The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom

[FAST6191]

Five eyes was/is a combined intelligence effort between the major English speaking countries (UK, US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia) with a few others (mostly European) potentially joining at points. I am not seeing the issue there in and of itself, especially if the EU makes good on threats, promises, predictions or whatever that intelligence will not be as easily shared.

Commonwealth wise. What does that have to do with slavery, much less in the modern world? Most would view this as leaning away from Europe and towards the countries mentioned in the previous bit, plus a few others in said commonwealth. While I am not convinced of its viability (shipping, cultural, technical, other logistical... all the same reasons people have dissed discussions about uniting countries in the past) it would seem to be an easy option to go in for, and in many cases said countries are already significant trade partners. One of the more interesting arguments, one of the few, floated during the referendum campaign was how the initial joining of the EU somewhat put a pin in said relations... the technical hurdles alone make that a serious thing to contemplate (the US is unlikely to change, and thus Canada is unlikely to change, the UK is also similarly incapable of much change and will still likely not stray far from Europe, nor would I actually want it to as I see the US and Canada's efforts here and find them seriously wanting).

Silicon valley. Pretty much every country in the world, and sub region within it (how many times have you seen "our own silicon valley", "it will be ?'s silicon valley" or some other area with silicon before it? In the UK's case there is already silicon roundabout), wants a high end tech sector, and I don't blame them one bit. While the thought that software patents will possibly come as a result (the US tries to take that abhorrence on tour every so often, so far with only Japan succumbing, and I could see this being a major thing there). From the US perspective then same language, highly educated workforce, financially well developed (venture capital firms already exist and do things all the time)... everything but the third world wages really and given how few workers you need for a big tech firm... I don't doubt palms were greased here somewhere along the lines but is that not always the case?

The other things. Unpleasant things I would rather not see, most of them reminding me more of someone surfing a company into the ground, knowing that they will be dead or retired before it collapses. That said if your readings of the others are that dubious I would question those too.

 

[notimp]

The financial adviser mentioned commonwealth connections in the same sentence with cementing our relationship with nigeria. And the common wealth is the sucession organisation to the british colonialism structures.

To cut that short, much the same, as the US currently only invade countries "to bring them democracy" and then its really about deals for US based companies to be involved in the natural ressources business in the aftermath -

Colonialism was abolished, setting up the same structures in return. So give them their independence, but have our companies still be the base of their economic infrastructure for years to come.

Its not a UK only thing (looking at france), but its something that will always be in peoples minds, when you try to strike new deals with african countries.

In fact its so much in their minds, that china had to dream up a new investment model, where they dont supply the countries they want to establish their industries in with lines of credit, but actually gift them entire infrastructure projects first. (Then leave the chinese workers who have built them there in new found communities. In the "guest" country.) Because the african union had bad experiences, with paying back credits. (The old model.)

Five eyes is nothing new, or unexpected. I fact, if you read back a little I speculated about the UK wanting to fall back on those networks in the past.

Lets just spell this out as plainly as the financial adviser to Boris Johnson did. You f*ckers left the european union (from the elite perspective), so you wouldnt have to pay for the stability of poorer countries within the european union (political project), and because you wanted to sell financial services to countries with "faster growth rates" - but specifically ones, that the EU forbid you to sell, because it would have hurt the main industries of the largest countries in europe.

So you made your citizens vote xenophobic, and are now selling your services to the chinese, and former colonies of yours - with the support of your other english speaking countries - fuck your neighboring countries.

Questions?

Oh, and you did it, because you really were the only country in the region that probably could.
And now you are playing games in regard to the exit procedure out of the EU.

Oh yeah you so cunning. I hope the EU fucks you over royally in the short term. I hope your non existing industries on the mainland choke on their dependancies for years. I hope your children all get to know the same plain text version of events, that the financial advisor to Boris Johnson represented, but without his spin to mostly see the opportunities.

What you left are a bunch of win/win deals, that only are possible because of regionality. But as the financial advisor mentioned - those arent as important in a changing world, where our financial services dont profit from regionality at all. We want to be able to compete globally. Unrestricted.

Oh, yes and I hope, that the chinese dont take you up on your financial services deals at all. Because they are better at playing the long game, than you showed to be.

You were the ones that bit, when probably russia and china and the US pitched you candy if you divide, so they can better conquer. Maybe. Probably.

edit: Oh, of course, and you f*ckers were one of the main drivers between the eastern expansion of the EU, where a bunch of those poorer countries entered, you now want nothing to do with anymore.

Couldnt hate you more for that as well.

But you so cunning.

And as a true player hater - I dont hate the people, i hate those games.

Oh yeah, and lets not talk about your "financial services" and how instrumental they were importing the US based financial crisis of 2008 all over the world, so the US could recover faster. That was you as well.

Cunning. Britannia the great. Lets have a day for flagwaving only.

 

[notimp]

Here, I drew you something.

Those are your 'exciting' new/old business partners for the next 20 years, according to the financial advicer to Boris Johnson.

Do you notice something? They are all pretty far away from your region. And they are all over the place.

Either you are truelly the most cunning player of all, like that Boris Johnson fella likes to imply - or you have been played royally.

Exceptionalist britain. We are truly great at nothing currently britain. Those are the countries you want to sell your services to. Could it be more descriptive?

You truly are a service based economy.

edit:

The sectors that contribute most to the U.K.'s GDP are services, manufacturing, construction and tourism.

I've taken the liberty to strike out the sectors that wont matter so much in your next 20 years, because those would have depended on grouping effects to source their wares. (Those are the sectors that were against brexit. The ones with a (neologism) "dependency issue" that britain has to overcome. But then you pulled the xenophobia card like in the US and like Marry Poppins from the heavens...)

 

[notimp]

Silicon valley. Pretty much every country in the world, and sub region within it (how many times have you seen "our own silicon valley", "it will be ?'s silicon valley" or some other area with silicon before it? In the UK's case there is already silicon roundabout), wants a high end tech sector, and I don't blame them one bit. While the thought that software patents will possibly come as a result (the US tries to take that abhorrence on tour every so often, so far with only Japan succumbing, and I could see this being a major thing there). From the US perspective then same language, highly educated workforce, financially well developed (venture capital firms already exist and do things all the time)... everything but the third world wages really and given how few workers you need for a big tech firm... I don't doubt palms were greased here somewhere along the lines but is that not always the case?

Pretty much. But I just dont get what makes britain such an exciting place for the IT sector.

To go into details, the advicer just murmured, that britain really only needs a few 10.000s of working immigrants a year namely - the high skilled ones. And they all flock to london (or ireland?) because those are open and worldly places to work at? Because britain is an exciting developmental prospect? Because the weather is so great there? Because they can travel throughout Europe on vacation? Because all the bright minds want to work in the financial industries?

None of that makes sense. Its literally just, here have a gift, we position local affiliations of big US brand with you to still keep you a draw.

Now many of those workers come from exactly the regions britain wants to "help develop" with financial services in return? Stay in your own countries for gods sake, don't go just for bigger wages here for once... You already have high growth prospects there. Build your own companies.

 

[FAST6191]

What makes it a bad place for IT? But for the language I would agree most other rich European countries could probably get it going on. Is it a worse choice than any of those though? I already mentioned the developed financial sector being fine with the sorts of things IT needs, the workforce available there already, the education likely to continue pumping out new workers for you, said education/universities also being pretty good at research if you fancied that... and while I somewhat dismissed the language thing it is a thing for a lot of US companies.

The whole brain drain stuff is an interesting one. In some ways it smacks of old school financial incentives (ever one unit of currency given ultimately returning more than it when the resources come back, or simply the loans come due). Not sure I would follow the rest of what you said there though, and many of the countries "affected" probably enjoy remittances. I would also disagree somewhat on growth prospects -- even money almost no object I would struggle to set up a big boy high end IT company in Moldova or the Gambia tomorrow using the natives, and training them up, much less 1000 of them. Maybe some server admins if the bandwidth and power is favourable (see something like Iceland) but I am not likely to find hardcore virtualisation, AI,[insert rest of hot fields in IT], bods there, much less enough to field a company or companies. It would also lack a lot of other things -- not many training courses happening in those places, fewer companies to shift to (most of IT still doing the no promotion but for moving to another job).
On the other hand I have seen it help several countries -- Poland being a great example but a lot of Africa also doing things here.

Ireland, which is a separate country for quite a while now (certainly since before the development of integrated circuits), tends to attract IT companies because of its tax setup and access to nearby markets. It was rocked somewhat a few years back when some other countries decided to do even more favourable setups, though they since recovered it.

 

[notimp]

What makes it a bad place for IT?

Good question. Nothing.
Maybe that they also have the financial industry as an important sector in country and the two working together more closely just seems like a natural fit... While the country basically is descending into another neoliberal episode...

Maybe its that culture wise its another english speaking caucasian country thats supposed to drive technological innovation in that part of the western world.

Ideological centralization. Maybe.

But none of this is factbased arguing. Its just a notion I dont like. So if you press me there, you win the argument.

 

[FAST6191]

Handouts work reasonably well, for a while anyway, and they typically come with a catch.

That said it is technology so there is always the option to do it better. I collect old books on technology, and tools from the same time as well. They are typically dismissive of what to them, there and then, is "import" or continental materials, tools, designs and such, and in a great many cases rightly so. A couple of decades later they were doing a spectacular job (give or take the USSR after that), and to this day I have many things in frequent or constant use saying W Germany on their name plate. I would again look to something like Poland this last 5 years or so -- they took all those remittances, ploughed it into themselves and have come out swinging.

 

[notimp]

And the movie is over, and the personalized human interest story has a positive ending. This is not how I've come to see the world work. Over about the last 10+ years I've been politically interested.

Currently in this topic I'm much more interested to actually flash out whats happening here, so it doesnt get burried in "but look at the potential" narratives.

No - look at whats happening here and now. Much more interesting in terms of getting to understand social and political underpinnings. (Moments of crisis are always more interesting, than economically stable periods in history.)

I've never been a person that you could motivate with "look at all the potential of nothing done yet". I've always been a born critic.

- Hey lets talk about racism having become socially acceptable in western european countries again. When we have some time. Look at all the potential in that. And its done - because this time around we really worry about big migration movements.

- Also I freaking hate the "climate industry" movement, because of logical inconsitacies (like germany being politically positioned entirely against it - or no one in the political or established economic field taking it halfway seriously) inconsitancies. I could also say "just look at all the potential" there. And would be much more accepted by my peers.

But I refuse and voice "look at all that designed bunch of activism nonsense, for a non defined goal, with high uncertainty, against peoples own economic and political interests, and with a self sacrifice narrative the likes of which I havent seen since the protestant revival".

So "just looking at the potential" is not something I do well. 'm not an utopian. I'm also not a professionally delusional entrepreneur and go getter.

 

[KingVamp]

So, what exactly is going on right now? Is "no deal" off the table?

 

[Reiten]

As far as I understand the parliament voted, that they don't want a "no deal" brexit. Still, they don't seem to want Mays deal and also don't know what they want.

To be honest I still don't get how the whole brexit got to this point. Can someone more informed answer me these few points:

• before the negotiations started, did the parliament forget to sit down and decide on the best outcomes and bottom lines for each point?
• did the parliament not follow the negotiations and inform May that they were not ok with what was being negotiated?
• did the parliament believe their own lies about the brexit?
• are they on some substance or so far removed from reality, that they don't care(more of a joke, but still if anyone has something to share go ahead)?

 

[FAST6191]

Going for those points.
1) If there has ever been a plan then nobody has shared it, made someone aware of it that can confirm or otherwise outlined it. Certainly was not there during the referendum (one then wonders what was being voted for other than an idea, or with the expectation of some competency down the line, but that is a different matter), was not there when article 50 was triggered, was not formulated in very short order after that and seemingly has not been thrashed out in the time since. With this lack of a plan it also does not help that there are various camps with ideas about what should happen, said ideas often being mutually incompatible with the others despite nominally falling under the same banner (this would be the hard "just another country in the world" approach, soft "Switzerland is a nice example", and also the remain camp (also varying internally in what they desire and will accept)).
2) It as intensely followed and their displeasures with what was happening were made apparent. Seldom did this come with a suggestion for what should be done or trying to force a more complete game plan.
3) For there to have been lies there would have had to be something concrete said of it. I would say it was closer to "make it happen, how? That is all you but I will tell you when I don't like what you are doing".
4) Some have speculated whether it is in fact a long form sabotage play; the referendum was not expected to return leave as a result, mainly done to appease a faction of voters so as not to spoil the election (there has long been a "euro sceptic" set of MPs and while they are not all powerless they were far from the dominant players and not the leadership at the time), the snap election called after the leave vote could have been, and kind of was, viewed as a second referendum actually then served to weaken the conservative party but still keep them in power. While it was not a legally binding referendum it would also be political suicide to not follow through. This leaves dragging your feet and playing the incompetent as an option as you are technically complying.

As for May's backstop then have a read of it. It is an atrocious piece of legislation/diplomacy and I can see why people are so opposed to it, even to avoid a no deal.

 

[Taleweaver]

Okay...I was in two minds about posting something here yesterday, but I didn't have much time and there was a second vote planned shortly after.

Let's start with the simple part: May's deal is rejected a second time. If this was a surprise to you, then you really haven't paying attention. I tooted some posts ago that this was the same deal as before. Upon inspecting, that might not really be true. I can't really tell on the difference, as the EU wants to remain of the stance that they've negotiated well (meaning: any further agreement would only give Brittons hope that they can just continue whine away and keep getting presents for it). But in any case, I've heard a British professor saying that whatever was added was far from enough.

End result: that vote hugely failed to pass. It's somewhat closer than last time, but last time it was colossal (merely a huge failing isn't much of an improving, really. Especially not at this point).


The second vote was on whether a short term 'no deal'-brexit would be preferred over a delay (meaning "something else"). the latter was chosen, but this vote was much closer than what it should be. That's when things got messy. I'm not proficient enough with the differences between "amendments" and "motions" to really understand what the outcome means (heck...I'm looking back and forth between news articles to even remember what really happened). I'll have to take the word of reporters who claimed this was "unseen". I can't say to what degree they're used to things at this point, so I won't exclude this being "yet another day in the British government" at this point.

Still...I consider it pretty likely that these'll be the last days of May's government. There are ministers quitting and not following voting advice by "the whip", which...apparently isn't good. If you ask me, the only reason that the government hasn't fallen is that they have nobody to take over. Corbyn's certainly an open choice with the second referendum, but I fear the individuals in the government are still too stubborn to realise that the pipedream of the advantages of the brexit simply are unattainable.

As far as I understand the parliament voted, that they don't want a "no deal" brexit. Still, they don't seem to want Mays deal and also don't know what they want.

To be honest I still don't get how the whole brexit got to this point. Can someone more informed answer me these few points:

• before the negotiations started, did the parliament forget to sit down and decide on the best outcomes and bottom lines for each point?
• did the parliament not follow the negotiations and inform May that they were not ok with what was being negotiated?
• did the parliament believe their own lies about the brexit?
• are they on some substance or so far removed from reality, that they don't care(more of a joke, but still if anyone has something to share go ahead)?

Okay...but be warned: these are my personal opinions.

before the negotiations started, did the parliament forget to sit down and decide on the best outcomes and bottom lines for each point?
This is an easy answer: this is exactly the case (well...I'm taking "the government" as a whole. Can't say much on the role of parliament). When the EU negiotiations started, the brexiteers had no plan. They had no clear vision on where to go and had given no thought of what the brexit would mean ("what do you mean, we're bordering the EU? In Ireland? Meh...we'll sort something out as we go. Easy peasy").

did the parliament not follow the negotiations and inform May that they were not ok with what was being negotiated?
This is a tough one. Seeing how May was clearly not speaking on behalf of the entire UK(1), I would answer this with an obvious "not enough". what I cannot say is to which degree they were informed and consulted along the way. Neither do I know to which degree they even cared (again: this whole shebackle was led by Nigel Farage, who somehow felt triumph when QUITTING mere days after the brexit was voted). I would think that parliament felt pressure of the lobbying groups that actually benefits from a brexit whereas the negotiators truly thought they were representing the people, but it could just as well be the other way around.

did the parliament believe their own lies about the brexit?
I'll go with "yes". It's probably not as black and white like that, which harks back to that uninformdness I mentioned earlier. The whole "why can't UK fish in their own waters???" thing is short, snappy, has an antagonist ("the bureaucratic moloch that is the EU") and is a nice illustration on why you want to leave the EU. The thing is...once you start actually THINKING on the topic, it's not as easy. The numbers Farage threw around are simply dead wrong. The quotas didn't originate with the EU either. Oh, and the quotas were not without reason either. So I think parliament had these nitbits of facts dripping in and had to wonder "to which point is the original statement still true, and to which point do we defend it?".


are they on some substance or so far removed from reality, that they don't care(more of a joke, but still if anyone has something to share go ahead)?

*sigh*
Look: I don't want to go out scolding others. It's cheap, easy and won't convince actual brexiteers. But I won't deny it: those guys are really making it hard on me to try to keep the situation mature. I mean...


You: are these guys detached from reality?
Me: hmm...not really. Perhaps the government is a bit old fashioned, but I'm sure they're sincere, wise and act with the best...
English government: "oh, no! Someone has seized the Ceremonial Mace! Expel him!!!"
Me: ...Oh, come ON!


(1): again: the government as a whole. For once I'm not banging on about how brexit only had 52% votes two years ago

 

[Viri]

The financial adviser mentioned commonwealth connections in the same sentence with cementing our relationship with nigeria. And the common wealth is the sucession organisation to the british colonialism structures.

To cut that short, much the same, as the US currently only invade countries "to bring them democracy" and then its really about deals for US based companies to be involved in the natural ressources business in the aftermath -

Colonialism was abolished, setting up the same structures in return. So give them their independence, but have our companies still be the base of their economic infrastructure for years to come.

Its not a UK only thing (looking at france), but its something that will always be in peoples minds, when you try to strike new deals with african countries.

In fact its so much in their minds, that china had to dream up a new investment model, where they dont supply the countries they want to establish their industries in with lines of credit, but actually gift them entire infrastructure projects first. (Then leave the chinese workers who have built them there in new found communities. In the "guest" country.) Because the african union had bad experiences, with paying back credits. (The old model.)

Five eyes is nothing new, or unexpected. I fact, if you read back a little I speculated about the UK wanting to fall back on those networks in the past.

Lets just spell this out as plainly as the financial adviser to Boris Johnson did. You f*ckers left the european union (from the elite perspective), so you wouldnt have to pay for the stability of poorer countries within the european union (political project), and because you wanted to sell financial services to countries with "faster growth rates" - but specifically ones, that the EU forbid you to sell, because it would have hurt the main industries of the largest countries in europe.

So you made your citizens vote xenophobic, and are now selling your services to the chinese, and former colonies of yours - with the support of your other english speaking countries - fuck your neighboring countries.

Questions?

Oh, and you did it, because you really were the only country in the region that probably could.
And now you are playing games in regard to the exit procedure out of the EU.

Oh yeah you so cunning. I hope the EU fucks you over royally in the short term. I hope your non existing industries on the mainland choke on their dependancies for years. I hope your children all get to know the same plain text version of events, that the financial advisor to Boris Johnson represented, but without his spin to mostly see the opportunities.

What you left are a bunch of win/win deals, that only are possible because of regionality. But as the financial advisor mentioned - those arent as important in a changing world, where our financial services dont profit from regionality at all. We want to be able to compete globally. Unrestricted.

Oh, yes and I hope, that the chinese dont take you up on your financial services deals at all. Because they are better at playing the long game, than you showed to be.

You were the ones that bit, when probably russia and china and the US pitched you candy if you divide, so they can better conquer. Maybe. Probably.

edit: Oh, of course, and you f*ckers were one of the main drivers between the eastern expansion of the EU, where a bunch of those poorer countries entered, you now want nothing to do with anymore.

Couldnt hate you more for that as well.

But you so cunning.

And as a true player hater - I dont hate the people, i hate those games.

Oh yeah, and lets not talk about your "financial services" and how instrumental they were importing the US based financial crisis of 2008 all over the world, so the US could recover faster. That was you as well.

Cunning. Britannia the great. Lets have a day for flagwaving only.

Here, I drew you something.

Those are your 'exciting' new/old business partners for the next 20 years, according to the financial advicer to Boris Johnson.

Do you notice something? They are all pretty far away from your region. And they are all over the place.

Either you are truelly the most cunning player of all, like that Boris Johnson fella likes to imply - or you have been played royally.

Exceptionalist britain. We are truly great at nothing currently britain. Those are the countries you want to sell your services to. Could it be more descriptive?

You truly are a service based economy.

edit:

The sectors that contribute most to the U.K.'s GDP are services, manufacturing, construction and tourism.

I've taken the liberty to strike out the sectors that wont matter so much in your next 20 years, because those would have depended on grouping effects to source their wares. (Those are the sectors that were against brexit. The ones with a (neologism) "dependency issue" that britain has to overcome. But then you pulled the xenophobia card like in the US and like Marry Poppins from the heavens...)

Who are you even talking to...?

 

[notimp]

In the first case to no one, thats simply a writeup to prevent people from posting videos, they havent even seen, just so that others only read their titles, and form their opinion based appearance, as they do.

Thats many words for - "you should have noticed".

In the case of the second posting thats just me wanting to illustrate the "cunning plan" britain wants to put forward as per Boris Johnsons economic advicer, which looks like "everyone in the world will give us money for services".

What you dont see is, that if someone thinks about a problem, or an argument, he might do that audibly or publicly - so others could inject their opinions and thoughts, so he/she doesnt make avoidable mistakes.

The person is then not "talking to anyone specifically" but still openly thinking about things, or trying to refute a freaking youtube video title, which is what most people following along usually will remember.

The map is there, so you dont.

Are people now so primed by social media, that they now get irritated, if someone doesnt want to win an argument, by attacking someone else specifically? Hey whats wrong with that image?

 

[FAST6191]

Doing the video thing

The channel there seems to have done a pretty good job of covering some of the other things surrounding it in depth too if you did want to go further.

Seems the deadline will be extended, possibly for quite a while (as in possibly beyond further UK general elections in May 2022 at the latest and EU elections in May of this year). The main chance for it not going long being if May's deal (the two times it has been voted on being the first and third most defeated bills in parliamentary history), as at the same time the concept of no deal has been rejected so it is being "hoped" that it will be viewed as a compromise. Several of the other things being voted on, and only narrowly defeated in some cases, also bringing things well into uncharted waters if they had passed.

Should be amusing to see what happens next.

 

[Taleweaver]

Hmm...seems like things are still pretty unclear. Unless I'm mistaken, May is going to propose her deal a third time. That's...no, I don't know what that means aside from "stalling time". I don't care how stubborn she is...surely she realises that this only achieves further delay, right?

Speaking of delay...yeah. It'll be either a short delay, or a long one. The short one will have the "benefit" of falling before the next EU elections, but either way: what's the point of delaying if there is no agreed plan to work towards?


Meanwhile...I stumbled upon a link that I nearly dismissed as clickbait, but was pretty interesting to me...


(note: Guy Verhofstadt used to be Belgian's prime minister some years ago, btw)

It's interesting because Guy is not the best speaker but puts into words the concern of most - if not all - EU leaders think. Meanwhile, Nigel IS a great speaker...and is clearly heading on a different track than the UK government. You see, I thought it rather trivial that the UK has to ASK for brexit to be delayed. I assumed that if the UK wants to leave, it's up to both the EU and the UK to make sure everything's agreed to (meaning: what May's been doing the last year or so), and if the UK government doesn't like the deal - as is clearly shown - that it'll be up to the UK to either bremain or no brexit. But Farage tries something else: rather than blaming the EU as being a "money devouring moloch" (I forgot the exact term), he seems to dare us to throw out the UK. He points out that if the UK remains in the EU for the election, HE will be in that EU government as well. Kicking, screaming, lobbying against it...but still in it.

Which is...weird, but very smart in a Machiavellian way. He's tempting the EU to push for a no deal brexit, under the pretence that EVEN THIS SCENARIO is somehow carried by that landslide 52% British voters who voted brexit two years ago. He's clearly in favor of a hard brexit, and I can only assume that he can do that so openly because May nor the EU leaders can throw his ass out of there.

 

[blahblah]

I really wish I knew why people use GBAtemp as a website to launder right wing crypto-fascist garbage they were taught from YouTube.

There are no benefits to Brexit. It would irreparably harm England, and much of the world with it. It will not wind up happening as a result.

 

[FAST6191]

There are no benefits to Brexit. It would irreparably harm England, and much of the world with it. It will not wind up happening as a result.

.
Prove it. If it is so clear and uncontentious then it should be easy to do so.

Also if it did not happen then is that not going against the will of the UK populace?

 

[SG854]

I really wish I knew why people use GBAtemp as a website to launder right wing garbage they were taught from YouTube.

There are no benefits to Brexit. It would irreparably harm England, and much of the world with it. It will not wind up happening as a result.

Nothing wrong with discussing different view points. Too many people dismiss everything as a whole because it’s on YouTube without actually getting into specifics on why you disagree. Your opinion is invalid or whatever because you’re on YouTube. It’s a logical fallacy.

And most of YouTube leans left, there are more left channels. Right wing isn’t garbage and they provide a counter balance so that the left doesn’t become insane and vice versa.

I remember someone saying that leftism dominate Media and Acedemics because left wing policies are better, and Gad Saad makes a good point saying that these people are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. And before you dismiss Gad Saad as a YouTube guy, he’s a researcher, he has written many scientific papers and books.

They say the right denies science, they deny evolution and global warming, so right wing policies and economics should not be taught. But the argument can also be made that the left denies the science of male female biology, denying evolutionary psychology, gender pay gap not to sexism and and other economic and social issues. Both sides deny different types of science to fit their beliefs, and both are idiotic on different things. And many Nobel Prizes have been won by conservative right wing economists, they contributed greatly to the field of economics.

There are also things that are not clear cut with hardly any scientific evidence to support it. Like foreign policy, fisical policy, domestic policy, if affirmative action is a good idea, is the death penalty a good idea, topics on abortion, there are good arguments to be made on both sides, since no science exists to say which one is better. And saying one side should dominate academia, or that right wing is garbage because our policies are better is just stupid. They are suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Armadillo]

No 3rd vote on May's deal unless it's different.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47614074

EU won't change the deal unless May's red lines move, so interesting times ahead.