhere close to being eligible to join the EU. In fact, they are becoming less eligible as time goes on under Erdogan. Cut the crap please.

1 year ago #9497881          

@NorwaySwedenDenmark
Be careful. Norway is not talking about leaving the EEA. Nobody is seriusly doing that except for a few right-wing nationalists and ex-communists. We are in fact reacting the way the comic is drawing us.

I am not so sure you should be doing political and/or economics analysis, because it seems like you are basing your information on the comments on nettavisen.no, which are wrong 95% of the time.

1 year ago #9498268          

@IrquiM Not really the way the comic is drawing us. We're not panicking, but we're kind of worried. It's not just communists and natonalists, but also Nei til EU is also pressing for it, unless you count them as former communists. Still, I don't see why communists and nationalists should not count as it's the same people who are pressing the debate in other countries.

I see little chance of us leaving the EEA anytime soon, but a debate about it might arise.

Though I know I've been criticised for the use of my sources, and heeded the warnings, other than Turkish membership, I'd like to know where you'd put falsehood in what I've said

1 year ago #9497942          

@NorwaySwedenDenmark

We eat popcorn and watch.

1 year ago #9498081          

@NorwaySwedenDenmark
I think I would have enjoyed Wales, Iceland and Switzerland participating as well. (Namely Iceland. "Hey England! Europe said I may beat you up now."?) Poland too. Wasn't it Polish immigrants whom pro-Brexit-voters wanted out of the country?
However, how many panels do you think Humon should draw per edition?

Are you sure Russia in particular is happy with this, though? I see rather USA and China quite happy when their competitor EU splits and becomes weaker. Particularly USA. The Euro as possible worldwide reserve currency competing with the Dollar is the biggest threat to their financial system that can be.

1 year ago #9498271          

@Myrica "Wasn't it Polish immigrants whom pro-Brexit-voters wanted out of the country?"
As I understood it, the Polish were heavily anti-Brexit and wanted them to stay.

Yeah, I'm sure Putin is very happy about this. All you need is google it

1 year ago #9497302          

-We must arrange a new referendum until we get a result I agree with!
-Doesn't that defeat the idea of democracy?
-What?! NO!
-Think it sorta does.
-NO! Democracy is about people thinking the way I tell them to think!
-Uh, that sounds like fascism---
-IT'S NOT!! Don't disagree with me, you fascist!

1 year ago #9497342          

@DarkMage7280 You must be really happy about Brexit aren't you?

1 year ago #9497355          

@silverbackgorilla7

Do we know each other? I'm not happy or upset, just curious at the moment.

1 year ago #9497388          

@DarkMage7280 i don't know you. it just seems based on your comment that you were mocking people who were against brexit and who wanted a new referendum. i was assuming that you were a brexit supporter.

1 year ago #9497394          

@silverbackgorilla7 Well, you're wrong.
I was mocking people who are anti-democracy.

1 year ago #9497733          

@silverbackgorilla7

You don't seem to understand what Fascism is defined as. Basically it means silencing everyone you don't agree with.

Calling people for fascists because you don't agree with them is being a hypocrite AND a fascist. Not to mention biggoted. Towards "fascists".

So far as I understand from UK law, it is NOT illegal to:

1. Be racist
2. Be a nationalist
3. Be xenophobic
4. Be a fascist
5. State their opinions, even if they don't agree with yours
6. Only one side is salty as fuck

1 year ago #9497347          

@DarkMage7280 Today's liberals in a nutshell.

1 year ago #9497350          

@DarkMage7280

“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”
-Nigel Farage, May 2016

"[Another referendum is] the last thing I want to see. It’s not a game of the best of three.”
-Nigel Farage, June 2016

1 year ago #9497356          

@Iateapenguin

The way I see it, democracy means the will of the majority. I hated having Tarja Halonen for president in my country, and voted against her twice, but most people wanted her as prez, so I lived with it. Begrudgingly.

1 year ago #9497361          

@DarkMage7280
Oh, by all means, it is. I'm not debating that.

In fact, I want this country to go down the shitter now. I want Scotland to leave the UK, I want Ireland reunited. I want Little England to be left on its own to suffer.

I can't wait to watch the Leave voters struggle to find someone else to pin the blame on when they still can't get jobs, houses, when they still have to wait weeks for doctors' appointments. I can't wait for them to start whinging because we didn't sacrifice the single market by ending free movement, to grumble when they're stuck for hours in the queue for non-EU passports at the airport. I can't wait for them to realise their pensions have substantially decreased, and that they can't just retire and fuck off to the Costa del Sol any more. I can't wait for them to awkwardly shuffle and tell their foreign coworkers and friends "but it wasn't personal" as they watch them struggle to obtain visas, as they watch them leave the country because they no longer feel welcome. I want them to drink their own fucking tears.

1 year ago #9497365          

@Iateapenguin It remains to be seen if things really come down to that.

1 year ago #9497374          

@DarkMage7280
Well, unlike the Leave voters, I base my predictions on what the experts say.

1 year ago #9497378          

@Iateapenguin I have no predictions either way. I'm going to just watch and see how things turn out. I've been right and wrong too many times by now (36) to get over-excited.

11 months ago #9554529          

Sadly, it seems America's reaction to Brexit was "you think that's big? Hold my beer and watch this!"

1 year ago #9498095          

Let get some things straight:
- Everything said in the comic is true (no this is not up for debate)
- a large part of the pro-brexit vote was based on racism, misinformation, and fascist like nationalism
- The EU is not and never was oppressing you, nor is it undemocratic
- 53% of a vote is not a large enough majority to justify a decision like this ESPECIALLY when when Scotland voted "no" universally and many people are coming out stating they did not understand the true meaning of the vote. That is not true Democracy, that is a technically of votes base misinformation and English bias.
- There needs to be a another vote, one where all three kingdoms of the UK being on board with the idea and there is at least a 60% majority pro-Brexit for it to past. The and only then can you claim is the democratic will of British people, in till the you call of democratic are completely hollow.

1 year ago #9498161          

@SirAroun well to be honest; -if all of scotland has voted no...then a big chunk of the rest has voted yes
- 53% is sadly the majority...even if it screws up half of the voters...(but if i remember correctly the uk-voting system was allready screwed)
-if you vote, you vote, there is no "i am stupid"-option (sadly)

lets see what the futur brings, maybe everything turns out fine, maybe not, maybe the uk joins amerika as a state =3

1 year ago #9498190          

@Azurblau

Oh, please no.
Who is it you hate? Them? Or us?

1 year ago #9498518          

@SeanR Pahahaha... Ouch, dude :p

1 year ago #9498342          

@SirAroun Nationalism is fascism nowadays? I like my country, am I a nazi? I recognize that there are differences between countries and cultures and that there should be: we can't all be cast out of the same mold. Am I a nazi?

1 year ago #9498362          

@DarkMage7280 No, you're definitely not. But for Brits and Germans, fascism and nationalism seem to be synonyms.

1 year ago #9499521          

@DarkMage7280 The little children in Norway on 17th of May swinging their Norwegian flags and singing the Norwegian anthems are supposedly some racist, nationalistic fascists.

I never knew.

I have to report them to the police next year. Can't have all the children of Norway waving the fascist Norwegian flag in the streets, even in front of the King and Queen (what are they thinking, when they see all those Nazis coming towards them...).

The butt hurt is strong among the losers now, and we'll just have to endure their bigoted and anti-democratic slurs for a decade or more, until they get out of puberty.

1 year ago #9497687          

This is a time for celebration. England having the guts to stand up to the fourth Reich is an inspiration to all of us to do the same. Down with the EU

1 year ago #9524804          

@rphb Do the words "Godwin's Law" mean anything to you?

1 year ago #9501136          

Brexit
Grexit
Sleavenia
Swedone
Beljump
Byeprus
Copenhatin'
Oui out
Quitaly
Abortugal
Outstria
Nullgaria
Nether Again
Noatia
Forsakia
Czech-out
Egresstonia
Helsinkhole
Angaleave Merkel
Donegary
Retireland
Lat-me-out
Ditchuania
Luxembark
Maltalavista
Gomania
Españope
Polskedaddle

1 year ago #9501144          

@GingerSwede

Brilliant!
This need to print!

1 year ago #9501558          

@GingerSwede
genius, O-o

1 year ago #9501819          

@GingerSwede whoa 0.o

1 year ago #9502070          

@GingerSwede
"Abortugal"
Genial!
XD

1 year ago #9504901          

@GingerSwede That needs to be on a T-Shirt. And made into a computer wallpaper.

1 year ago #9505006          

@NorthIreland lmao, I want it on a t-shirt too actually

1 year ago #9505764          

@GingerSwede BWAHAHAHA

1 year ago #9498782          

This cartoon is ignorant;

Norway is part of Schengen and the Scandinavian Council. We are members of neither and have no wish to be like Norway. Under EFTA, 20% of EU rules apply to Norway - but it can veto any rule under EFTA pillar, so any rules applying to it are negotiated beforehand to avoid veto. This is much better than QMV in EU.

And the UK also has oil

Scotland did not vote to stay in the UK to be part of the EU. However, it did agree it was part of one nation. It can not, therefore, argue that it is a separate nation under this poll. For better, for worse - they agreed to be together. Spain and France have vetoed any separtist negotiations.

Under the Vienna Convention all migrants living in either Europe or the UK may continue in place. It would be a violation, moreover, of the ECHR and UN Charter to expel them. This is not our intention. To scaremonger on this basis is quite fascist and unacceptable.

It is unlikely that freedom of movement, or participation in the Erasmus scheme will be affected.

The biggest problem with this cartoon is how unfunny and alarming it is. There is no problem with being a democratic, free trade nation. The migration issue today is caused by Commonwealth Migrants coming by family reunification and through exploiting the Indefinite Leave to Remain system to gain access for the first comer in any family. Due to the incompetence of the Labour government; family reunification for 3rd World Migrants will guarantee hundreds of thousands a year. The only way to deal with this would be to cancel membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is not linked - directly - to the EU, the European Court of Human Rights is an unaffiliated body,

This cartoon was dull, alarmist and ignorant. I give it ZERO.

1 year ago #9498797          

@hickster "We are members of neither"

It would help if you stated what "we" means; "we" dont know what country you're from. England?

"Under EFTA, 20% of EU rules apply to Norway"

I don't know where you're getting this, but I live in Iceland (another EFTA country), and the vast majority of our regulations on goods, trade, etc come straight from EU regulations.

"but it can veto any rule under EFTA pillar, so any rules applying to it are negotiated beforehand to avoid veto. This is much better than QMV in EU."

Any *new* rule, not existing ones. And it's a right that's never been exercised, because it's not line-item, and thus would limit their potential to take part in new trade agreements. You can't just take the parts you like and not those you don't.

Council votes require unanimity in the case of the commission rejecting changes to proposals, aka, everyone has veto in such a case. The commissioners are appointed by member states, and the council is heads of state.

"And the UK also has oil"

More accurately, Scotland has oil. Or had you forgotten that? The gas fields are in the south. The oil fields are in the north:

http://noc.ac.uk/f/content/science-technology/marine-resources/hydrocarbons_img1.png

"Scotland did not vote to stay in the UK to be part of the EU"

The two biggest arguments put forth by the "remain" side were precisely that: that there would be chaos if they left, and they'd lose access to being part of the EU. The situation is now precisely reversed. They can, and most likely will, reverse the previous vote.

"However, it did agree it was part of one nation."

It did no such thing. It was, and remains, its own country. It *is*, legally, a separate nation. It is what's known as a "constituent country" of the United Kingdom. It's called the United Kingdom because it's a union of multiple countries. It's right there in the name. The prime minister's website refers to them as "countries within a country"

" Spain and France have vetoed any separtist negotiations."

Funny, given how just seconds ago you were arguing that countries lose their ability to veto things in the EU ;)

"Under the Vienna Convention all migrants living in either Europe or the UK may continue in place."

Hope shines eternal. Reality doesn't.

http://www.connexionfrance.com/Vienna-Convention-1969-expats-rights-residence-Brexit-17867-view-article.html

"It is unlikely that freedom of movement, or participation in the Erasmus scheme will be affected. "

Except that everyone from the EU interviewed on the subject has stated precisely the opposite.

Re, your immigrant fear: the rate of immigration being talked about is less than half a percent of the UK's population per year. Which is hardly some sort of unsustainable rate. Furthermore, it's well established that immigrants tend to be a boon to local economies, as they tend to be young people with lots of working years ahead of them. They give to the economy a lot more than they get out of it.

Lastly, what exactly are your plans? Mass deportation of refugees? Kicking out immigrants who've lived there for years? How many treaties are you planning to ditch?

1 year ago #9498801          

More concerning your claim that Britons are just going to merrily be able to continue living in the EU because of the Vienna convention - here's what the UK's own government says:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504216/The_process_for_withdrawing_from_the_EU_print_ready.pdf

"5.9 Many UK citizens would want any negotiations to secure their continued right to work, reside and own property in other EU states, and to access public services such as medical treatment in those states. UK citizens resident abroad, among them those who have retired to Spain, would not be able to assume that these rights will be guaranteed. At the very least, any terms which the UK seeks for its own citizens would have to be offered to EU citizens wishing to come to or stay in this country"

I know you don't want to *believe* that. But what you choose to believe has no reality on what actually is the case. And even if it was a mere "party A can interpret it one way, party B another way" - do you really think that the EU is in a position right now of wanting to do you any favours as "party B"?

Either you accept other EU citizens and they accept yours, or you don't, and they don't. They're not going to give you a one-way deal. Period. That is simply in the realms of fantasy to think that you could get such a thing.

1 year ago #9499016          

@Karen Yep, westminister also broke prudah rules in scotlands referendum, meaning they actually broke electorial (which is under criminal) law, they made so many claims and promises the biggest of these the one that played the biggest part was their claim that the only way scotland could remain in the EU is if it voted "no", that claim is now shot to hell, and even in the most biased anti-independence/pro-unionist papers with the most anti-independence/pro-unionist readership have polled scotish independance now at 53%, the rest it's as high as 69% for independence. There is also the fact that upto this point the only group that hadn't stopped campagining since 2014 was bettertogeather, they have nothing left, the £? that's down 12%, the euro is now outpreforming the pound sterling on the markets, at it's current rate it could very well be £1 = €1, so their EU argument is shot to hell, their currency argument is shot to hell and the joke in scotland (where I am) regarding currency is now "anything but the £", the oil is ours and 100% of usd$50/barrel is still a vastly larger amount more then 8% of $100/barrel, it would have to fall to less then usd$9/barrel before we actually see a fall in "our share" of our oil revenue, not to mention "the oil running out" was their 3rd big argument, funny how they keep finding massive oil sites almost immediately after the vote, the 4th big argument they put forth was what the majority actually wanted and that was full devolution or devo-max whatever you want to call it, bit promises that the so called smith commission didn't even come close to delivering 1/3rd of and then that was even shot down eventually to the nonsense they then put forward in a bid to try to use it as a trap against the scotish government.. the 5th big lie was building all those royal navy ships, yeah they've just cancelled the last of a list they already cancelled in that one type-26 frigate or at the very very best it's been put on hold and filed away under revisit possibly never. Frankly, scotland voted resolutely to remain in the EU. This person where-ever they're from (it dosn't even matter, could be from scotland, and if so sounds like an orangeman) dosn't seem to understand just exactly what it is the UK has gotten itself into it's very possibly there may be no UK for the EU to negotiate with before long.

1 year ago #9498952          

@Karen
"the rate of immigration being talked about is less than half a percent of the UK's population per year. Which is hardly some sort of unsustainable rate."

The rate of soviet colonists into Estonia was 0,8% per year.
It decreased the share of natives from 97% to 60% in 43 years.
For natives, such a rate was unsustainable.

1 year ago #9498962          

@ThorsomeTarmukas So, double the rate. And you're talking about 43 years. Do you really think that the current immigration crisis is going to last 43 years?

1 year ago #9498966          

@Karen
If you had any understanding of population dynamics and of the arithmetic sequence and geometric sequence, then you would understand that immigration issues are going to get geometrically worse. As with accumulating interest.

Syrians went from 0,9 million people 115 years ago to 25 million people 5 years ago.
Which means they have the capability to multiply to 625 million a hundred years from now. And that is just syrians.

Africans went from 100 million to 1,1 billion in 100 years. They are projected to grow to 4 billion by the end of this century. And that is just africans.

Are you able to apply simple math to the problem?

1 year ago #9498968          

@ThorsomeTarmukas Sorry, human beings are not yeast cells; human populations don't change geometrically. Actual expansion rates are constrained by numerous factors *not* related to the speed at which it is technically possible to reproduce. Most notably, there is a strong negative correlation between wealth and birth rate. When you're poor, your children are your resources. When you're wealthy, they're a cost.

1 year ago #9498982          

@Karen
[ human populations don't change geometrically. ]

I just gave you two examples where it has happened in most recent history.

Do you know that the number of estonians in Estonia at present is only 2-3x higher than that it was before the industrial revolution? About 3,6x more than at 1340 AD.

As you can see, some populations try to manage to live within the carrying capacity of local ecotopes, while others don't.

There are constrictions, yes, like ground water in the Middle East and Africa, and it will hit hard.

[ Most notably, there is a strong negative correlation between wealth and birth rate. ]

The idea of a linear correlation between wealth and birth rate is demonstrably false.
Even rank correlation can be eliminated.
And with nonlinear correlation you can't really talk about a definitive sign of the correlation.

The Middle East has had better education that estonians since 11 000 BC to about 1650 AD.

[ When you're poor, your children are your resources. When you're wealthy, they're a cost. ]

Wealth is relative.
Hunter-gatherers lived in balance with their environment.

1 year ago #9499034          

@ThorsomeTarmukas Three words: check a map:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/World_net_birth_rate_2007.png

There are exceptions, but they are few and far between. Wealth is by far the strongest correlator with population growth. And it's a correlation, not a causation, too, as it shifts as a country becomes wealthier.

Human populations do not expand geometrically except when *other factors* allow it. It's a well established fact. It's silly to treat humans like a bunch of yeast cells in a vial.

1 year ago #9499065          

@Karen
[ Wealth is by far the strongest correlator with population growth. ]

Only perhaps during the industrial and post-industrial age. And even that is debatable.

[ Human populations do not expand geometrically except when *other factors* allow it. It's a well established fact. ]

Sure.
And that is why we CANNOT allow such explosive subpopulations (such as syrians and africans) to expand into Europe. We have to be one such *other factor*, as we always have.

[ It's silly to treat humans like a bunch of yeast cells in a vial. ]

That is funny, because that is exactly the strategy that humanity has followed during all the time of civilisation. Civilisations are built on Ponzi schemes, at least until now.

1 year ago #9499090          

@ThorsomeTarmukas "Only perhaps during the industrial and post-industrial age."

And the irony of the fact that the countries with the highest growth rates being pre-industrial or in the process of industrialization totally flies right past you.

"We have to be one such *other factor*"

Says you. Reality says otherwise.

1 year ago #9499121          

@Karen

[ And the irony of the fact that the countries with the highest growth rates being pre-industrial or in the process of industrialization totally flies right past you. ]

Any country with a diesel engine is an industrial country. They all are by now.

[ Says you. Reality says otherwise. ]

I support local sustainability.
Both in Estonia, in Iceland, in Europe, in Syria, in Africa.
It rather seems that you do not.

1 year ago #9499161          

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
"I just gave you two examples where it has happened in most recent history."

No you listed two places that have a lot more people now than before. And then that was it.

Have you literally never taken a statistics class in your entire damn life lol.

"Do you know that the number of estonians in Estonia at present is only 2-3x higher than that it was before the industrial revolution? About 3,6x more than at 1340 AD."

Estonia is a backwater location regardless of period of history, the sort of urban population explosions aren't really a factor when the country was never producing mega cities, or having huge bumper crop style agriculture. Nevermind both. It's like being surprised that West Virginia didn't become as populated and normal Virginia.
Even so where are you even getting statistics for early Estonian population? The farthest back I can find is the 1880's, which would have been after industrialization.

"As you can see, some populations try to manage to live within the carrying capacity of local ecotopes, while others don't."

Estonia is a sparsely populated forest, but yeah ok sure, your barren cold woods are totally an overpopulated calamity like Bangladesh. Your country is like at least three times as large as my state, and we have three times your population. Meanwhile Karen is from a country even more sparsely populated by FAR then Estonia. So lol at aiming this argument at her like she just doesn't understand frail little Estonia's dilemma.

"The idea of a linear correlation between wealth and birth rate is demonstrably false."

Its not wealth exactly, more industrialization. Huge population booms are associated with developing countries which initially keep up patterns of large families, but lose the constant child/baby death. The transition to developed country partly follows along that old way of family life also dying out to match the new reality. The vast majority of the world has followed this population boom pattern, in fact the literal world has followed this pattern. This is the reason you see earth population charts that suddenly explode once you reach the industrial revolution. But in the developed world population is slowly shrinking rather than growing. It's not a linear trend, because almost nothing sociological is ever linear. It is a completely accurate and heavily substantiated general trend.
Your random patch of cold forest with borders not exactly following that trend don't mean shit. And the idea that it was some conscious choice prepared for a post-industrialized world is insane.

"The Middle East has had better education that estonians since 11 000 BC to about 1650 AD."

Probably not for the vast majority of Middle Easterners. The vast majority of nowhere was educated for most of history. And this isn't even relevant on its own or pre-industrialization anyway.

"Wealth is relative. Hunter-gatherers lived in balance with their environment. "

She's saying that pre-industrialization most societies lived by having large families. They also however had high mortality rates and were mostly agricultural where large families were benefits.
Increased urbanization and decreased child mortality....not immediately being accompanied by smaller family size...equals population KABOOM.

1 year ago #9499180          

@sagas

[No you listed two places that have a lot more people now than before. And then that was it.]

That WAS a geometric progression. Btw, geometric progression was a 6-8th grade topic.

[ Even so where are you even getting statistics for early Estonian population? ]

Estonian Soviet Encyclopedia. And the later Estonian Encyclopedia.
1200 AD around 150 000 - 180 000 people lived in Estonia, based on the count of land units done by the crusaders. For some counties there are only estimates of land units. The further estimate is the family size living off of one land unit. The average such family size is considered to have been 7,5 persons.
By 1340 AD the population had increased to about 250 000. The medieval spread was between 70 000 to 450 000. At present there are 900 000 estonians in Estonia, the maximum was 1,0 million about 100 years back.

Urban populations cannot exist in a vacuum, it has to be backed up by the rural population and land.

[ So lol at aiming this argument at her like she just doesn't understand frail little Estonia's dilemma. ]

She doesn't. And neither do you.
Geometric progression has nothing to do with the initial state. What matters is the progression that outstrips the space of the whole universe. Isaac Asimov has a thought experiment that shows that even if human population could expand at the speed of light, a geometric growth would reach that limit in only a few thousand years. Look it up. He probably did not take into account special relativity and black hole calculations, though. But then again, no human has been known to be able to live or reproduce within a black hole.

And that is why the real population dynamics are more like golden rule based oscillations below the carrying capacity level.

And you don't need to live in a megacity to understand that.

[ This is the reason you see earth population charts that suddenly explode once you reach the industrial revolution. ]

The issue is not how or when it starts.
The issue is how to stop it in order to not overshoot the local carrying capacity.
And the excuse that a society is not rich enough to do that just does not cut it in the real world.
Stable populations have no responsibilities towards exploding populations.

[ And the idea that it was some conscious choice prepared for a post-industrialized world is insane. ]

It is sane.
Hunter-gatherers managed a stable population for thousands of years.
It is insane to keep growing like yeast without any foresight.

1 year ago #9499148          

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
You have absolutely no understanding of population dynamics whatsoever if you think it's just a math problem sitting in a void.

1 year ago #9499168          

@sagas
It is a math problem first and a game-theoretic problem of Tragedy of the Commons second.

I have a hard time imagining population dynamics as anything but those two abovementioned views. Can you provide any further approaches?

1 year ago #9499174          

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
"It is a math problem first and a game-theoretic problem of Tragedy of the Commons second."

Truly a steady geometric mathematical equation.
http://blog.dssresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/world_population_1050_to_2050.jpg

"I have a hard time imagining population dynamics as anything but those two abovementioned views. Can you provide any further approaches?"

Just because it involves numbers doesn't make it math. And I have no idea how you see Tragedy of the Commons as involved exactly.

1 year ago #9499185          

@sagas

"Truly a steady geometric mathematical equation."

It is.
Did you try the (semi-)logarithmic scale?

[Just because it involves numbers doesn't make it math.]

It does.

[ And I have no idea how you see Tragedy of the Commons as involved exactly. ]

We live in a finite world with finite resources.
Larger population density means less resources for each individual.
Immigration means less resources for each individual.
Stable population size is a social choice (a social contract) to try to solve the Tragedy of the Commons problem. Ethnic estonians in Estonia have been among the most stable populations in the world for the last 120 years. Mass immigration would destroy all that.

1 year ago #9499483          

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
Estonians (like other Eastern Europeans) are leaving their country in large amounts lol. Your population, already insanely small and not at all overflowing, is now shrinking in dangerous fashion. But please continue lying to yourself.

1 year ago #9499520          

@sagas
You are right, that the number of estonians in Estonia is shrinking (some say alarmingly). But that does not change any of my prior claims about the most stable population in the last 120 years, nor does it change my statements about mass immigration.

1 year ago #9499631          

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
I like how your pretending to be against strictly "mass immigration", but actually the mass needn't be there, now does it.

1 year ago #9499786          

@sagas
If the share of natives in the native land is below 90% and the annual immigration rate is above 0,1% of the living natives in the native land, then that is definitely mass immigration.

1 year ago #9498798          

'@hickster'
The UK does not have oil in the same way that a barely populated country like Norway that also has a shitload of oil does lol. Do you not get the math behind that?

"Scotland did not vote to stay in the UK to be part of the EU. However, it did agree it was part of one nation. It can not, therefore, argue that it is a separate nation under this poll. For better, for worse - they agreed to be together."

Scotland can however vote on secession again? Duh? That's obviously the implied route, not them just randomly deciding to leave right now.

"Spain and France have vetoed any separtist negotiations."

They have vetoed Scotland being able to remain in the EU while also remaining in the UK. The implications of which are actually the complete reverse of what you seem to have thought they were. Meaning this is even MORE motive for Scotland to leave the UK, because that's virtually the only way to remain (or rejoin) the EU.

"Under the Vienna Convention all migrants living in either Europe or the UK may continue in place."

...argue some lawyers. This isn't some clear cut case, they better hope they can argue this case...or perhaps they shouldn't because that would also mean the same is true of all those EU migrants in the UK they hate so much.

"It is unlikely that freedom of movement"

Because the British government is having to accept the idea being possible in the terms the EU is pressing on it? Almost as if it's reluctantly being considered, in spite of being a source of hate and anger for the Leave voters, and being considered in the first place due to how important and tied the UK is to the European economy.
A laundry list of things that makes you wonder what the point of all this even was.

"The migration issue today is caused by Commonwealth Migrants coming by family reunification and through exploiting the Indefinite Leave to Remain system to gain access for the first comer in any family. Due to the incompetence of the Labour government; family reunification for 3rd World Migrants will guarantee hundreds of thousands a year."

You should tell that to the people attacking and harassing Poles and Romanians. And the Leave campaigners using migration in their message constantly. It would be big news to them lol.