Quantcast
Brexit
Pyro as Bill said:
JRPGfan said:

Sounds like you want to earn the same as a chinese worker? otherwise more or less everything could be moved there.
A country cant live on just services, there needs to be some production there.

And dont worry, slowly more and more jobs are moveing over seas.
So it looks like your getting your wish, dont mind the unemployment in the UK.... you rather those work places not be there right?

That makes no sense.

I have no problem with a 'decreasing' salary as long as the prices of the products and services I buy fall faster.

Giving up inefficient industries is the sign of an advanced economy, not a 'Chinese worker' economy.

'A country cant live on services' - If they don't have to worry about war they can.

But the real world doesnt work that way... so time to stop dreaming?
Lost jobs means alot of people suffering, with less, the end.

And no... a 100% service oriented country would fall apart.



Number of days to reach 50M from 40M : 198 days
Number of days to reach 60M from 50M : 187 days
Number of days to reach 70M from 60M : 175 days
Number of days to reach 80M from 70M : 227 days

Necro-bump this 2020: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=229249

Around the Network
fatslob-:O said

 

MrWayne said:

Bold 1) That's exactly what i said, the decision to decommissioning nuclear energy was made by the previous government and her government stopped the decommissioning.

Bold 2) Why shouldn't it be acceptable? That's the power the constitution grants him. Also the german president can't be compared to the queen or other monarchs because he gets elected.

Bold 3) There is no final goal within democracy, it will always change. I don't know if the majority of the british people still want EU membership but a second referendum should clarify that

Things like a second Brexit referendum or a second election of the german Bundestag should always be the ultima ratio. If by a miracle the British parliament can agree on a solution(no deal, deal, stay in the EU), fine but if the parliament can't agree on anything there have to be a second referendum.

a) because nobody can justify a no deal scenario in this case, the government would be against it, the majority of the parliament would be against it and probably the majority of the british people would be against a no deal scenario.

b) a second referendum would be different than the first one because it would correct the big flaw the first one had. The big flaw the first referendum had was that you had to decide between the status quo, staying in the EU, something very concret, and Brexit, about whom nobody knew exactly what he would look like. Now people can decide between three very concrete options, no deal, May's deal or stay in the EU.

1) I think you need to be more informed from now on before engaging in political discussions. Angela Merkel did NOT repeal Gerhard Schroeder's call for decommissioning nuclear power and in fact speed it up! She faced rebuke from her own party's former leader who was also a former chancellor for that decision and it was Helmut Kohl which oversaw the openings of the German nuclear reactors ... 

2) That doesn't mean that there aren't 'flaws' in the constitution. By your justification does that mean Her Majesty should veto a bill that she does not like unless she wants her head lopped off ? The great powers of a republic or a monarchy should express restraint first before abusing it ... 

3) Why don't we hold out after Brexit then to see they still want in on the EU ?  

The parliament can't even agree to a second referendum either. They can't agree on any deal and I doubt revoking article 50 is a good idea among Conservative MPs ... 

a) That's not for you to solely decide, it's for the elected representatives to decide. For the most part, the conservatives are content leaving with no deal and I suspect if push comes to shove for either significantly delaying article 50 or revoking article 50 then the DUP will seriously consider pulling the plug before it comes to that because at the end of the day remainer rebels within the conservative party realize that they need the DUP just as much as themselves to keep them all in power as well or face the possibility of deselection. It's basically a game of who will blink first between the remainer rebels or the DUP ... (I suspect that Theresa May will just keep whipping the rebels until she meets the DUPs demands)

b) The result of the first referendum should also be respected (see the above reply I made to Hylian) and it is the format originally agreed upon by the MPs at the time and more importantly there is no majority of having another vote currently in the parliament ... 

1) It is a bit arrogant of you to say that I should inform myself more about German politics, especially when you apparently can't read your own sources properly.

"Just eight months ago, Mrs. Merkel stunned the opposition, environmental groups and anti-nuclear lobbies by pushing through measures to prolong the country’s use of nuclear power to 2033.

That decision — reversing a law passed by a previous government, which had planned to end nuclear power by 2021 — weakened support for her center-right coalition. But it increased the appeal of the opposition Greens. As a result, Mrs. Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats were roundly defeated in a major regional election in March.

But then later in March, after the disaster at the Japanese nuclear power plant at Fukushima, Mrs. Merkel reversed herself and reset the phase out date for 2022."

2) It does not sound like you very informed about our president. The comparison is, again, nonsensical because he gets elected, monarchs don't. Also he can't just veto bills he doesn't like, it's no coincidence that it only happend eight times in the BRD history, only if he thinks the bill is unconsitutional he can veto it, also the parliament has options if he vetoes a bill, they can change the parts he said are unconstitutional, they can go to court to prove if the president is right or they can even go to court to impeach the president.

Speaking of constitutional errors: These non-binding referenda in the UK are one. Either doing it the right way like in Switzerland or not at all.

3) If the outcome is a no deal brexit, No.

I know that the second referendum has no majority in parliament but if things go on as they did in the the past 2-3 years the parliament will end up with only two options, no deal because they run out of time and second referendum because the EU will probably only grant more time if a second referendum happen.

a) Of course it's not solely on me to decide. Who do you think I am? I'm not planning to overthrow the british parliament to stop Brexit, neither have I the power to do that. I only stating my opinions and hope that there are enougth decent politicians in London who agree with me.

b) You don't engage with my arguments.

Last edited by MrWayne - on 26 January 2019

MrWayne said:

1) It is a bit arrogant of you to say that I should inform myself more about German politics, especially when you apparently can't read your own sources properly.

"Just eight months ago, Mrs. Merkel stunned the opposition, environmental groups and anti-nuclear lobbies by pushing through measures to prolong the country’s use of nuclear power to 2033.

That decision — reversing a law passed by a previous government, which had planned to end nuclear power by 2021 — weakened support for her center-right coalition. But it increased the appeal of the opposition Greens. As a result, Mrs. Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats were roundly defeated in a major regional election in March.

But then later in March, after the disaster at the Japanese nuclear power plant at Fukushima, Mrs. Merkel reversed herself and reset the phase out date for 2022."

2) It does not sound like you very informed about our president. The comparison is, again, nonsensical because he gets elected, monarchs don't. Also he can't just veto bills he doesn't like, it's no coincidence that it only happend eight times in the BRD history, only if he thinks the bill is unconsitutional he can veto it, also the parliament has options if he vetoes a bill, they can change the parts he said are unconstitutional, they can go to court to prove if the president is right or they can even go to court to impeach the president.

Speaking of constitutional errors: These non-binding referenda in the UK are one. Either doing it the right way like in Switzerland or not at all.

3) If the outcome is a no deal brexit, No.

I know that the second referendum has no majority in parliament but if things go on as they did in the the past 2-3 years the parliament will end up with only two options, no deal because they run out of time and second referendum because the EU will probably only grant more time if a second referendum happen.

a) Of course it's not solely on me to decide. Who do you think I am? I'm not planning to overthrow the british parliament to stop Brexit, neither have I the power to do that. I only stating my opinions and hope that there are enougth decent politicians in London who agree with me.

b) You don't engage with my arguments.

1) You only proved my point at the end ... 

"But then later in March, after the disaster at the Japanese nuclear power plant at Fukushima, Mrs. Merkel reversed herself and reset the phase out date for 2022." 

Angela Merkel ultimately flip-flopped on her decision at the end and it's not just German politics so you need to start substantiating your claims from now on for politics in general ... 

2) Your president (I assume it's the German one), does NOT even get DIRECTLY ELECTED by the people. Basically everything from their own inception to the end of their term is a part of a function from a republic ... 

There is no "right way" to hold referendums and Swiss model is just one of the models to hold a referendum ... 

3) Keeping EU membership is not an acceptable option either for the British people ...

Second referendum is not an option anymore according to the parliament. There's a bipartisan (both Conservatives and Labour of which are the two biggest parties) consensus against holding one and no question can be agreed on either ... 

a) @Bold So I assume that the politicians who want to carry out the mandate aren't decent then ? SMDH, talk about accusing a stranger on the internet being conceited ... 

b) BTW, changing the format doesn't make the answers more clearer than the first referendum. The original question was, "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" Both the options 'Leave' and 'Remain' were just as valid as both had clear outcomes ... 

The British people knew very well what they were doing when they were crossing off the 'Leave' box ... 



fatslob-:O said:
MrWayne said:

1) It is a bit arrogant of you to say that I should inform myself more about German politics, especially when you apparently can't read your own sources properly.

"Just eight months ago, Mrs. Merkel stunned the opposition, environmental groups and anti-nuclear lobbies by pushing through measures to prolong the country’s use of nuclear power to 2033.

That decision — reversing a law passed by a previous government, which had planned to end nuclear power by 2021 — weakened support for her center-right coalition. But it increased the appeal of the opposition Greens. As a result, Mrs. Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats were roundly defeated in a major regional election in March.

But then later in March, after the disaster at the Japanese nuclear power plant at Fukushima, Mrs. Merkel reversed herself and reset the phase out date for 2022."

2) It does not sound like you very informed about our president. The comparison is, again, nonsensical because he gets elected, monarchs don't. Also he can't just veto bills he doesn't like, it's no coincidence that it only happend eight times in the BRD history, only if he thinks the bill is unconsitutional he can veto it, also the parliament has options if he vetoes a bill, they can change the parts he said are unconstitutional, they can go to court to prove if the president is right or they can even go to court to impeach the president.

Speaking of constitutional errors: These non-binding referenda in the UK are one. Either doing it the right way like in Switzerland or not at all.

3) If the outcome is a no deal brexit, No.

I know that the second referendum has no majority in parliament but if things go on as they did in the the past 2-3 years the parliament will end up with only two options, no deal because they run out of time and second referendum because the EU will probably only grant more time if a second referendum happen.

a) Of course it's not solely on me to decide. Who do you think I am? I'm not planning to overthrow the british parliament to stop Brexit, neither have I the power to do that. I only stating my opinions and hope that there are enougth decent politicians in London who agree with me.

b) You don't engage with my arguments.

1) You only proved my point at the end ... 

"But then later in March, after the disaster at the Japanese nuclear power plant at Fukushima, Mrs. Merkel reversed herself and reset the phase out date for 2022." 

Angela Merkel ultimately flip-flopped on her decision at the end and it's not just German politics so you need to start substantiating your claims from now on for politics in general ... 

2) Your president (I assume it's the German one), does NOT even get DIRECTLY ELECTED by the people. Basically everything from their own inception to the end of their term is a part of a function from a republic ... 

There is no "right way" to hold referendums and Swiss model is just one of the models to hold a referendum ... 

3) Keeping EU membership is not an acceptable option either for the British people ...

Second referendum is not an option anymore according to the parliament. There's a bipartisan (both Conservatives and Labour of which are the two biggest parties) consensus against holding one and no question can be agreed on either ... 

a) @Bold So I assume that the politicians who want to carry out the mandate aren't decent then ? SMDH, talk about accusing a stranger on the internet being conceited ... 

b) BTW, changing the format doesn't make the answers more clearer than the first referendum. The original question was, "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" Both the options 'Leave' and 'Remain' were just as valid as both had clear outcomes ... 

The British people knew very well what they were doing when they were crossing off the 'Leave' box ... 

1) No I didn't prove your point. My point and why I brought this example up in the first place:

"it is a principle of democracy that results can be overturned by follow-up elections...Merkle overturned the decision to pull out of nuklear-elekticity when she came to power"

It's just a fact that she did that. she didn't reverse her decision because it was undemocratic but because nuclear power was and is not well received in german public and she didn't want to lose votes in the next election. It proves my point, politicians overthrow decision made by other politicians all the time and sometimes even their own.

What did you say in your last coment:

"Angela Merkel did NOT repeal Gerhard Schroeder's call for decommissioning nuclear power and in fact speed it up!"

She did repeal Schöder's bill, yeah she changed her mind later but that doesn't mean her first decision didn't happen. Merkels plan to decommission nuclear power is not faster, it's a hole year slower than the previous and on top of that her flip-flopping on the matter will cost the german state millions because the electric companies sued the state for the extra time Merkle promised.

2) What is your point? Why is it important that he isn't elected directly, our chancellor is also not directly elected.

The Swiss model is good, the UK model is the perfect negative example for direct democracy.

3) I would bet if tomorrow would be a second referendum with the options "no deal" or "stay in the EU", that the majority would vote for the EU.

a) politicians who will vote for no deal or let the no deal scenario happen aren't decent.

b) "clear results" this must be a joke, if the result of "leaving the European Union" was so clear, why is there such a chaos right now?

Last edited by MrWayne - on 26 January 2019

fatslob-:O said: 

2) There is no "right way" to hold referendums and Swiss model is just one of the models to hold a referendum ... 

3) Keeping EU membership is not an acceptable option either for the British people ...

b) BTW, changing the format doesn't make the answers more clearer than the first referendum. The original question was, "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" Both the options 'Leave' and 'Remain' were just as valid as both had clear outcomes ... 

The British people knew very well what they were doing when they were crossing off the 'Leave' box ... 

2) The difference between a Swiss referendum and the Brexit vote is that the population first gets fully informed on all the pro and cons and in a neutral manner, something that didn't happen in the UK. At. All.

3) I wouldn't be so sure about that, I'm fairly certain if there would be a second referendum (which most probably won't happen) Remain would win by a good margin - especially since quite a few find a no-deal Brexit even worse while one could still leave the EU orderly at a later date if the UK would remain now.

b) The problem here is that it's too black-or-white, it lacks both nuance and exact definition.

We got the perfect example at school as to why this is very important: First we got a text about Euthanasia (which was a big question in Luxembourg at the time), and got if we would allow to use euthanasia like in the text "on people who according to medical consensus are terminally ill with no hope on improvement". Most of the class said yes at the time, then the teacher dropped the atomic bombshell: The text in question was actually the Euthanasia Law of Nazi Germany, and due to lack of nuance and definition they did use it to kill millions for reasons like, Alzheimer, Tourette syndrome, or simply missing a limb, and explained that technically at the time everybody who had to wear glasses would be eligible (nowadays there's surgery that can heal that) under that law.

This is why laws are normally several pages long texts, as they have to be defined exactly and include enough nuances to both future-proof a law and for avoiding things falling under being it by circumnavigate the issue. And this is the reason why in Switzerland everybody gets all the information with all the pros and cons mailed to them to make sure they choose really what they want without outside influence overshadowing everything.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 26 January 2019

Around the Network

Leave, no deal. I have to say I’ve lost track on this issue because the yellow vest movement has been my current obsession. I can’t give relevant nuance to this past month’s news.



Bofferbrauer2 said:

b) The problem here is that it's too black-or-white, it lacks both nuance and exact definition.

We got the perfect example at school as to why this is very important: First we got a text about Euthanasia (which was a big question in Luxembourg at the time), and got if we would allow to use euthanasia like in the text "on people who according to medical consensus are terminally ill with no hope on improvement". Most of the class said yes at the time, then the teacher dropped the atomic bombshell: The text in question was actually the Euthanasia Law of Nazi Germany, and due to lack of nuance and definition they did use it to kill millions for reasons like, Alzheimer, Tourette syndrome, or simply missing a limb, and explained that technically at the time everybody who had to wear glasses would be eligible (nowadays there's surgery that can heal that) under that law.

I mean, there's a pretty obvious issue with that quote in that it doesn't mention anything about consent. That should have been a pretty big red flag before people said yes to using it like that.

But aside from that, how is people needing to wear glasses a terminal illness?



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

MrWayne said:
fatslob-:O said:

[...]

b) BTW, changing the format doesn't make the answers more clearer than the first referendum. The original question was, "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" Both the options 'Leave' and 'Remain' were just as valid as both had clear outcomes ... 

The British people knew very well what they were doing when they were crossing off the 'Leave' box ... 

[...]

b) "clear results" this must be a joke, if the result of "leaving the European Union" was so clear, why is there such a chaos right now?

The fact that UK politicians were so clumsy and unprepared about the possibility of a "Leave" victory doesn't change the fact that both options were very clear in the referendum. You're mixing different issues.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")

A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.

TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!

        

Since the "leave" side lied and decieved the UK population there should be another referendum.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

Ka-pi96 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

b) The problem here is that it's too black-or-white, it lacks both nuance and exact definition.

We got the perfect example at school as to why this is very important: First we got a text about Euthanasia (which was a big question in Luxembourg at the time), and got if we would allow to use euthanasia like in the text "on people who according to medical consensus are terminally ill with no hope on improvement". Most of the class said yes at the time, then the teacher dropped the atomic bombshell: The text in question was actually the Euthanasia Law of Nazi Germany, and due to lack of nuance and definition they did use it to kill millions for reasons like, Alzheimer, Tourette syndrome, or simply missing a limb, and explained that technically at the time everybody who had to wear glasses would be eligible (nowadays there's surgery that can heal that) under that law.

I mean, there's a pretty obvious issue with that quote in that it doesn't mention anything about consent. That should have been a pretty big red flag before people said yes to using it like that.

But aside from that, how is people needing to wear glasses a terminal illness?

I don't remember the exact quote anymore, so terminal illness is probably the wrong translation, but I remember my teacher explaining that anyone who needed glasses could also fall under that law