There's no faux fairness here, I'm not trying to be fair, I am openly against the UK leaving the EU, because it appears to me that leaving has no merits whatsoever. I would like to hear any you can think of.
I'm not a Brit, nor a European, so I'm far from an expert. However, one need not be an expert on the specifics to understand the principle that having to obey the edicts of a commission composed of members of which you are only one, the edicts of which you do not have veto power over, is a de facto ceding of sovereignty, to at least a degree.
If you either do not value sovereignty in principle, or you think that nothing bad enough happened yet to justify retaking sovereignty, that would be a good clarification for you to make.
You know that it's always easier to maintain the status quo, and after all the controversy and hand-wringing since the referendum, you know a second one would favor remaining.
True. The mistake has been realized, a taste of the consequences has been had, and the UK's public would like to undo this mistake. You'd prefer to bind them to it against their will, I presume.
Nice try. More leftist propaganda and spin. "You'd hold them hostage against their will, you fascist!" you say after a completely legitimate referendum was held, after years of campaigning for both sides. Now that the media has gone into full-on, we-never-thought-this-would-actually-happen panic mode, and succeeded in scaring people into thinking that the sky is falling--with the helpful scolding of even the UK's allies, Obama even threatening Britain if they follow through!--now you want another vote! "Now they realized their mistake!" you say. Pathetic. Had the referendum been to stay, and the opposition were calling for another vote, you'd be crying foul as loudly as anyone. Hypocrite.
And if you're really a patriotic Brit, have a little faith in your fellow Brits
I am not, and those Brits just demonstrated horrendous decision-making skills, so my faith in them is low right now.
If the British 60 years ago had that attitude, they'd be speaking German right now.
For the good of Europe, Britain needs to return to a position of leadership and strength, and for that it needs real sovereignty.
Ah so this is the imperialist nostalgia I've heard so much about, first time I've seen it myself. Britain was only ever a superpower thanks to colonialism. Unless you think you can give that a second try, you'll have to accept that Britain is a relatively small country with no notable abundance of natural resources and as such it will never be a superpower comparable to the US, China, Russia, or arguably the EU you just left.
No, it's nothing to do with imperialism or colonialism or being bigger or badder or more powerful than other nations--it's to do with surviving the threats facing Europe today, and the role of leadership the UK played in WWII and the Cold War. If nothing else, the UK needs to be a voice of reason, an example of sanity, and a bastion of Western society and culture (which, though far from perfect, is what has enabled the progress that has been made in the past few millennia), because Europe and the West is currently under siege from barbarians who would return us to a Stone Age society, as well as under renewed threat from Russia (the president of which has stated that "we are in a new cold war").
I've asked this to other Leave supporters: is there something special about the EU's trade and travel agreements that causes them to strip the UK of its sovereignty, and if not, will the UK have to sever all others as well? Will you have to refrain from forming any new ones?
This appears to me another example of selective omission, minimizing, dismissal, and strawmanning. For the sake of argument, leave out trade and travel agreements--what about all the other aspects of sovereignty?
And for the good of its own citizens, it needs to control its borders and immigration--or would you have more foreign Muslims running sex slave enclaves where even your own police will not venture
Still trying to make Cameron choke on his porridge?
What is this? Seriously, what is this? Do you deny that Muslim sex slave rings were operating for years, preying upon young girls? And that UK police covered up these crimes for fear of being accused of racism? And that there are Muslim enclaves within the UK into which the police will not venture? Your response is, "Oh yeah, well, David Cameron called some Fox News guy an idiot"? Are those claims true or false?
or more cleaver-wielding maniacs chopping up people in the streets and boasting red-handed to the cameras?
Murderous madmen who chop people up in the streets and boast to the cameras come in all flavors, the last one I can think of killed Jo Cox and was 100% homegrown. And now your new leaders are struggling to find a way to have their cake and eat it too - regardless of whether the UK is in the EU or not, putting any immigration restrictions in place has roughly the same effect on trade with the EU.
Oh, well, as long as foreign-born Muslim jihadists aren't the only ones doing it, then I guess it's not a problem, per se; if jihadists aren't butchering British soldiers on the street, some other bad guys will be butchering some other people, so it's all the same in the end, right? And being able to sell stuff to other countries is equally important as not being invaded by legions of madmen who want to kill everyone because of who you are, right? I mean, yeah, you could keep some of those guys out of the country, and maybe prevent some innocent people from dying in mass killing sprees, but then you might not have exactly the same trade agreements with some other countries in Europe, and that just wouldn't do.
Given your words thus far, I have doubts about your sincerity. But in case you are seriously interested in discussing this, I would be interested to hear your opinion on this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As an outsider, his points seem simple and sensible, and the facts he cites should be verifiable. I would be interested to hear simple, sensible, and factual rebuttals to his points. If he is correct, it seems like leaving the EU is the sensible choice.
Of course it's an outright lie from the leave camp that we didn't have sovereignty. We always had it and could always choose to not implement any of the EU rules we wanted (as the exit vote has proven).
I'm no expert, but according to what I saw, the UK alone could not veto EU rules and laws, but only as a whole with the rest of the EU member states by convincing them to agree. In practice, this had only happened successfully one time in the entire history of the UK's EU membership, and in challenging EU rulings in court, the UK had a success rate of only 30%--all of which, of course, could hardly be considered sovereignty. Can you explain this to me?
I don't understand. In the EU, the UK has to go to the EU and beg and plead for concessions, giving up things to get what it wants.
Out of the EU, the UK can do what it wants, when it wants, without begging for permission to administer its own affairs in the way it best sees fit.
And regarding that "slightly better deal," other people say it was not better, that it actually conceded some of the few advantages the UK still had.
Sheesh, can you imagine the same nation that endured the Battle of Britain wanting to live under the thumb of the rest of Europe? What has become of this once-courageous, once-independent nation that it--some people in it--now cowers in fear at the thought of self-determination?
Ofcourse, you could claim that the 51% in this particular case would not be fucked over, but that argument would essentially boil down to "because I know better than them", and I'm assuming we can all see the folly of those ways.
No, that's exactly the problem: leftists cannot see that folly, blinded by their own hubris to even the most egregious horrors of even recent history. To them, the ends always justify the means, and their ends are always correct.
Typical leftist rhetoric. Your opponents are "objectively wrong," they "hate," an "informed populace" could not make such a decision, and anyone who did must therefore be throwing an "overpowering tantrum of xenophobia," "due to extreme ignorance."
Your faux fairness is transparent. You're the one throwing a tantrum that you didn't get your way. You know that it's always easier to maintain the status quo, and after all the controversy and hand-wringing since the referendum, you know a second one would favor remaining. You'll say anything to try to disqualify and discredit the referendum, from ageism to vague accusations of which your side couldn't possibly also be guilty of, according to you and anyone who's "informed."
Pathetic.
And if you're really a patriotic Brit, have a little faith in your fellow Brits, the same nation that bravely endured the Battle of Britain and defeated the Nazis less than a century ago. How cowardly to think that you're doomed without the rest of Europe telling you what to do. For the good of Europe, Britain needs to return to a position of leadership and strength, and for that it needs real sovereignty. And for the good of its own citizens, it needs to control its borders and immigration--or would you have more foreign Muslims running sex slave enclaves where even your own police will not venture, or more cleaver-wielding maniacs chopping up people in the streets and boasting red-handed to the cameras?
Or maybe you're just a pro-EU troll, mindlessly imitating the shrill cries of leftists everywhere as a member of the collective reached to pull its plug and wake from its slumber.
So by logic, and your statement, there is both "catastrophic global warming" and "man-made global warming".
No, that's not logical at all. It's a transparent attempt at manipulating the feeble-minded, or grade-B trolling. Perhaps your post history would reveal which.
What did you do with your sense of humor?
When the legislative representatives of the People place restrictions on the Executive branch, that's the People restricting the Government. That's really quite simple to understand.
That must have been a weak slashdotting.
Anyway, what's your point? Why the negative talk? What good does it do? Let's either help or just wait and see.
People seem to forget about all the bugs that have to be fixed in every new software project.
Sure, but if you want to achieve the functionality of this site (minus the current beta) why start with code that ran this 7 years ago? If you decided you wanted to build your own distribution of Linux you wouldn't start with a kernel and software sources from 7 years ago, would you?
No, but neither would I try to recreate the kernel from scratch, nor would I try to turn the BeOS kernel into Linux. If all the software since 2007 disappeared, and I wanted Linux back, I'd most certainly start with Linux from 2007. Wouldn't you?
Starting over is always tempting, because it sounds like fun, but it's also very expensive, and often wasteful.
I don't think any reasonable person would start on a slashdot alternative with the hopes of making money on it.
It's not about money, it's about time and effort. Volunteer time and effort is costly and shouldn't be wasted.
And come on, a replacing Slashdot with a wiki?
I don't see how the slashcode from 2007 is a better option.
You don't? Slashcode from 2007 basically does what Slashdot does now--at least, what it did back then, which hasn't fundamentally changed. I was happy with Slashdot in 2007. What does Slashdot do now that it didn't do then?
And why would I want to use a wiki instead? Have you looked at how discussions work on wikis? Ugh!
If that's what you think, what are you waiting for?
Because I don't have the disposable resources to build a slashdot replacement in any way, shape, or form.
Neither do I. But wikis are wikis; you just use them, right? Why don't we just start a wiki on some free wiki host and start posting the kind of stories Slashdot posts, and let people edit the page and add comments?
...What's your point? And who is "science," and why do you trust him?
What this country needs is a good five cent microcomputer.
