An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
I have no idea because that isn't what they voted on.
Let's ignore the conspiracy theory that the EU is plotting to break up the United Kingdom for a second and just look at that claim...
"The EU is trying to annex Northern Ireland"
The EU is not a country, it owns no sovereign land nor an army. How in the fucking hell can it annex Northern Ireland? The Vatican City is in a better position to annex Northern Ireland for crying out loud. At least it fits the basic criteria of being able to do so.
As @se9addick quite rightly points out, a sea border, ie NI remaining in the CU with the rest of us not, would be a giant step towards breaking up the UK.
Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be to force a situation of cession, although I doubt the average Daily Mail reader would understand the meaning, so would somewhat undermine the point.
The EU wouldn't be annexing Northern Ireland though, would it? Worst case scenario the Northern Irish people would realise how badly Westminster has fucked them over to appease the far-right in England and use their right to self-determination to either unite Ireland or become their own sovereign state. And believe me if enough Irish voters are willing to back loonies like Foster then they are far, far away from breaking away from the UK.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
And the other 28.1 million of the electorate did not even vote to leave the EU! What's so special about the 17.4 million?
The word "annex" is clearly incorrect but is useful for pundits to try and fool their readers with because it is something the Nazis/USSR used to do to countries and Brexiters love to compare the EU to the Nazis and Soviets.
This is such amazingly moronic bullshit that I'm going to have to take the bait
"What greater access to information could someone have than to be given a web-enabled computer?"
You idiot, it's not about access to information. It's about access to actively-engaging stimuli, parental attention, education. Putting a young child in front of a screen isn't going to make them more intelligent! They won't know what to do or where to search and will end up watching some awful 'ten little monkeys' song on repeat for four fucking hours.
This cunt thinks he can sell his elitist 'intelligence is determined vastly by genetics' nonsense to expand his army of white-nationalist goons. Please don't buy it
"It's way easier to make people stupider but not easier to make people smarter. I mean think about it, it's way easier to make something worse than it is better."
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
And the other 28.1 million of the electorate did not even vote to leave the EU! What's so special about the 17.4 million?
They didn't vote to remain either did they? The fact is that more people voted to leave than to remain. Stop wasting your time trying to throw irrelevant figures around and come up with something new for a change.
Does anyone seriously anticipate the DUP in political terms and the loyalist para militaries allowing for any deal that is in effect paving the way for a reunited Ireland. It will bring back bloodshed and division and put the peace process back years.
I really hope this perceived solution is blocked very quickly.
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
And the other 28.1 million of the electorate did not even vote to leave the EU! What's so special about the 17.4 million?
They didn't vote to remain either did they? The fact is that more people voted to leave than to remain. Stop wasting your time trying to throw irrelevant figures around and come up with something new for a change.
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
And the other 28.1 million of the electorate did not even vote to leave the EU! What's so special about the 17.4 million?
They didn't vote to remain either did they? The fact is that more people voted to leave than to remain. Stop wasting your time trying to throw irrelevant figures around and come up with something new for a change.
Regardless of who voted to leave, or remain or didn't vote at all absolutely no one voted on weather we should remain under the auspices of the ECJ, SM or CU. Trying to retrospectively interpret what motivated 17.4M people you've never met to vote is madness.
"It's way easier to make people stupider but not easier to make people smarter. I mean think about it, it's way easier to make something worse than it is better."
This cunt is a tenured professor, my god
....and you a mere home tutor? I see why you're getting pissy with him and calling him a c*nt.
When people keep talking about the 17.4 million as if they are special and their views are paramount and the views of the 28.1 million should be dismissed I will continue to throw these very relevant figures around...all day long...every day... Sorry (well, not really) if that bothers you.
This cunt thinks he can sell his elitist 'intelligence is determined vastly by genetics' nonsense to expand his army of white-nationalist goons. Please don't buy it
Elites don't exist.
'Whte-nationalist goons'?? you so obviously don't know very much about the man you attack. I suggest some learning of the man before going all radio rental on him in a manner that can only be described as reactionary.
This is such amazingly moronic bullshit that I'm going to have to take the bait
"What greater access to information could someone have than to be given a web-enabled computer?"
You idiot, it's not about access to information. It's about access to actively-engaging stimuli, parental attention, education. Putting a young child in front of a screen isn't going to make them more intelligent! They won't know what to do or where to search and will end up watching some awful 'ten little monkeys' song on repeat for four fucking hours.
This cunt thinks he can sell his elitist 'intelligence is determined vastly by genetics' nonsense to expand his army of white-nationalist goons. Please don't buy it
You'll love this video then Leuth, Peterson brought back down to ground
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
I've listened to the second one for 16 minutes, and there it is:
"Human beings in some sense are beasts of burden. If they're not provided with a place where they can accept social and individual responsibility in an honourable manner, they degenerate and die. Take the opioid crisis..."
What's honourable? What sort of responsibility? Are you advocating feudalism? It certainly sounds like you're advocating feudalism, with your inexorable distribution curves and your insistence that power is always concentrated towards the top. How do we deal with the epsilon minuses if the alpha pluses* are running the game? Put them to some good, honest work, that's what!
But here at least, there are no solutions, just vague mithering about how 'postmodernists and Marxists want to do away with markets entirely' and unsubtle dogwhistles about race, class and gender.
Absolutely repellent.
*because the game is run by the best. He's made that quite clear. The very best people rise to the top. Best and brightest.
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
Does anyone seriously anticipate the DUP in political terms and the loyalist para militaries allowing for any deal that is in effect paving the way for a reunited Ireland. It will bring back bloodshed and division and put the peace process back years.
I really hope this perceived solution is blocked very quickly.
The whole point of the backstop is that it is a position agreed in the absence of a solution.
It's effectively the aroma of freshly brewed coffee wafting across to Downing Street as the cock prepares to crow...
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
In which case, the Government should stop trying to claim that it can retain the status quo, and indicate what sort of steps it will be willing to take (if any) to ensure that it can abide by its commitments under the Good Friday Agreement.
Above all, they should take responsibility for the decision and accept a degree of liability for any untoward consequences (a few of which might actually have sod all to do with terrorism).
I've listened to the second one for 16 minutes, and there it is:
"Human beings in some sense are beasts of burden. If they're not provided with a place where they can accept social and individual responsibility in an honourable manner, they degenerate and die. Take the opioid crisis..."
What's honourable? What sort of responsibility? Are you advocating feudalism? It certainly sounds like you're advocating feudalism, with your inexorable distribution curves and your insistence that power is always concentrated towards the top. How do we deal with the epsilon minuses if the alpha pluses* are running the game? Put them to some good, honest work, that's what!
But here at least, there are no solutions, just vague mithering about how 'postmodernists and Marxists want to do away with markets entirely' and unsubtle dogwhistles about race, class and gender.
Absolutely repellent.
*because the game is run by the best. He's made that quite clear. The very best people rise to the top. Best and brightest.
Drop him an email or contact him through another medium and ask him the questions you raise. Better to be sure than to just say 'It certainly sounds like you're advocating feudalism' so that it confirms your, potentially flawed, thoughts.
What work/studies have you done in abnormal, social, and personality psychology? Add to that the psychology of religious and ideological belief, and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.
Peterson would pick you apart and tell you pretty much exactly why you've gone off on the tangent you have. Sometimes learning about yourself is a good thing.
EDIT: for the record it sounds absolutely nothing like feudalism. You know that, though, and are probably hoping some will believe you without watching the clip. Yet another attempt at making something, or someone, taboo.
I've listened to the second one for 16 minutes, and there it is:
"Human beings in some sense are beasts of burden. If they're not provided with a place where they can accept social and individual responsibility in an honourable manner, they degenerate and die. Take the opioid crisis..."
What's honourable? What sort of responsibility? Are you advocating feudalism? It certainly sounds like you're advocating feudalism, with your inexorable distribution curves and your insistence that power is always concentrated towards the top. How do we deal with the epsilon minuses if the alpha pluses* are running the game? Put them to some good, honest work, that's what!
But here at least, there are no solutions, just vague mithering about how 'postmodernists and Marxists want to do away with markets entirely' and unsubtle dogwhistles about race, class and gender.
Absolutely repellent.
*because the game is run by the best. He's made that quite clear. The very best people rise to the top. Best and brightest.
Drop him an email or contact him through another medium and ask him the questions you raise. Better to be sure than to just say 'It certainly sounds like you're advocating feudalism' so that it confirms your, potentially flawed, thoughts.
What work/studies have you done in abnormal, social, and personality psychology? Add to that the psychology of religious and ideological belief, and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.
Peterson would pick you apart and tell you pretty much exactly why you've gone off on the tangent you have. Sometimes learning about yourself is a good thing.
Peterson is a man who claims that 'studies have shown that in Scandinavian countries, where there's no income disparity, men and women have the biggest difference in interests, hence biological difference!!' without citing what source it is or what the source was actually measuring, and without acknowledging that in a more prosperous country of course there is going to be a bigger divergence in interests across the board, owing to increased opportunity. He's a fraud.
"What work/studies have you done?" = "You are not allowed to criticise anything if it's said by a professor, even if it's obviously full of holes." This is an internet messageboard. People are not gonna sit back and swallow. Deal with it
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It’s not by chance that what we are in effect referring to is called “the peace process”. Politicians up to and including the POTUS were involved in brokering a deal that helped bring about the end to years of death and mayhem along that border and in cities and towns within Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that we have not already and should not in the future consider the views of the extremists in order to maintain that peace is I believe wrong.
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It’s not by chance that what we are in effect referring to is called “the peace process”. Politicians up to and including the POTUS were involved in brokering a deal that helped bring about the end to years of death and mayhem along that border and in cities and towns within Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that we have not already and should not in the future consider the views of the extremists in order to maintain that peace is I believe wrong.
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
We'll have to agree to disagree, the views of extremists would not figure in my calculation of the right approach one iota.
I've listened to the second one for 16 minutes, and there it is:
"Human beings in some sense are beasts of burden. If they're not provided with a place where they can accept social and individual responsibility in an honourable manner, they degenerate and die. Take the opioid crisis..."
What's honourable? What sort of responsibility? Are you advocating feudalism? It certainly sounds like you're advocating feudalism, with your inexorable distribution curves and your insistence that power is always concentrated towards the top. How do we deal with the epsilon minuses if the alpha pluses* are running the game? Put them to some good, honest work, that's what!
But here at least, there are no solutions, just vague mithering about how 'postmodernists and Marxists want to do away with markets entirely' and unsubtle dogwhistles about race, class and gender.
Absolutely repellent.
*because the game is run by the best. He's made that quite clear. The very best people rise to the top. Best and brightest.
Drop him an email or contact him through another medium and ask him the questions you raise. Better to be sure than to just say 'It certainly sounds like you're advocating feudalism' so that it confirms your, potentially flawed, thoughts.
What work/studies have you done in abnormal, social, and personality psychology? Add to that the psychology of religious and ideological belief, and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.
Peterson would pick you apart and tell you pretty much exactly why you've gone off on the tangent you have. Sometimes learning about yourself is a good thing.
Peterson is a man who claims that 'studies have shown that in Scandinavian countries, where there's no income disparity, men and women have the biggest difference in interests, hence biological difference!!' without citing what source it is or what the source was actually measuring, and without acknowledging that in a more prosperous country of course there is going to be a bigger divergence in interests across the board, owing to increased opportunity. He's a fraud.
"What work/studies have you done?" = "You are not allowed to criticise anything if it's said by a professor, even if it's obviously full of holes." This is an internet messageboard. People are not gonna sit back and swallow. Deal with it
None then, right? How can it 'obviously' be full of holes if you don't understand the subject matter enough to make that assertion?
He's better placed to comment, has a wealth of experience in these fields that some would say means he's an 'expert'. We all know what we should do with what experts say
Or we could just put a border between the two countries, they are, after all, different countries.
I will leave the practicalities of this one to one side, and the UK breaking an international treaty it signed up to, and the monetary costs, and ask you to remember or research the deaths and injuries and troubles of the 60's to 90's and contemplate whether the brexit proposed is worth that.
We shouldn't avoid putting a border in place because there are some nutters out there who might use it as an excuse to cause trouble, that's giving in to terrorists.
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
I dont think the first part of that post holds water tbh.
Really?
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It’s not by chance that what we are in effect referring to is called “the peace process”. Politicians up to and including the POTUS were involved in brokering a deal that helped bring about the end to years of death and mayhem along that border and in cities and towns within Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that we have not already and should not in the future consider the views of the extremists in order to maintain that peace is I believe wrong.
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
We'll have to agree to disagree, the views of extremists would not figure in my calculation of the right approach one iota.
Maybe it's something that the people of Ireland should get to agree upon
Comments
Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be to force a situation of cession, although I doubt the average Daily Mail reader would understand the meaning, so would somewhat undermine the point.
"What greater access to information could someone have than to be given a web-enabled computer?"
You idiot, it's not about access to information. It's about access to actively-engaging stimuli, parental attention, education. Putting a young child in front of a screen isn't going to make them more intelligent! They won't know what to do or where to search and will end up watching some awful 'ten little monkeys' song on repeat for four fucking hours.
This cunt thinks he can sell his elitist 'intelligence is determined vastly by genetics' nonsense to expand his army of white-nationalist goons. Please don't buy it
This cunt is a tenured professor, my god
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement.
How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
And the other 28.1 million of the electorate did not even vote to leave the EU! What's so special about the 17.4 million?
They didn't vote to remain either did they? The fact is that more people voted to leave than to remain. Stop wasting your time trying to throw irrelevant figures around and come up with something new for a change.
I really hope this perceived solution is blocked very quickly.
How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
And the other 28.1 million of the electorate did not even vote to leave the EU! What's so special about the 17.4 million?
They didn't vote to remain either did they? The fact is that more people voted to leave than to remain. Stop wasting your time trying to throw irrelevant figures around and come up with something new for a change. Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement.
How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
And the other 28.1 million of the electorate did not even vote to leave the EU! What's so special about the 17.4 million?
They didn't vote to remain either did they? The fact is that more people voted to leave than to remain. Stop wasting your time trying to throw irrelevant figures around and come up with something new for a change.
Regardless of who voted to leave, or remain or didn't vote at all absolutely no one voted on weather we should remain under the auspices of the ECJ, SM or CU. Trying to retrospectively interpret what motivated 17.4M people you've never met to vote is madness.
Which is exactly what everyone is trying to avoid at all costs.
'Whte-nationalist goons'?? you so obviously don't know very much about the man you attack. I suggest some learning of the man before going all radio rental on him in a manner that can only be described as reactionary.
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/comment/3118320/#Comment_3118320
We shouldn't put a border in place because it's a bloody stupid idea.
"Human beings in some sense are beasts of burden. If they're not provided with a place where they can accept social and individual responsibility in an honourable manner, they degenerate and die. Take the opioid crisis..."
What's honourable? What sort of responsibility? Are you advocating feudalism? It certainly sounds like you're advocating feudalism, with your inexorable distribution curves and your insistence that power is always concentrated towards the top. How do we deal with the epsilon minuses if the alpha pluses* are running the game? Put them to some good, honest work, that's what!
But here at least, there are no solutions, just vague mithering about how 'postmodernists and Marxists want to do away with markets entirely' and unsubtle dogwhistles about race, class and gender.
Absolutely repellent.
*because the game is run by the best. He's made that quite clear. The very best people rise to the top. Best and brightest.
So if all other considerations suggested that the right thing to do was introduce border between the Republic & NI do you think we still shouldn't because a tiny minority would use it as an excuse to cause trouble? Why should they set the agenda?
It's hypothetical because all of the other considerations actually also say introducing a border is terrible idea.
It's effectively the aroma of freshly brewed coffee wafting across to Downing Street as the cock prepares to crow...
But enough about the Foreign Secretary.
Above all, they should take responsibility for the decision and accept a degree of liability for any untoward consequences (a few of which might actually have sod all to do with terrorism).
What work/studies have you done in abnormal, social, and personality psychology? Add to that the psychology of religious and ideological belief, and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.
Peterson would pick you apart and tell you pretty much exactly why you've gone off on the tangent you have. Sometimes learning about yourself is a good thing.
EDIT: for the record it sounds absolutely nothing like feudalism. You know that, though, and are probably hoping some will believe you without watching the clip. Yet another attempt at making something, or someone, taboo.
"What work/studies have you done?" = "You are not allowed to criticise anything if it's said by a professor, even if it's obviously full of holes." This is an internet messageboard. People are not gonna sit back and swallow. Deal with it
You are right though that it’s a stupid idea for other reasons too.
He's better placed to comment, has a wealth of experience in these fields that some would say means he's an 'expert'. We all know what we should do with what experts say