Philosophy Now Forum

There was a general election coming up.

David Cameron, being aware there was much disquiet throughout the country over Europe, particularly concerning immigration, promised a referendum on membership of the EU if the Conservatives were voted into power.

After the Conservatives won the election Cameron declared he would negotiate a deal with the EU that would address the concerns of the British people. He also said that if he didn't get what he wanted, he would personally recommend that Britain leave the EU, albeit in the full knowledge that he had no intention of doing any such thing.

Cameron embarked on a series of negotiations with the EU, "confident" that, armed with the threat of Britain's possible exit, he would be able to get the necessary changes to the terms of the UK's membership to satisfy the demands of the population. After much to-ing and fro-ing he ended up with virtually nothing, but tried to convince us he had achieved great success.

The date of the referendum was announced and, in due course, the politicians -most notably the Conservatives- split themselves into the in camp and the out camp. The campaign was characterised by the issuing of many outrageous claims and threats regarding the consequences of staying or leaving and it very soon started to feel like the whole thing was about what the politicians wanted, and the people were only there to be persuaded which side to support. So, what started out as the people pushing for change, ended up with them being dragged this way and that by the polititians.

Now that it's over, everyone will be able to take some time to reflect on what just happened. David Cameron will be trying to come to terms with the knowledge that he spectacularly over estimated his ability to bamboozle the electorate. George Osborne will be stood, open mouthed, watching his ambitions disappearing over the horizon. Boris Johnson is probably daydreaming about walking into No. 10 as the hero of the people. Jeremy Corbyn could well be wondering: "what the fuck did I do wrong, how is it my fault?" As for the rest of us, the ordinary people, I suspect when the dust has settled, a good many of us will be thinking: is this the position we actually wanted to be in?

Democracy isn't perfect but it's probably the fairest way of being manipulated by the political establishment.

Harbal wrote:Democracy isn't perfect but it's probably the fairest way of being manipulated by the political establishment.

Indeed. And the tragedy is that no matter how you vote, the government always gets in.

Harbal wrote:Democracy isn't perfect but it's probably the fairest way of being manipulated by the political establishment.

This line would make a great quote!

Gary Childress wrote:

Harbal wrote:Democracy isn't perfect but it's probably the fairest way of being manipulated by the political establishment.

This line would make a great quote!

Feel free to use it but If there's any money involved, I want half.

Harbal wrote:As for the rest of us, the ordinary people, I suspect when the dust has settled, a good many of us will be thinking: is this the position we actually wanted to be in?

How about thinking what exactly is the EU anyway

What exactly is the I that wonders what position it should or shouldn't be in

What is this I

Who am I

What is this planet

What is the universe

What is all this ?

Who is it

Why is it

Where is it

What is it

Where is earth

What is earth

What is anything

Where is anything

Who is telling you what you should think and not think

Be or not be

where you should Live or not live

What you should Buy or not buy

Say or not say

Do or not do


On who's authority does anything stand

Who's holding the position of authority over an other

That's what we should be thinking about

What the heck is an EU anyway

Who made up all this stuff?

Democrasy is 1 of the most stable forms of regimes, you avoid the roman bribery and infight, no ruler leaves the state to his incompetent son, no hostile take overs as in revolutions etc.

Tyranny and elitism were fought to achieve democracy; now democracy requires a revolution to make it live up to its name.

Dubious wrote:Tyranny and elitism were fought to achieve democracy; now democracy requires a revolution to make it live up to its name.

they voted. that's democracy.

leftist tyranny under the name of "democracy" requires a revolution with an unarmed and ignorant public preaching politically correct doublespeak.

Viva la revolution!

-Imp

They'll probably have another referendum and overturn it anyway. A storm in a teacup. It's a shame, because modern political correctness and globalization (Americanization) have made the world a terribly bland place.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's a shame, because modern political correctness and globalization (Americanization) have made the world a terribly bland place.

Totally agree with you VT. I'm not a world traveler but from what I've read, the world is becoming more and more homogenous (and perhaps therefore bland). Some languages are disappearing and so are other differences which once separated culture groups. Whether this is a good or bad thing in the aggregate, I wish I knew. Change can be a very alienating process especially the older one gets. Here in the US we have many who get upset or resist Spanish as a second language. Some say, immigrants from South American countries should learn English. But the latter doesn't appear to be a very realistic expectation. Spanish as a second language seems more realistic to me.

I often wonder which is better? A world full of highly segregated or compartmentalized peoples or a more integrated world where everyone sort of mixes it up so to speak? Right now I think we have a lot of conflict between those who endorse the former and those who endorse the latter. I don't know which to endorse so I just try to be as accommodating to both sides as I can. I just don't see a clear cut right answer. The same can pretty much be said in regards to belief in a God or deity. I'm agnostic there too.

When in doubt, be in doubt.

Gary Childress wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's a shame, because modern political correctness and globalization (Americanization) have made the world a terribly bland place.

Totally agree with you VT. I'm not a world traveler but from what I've read, the world is becoming more and more homogenous (and perhaps therefore bland). Some languages are disappearing and so are other differences which once separated culture groups. Whether this is a good or bad thing in the aggregate, I wish I knew. Change can be a very alienating process especially the older one gets. Here in the US we have many who get upset or resist Spanish as a second language. Some say, immigrants from South American countries should learn English. But the latter is just not a very realistic expectation. Spanish as a second language seems more realistic to me.

I often wonder which is better? A world full of highly segregated or compartmentalized peoples or a more integrated world where everyone sort of mixes it up so to speak? Right now I think we have a lot of conflict between those who endorse the former and those who endorse the latter. I don't know which to endorse so I just try to be as accommodating to both sides as I can. I just don't see a clear cut right answer. The same can pretty much be said in regards to belief in a God or deity. I'm agnostic there too.

It would be fine if it meant a world population of rational, critical thinkers with no religion. I somehow don't think it will be Americans like Carl Sagan who will prevail. America is proudly anti-intellectual. Its politicians have to pretend to be idiots to get anywhere. Instead we are getting a bland, saccharine, dumbed-down 'mono-culture' of junk-food addicts, warmongers, illiterates, and an end to free speech. Great for politicians of course.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's a shame, because modern political correctness and globalization (Americanization) have made the world a terribly bland place.

Totally agree with you VT. I'm not a world traveler but from what I've read, the world is becoming more and more homogenous (and perhaps therefore bland). Some languages are disappearing and so are other differences which once separated culture groups. Whether this is a good or bad thing in the aggregate, I wish I knew. Change can be a very alienating process especially the older one gets. Here in the US we have many who get upset or resist Spanish as a second language. Some say, immigrants from South American countries should learn English. But the latter is just not a very realistic expectation. Spanish as a second language seems more realistic to me.

I often wonder which is better? A world full of highly segregated or compartmentalized peoples or a more integrated world where everyone sort of mixes it up so to speak? Right now I think we have a lot of conflict between those who endorse the former and those who endorse the latter. I don't know which to endorse so I just try to be as accommodating to both sides as I can. I just don't see a clear cut right answer. The same can pretty much be said in regards to belief in a God or deity. I'm agnostic there too.

It would be fine if it meant a world population of rational, critical thinkers with no religion. Instead we are getting a bland, saccharine, dumbed-down 'mono-culture' of junk-food addicts, warmongers, illiterates, and an end to free speech. Great for politicians of course.

Although I plead "guilty" to the consumption of junk food, I hear what you are saying. Keeping everyone educated and on top of things is an endless cycle. Just staying informed myself is an endless cycle and I'm admittedly not keeping up very well with it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:They'll probably have another referendum and overturn it anyway.

...extremely unlikely. Who would call the referendum? Not those who were anti EU and expect to be in power shortly. Not the EU that would accept another referendum by the Brits to now rejoin as acknowledgement of a colossal error (if it turns out that way). That creates a precedence the EU will not accept and if they do it will be at the UK's expense which by that time may no longer exist.

To my mind Frau Merkel shoulders most of the blame for the outcome. Based on the votes being so close, her refugee policy forcing not only Germany but Europe to host millions many of whom have already caused problems and refuse to integrate gave it the final resolution of OUT.

It's debatable if the EU will exist in the future. One thing is not, as Chancellor of the most powerful nation in Europe she has to go otherwise there won't even be a single hope remaining for a united Europe. How she could have extended such an overt invitation to flood the continent is beyond comprehension. Europe has, due to her, gained hordes of refugees but lost the UK.

Gary Childress wrote: Keeping everyone educated and on top of things is an endless cycle. Just staying informed myself is an endless cycle and I'm admittedly not keeping up very well with it.

Not knowing all the details which defeat even so-called experts doesn't preclude knowing some essential facts which cause one to think critically. It just takes a little time away from being a puck brained sports fanatic to educate one's self.

Its not the immigrants taking jobs. It's the filthy rich who don't give a damn about the rest, and whether you work, or what you get paid to survive. All that matters to them, is them.