journolud
Well-Known Member
Of course you have.
Another new Brexit thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
Of course you have.
True and undeniably misleading.
hilts
Well-Known Member
Needn’t worry unless she gets 34 million votes some remainers will claim she has no mandate at all. Although they could claim the other 34 million were lied to again. We may need a people’s election afterwards.
FlemishDuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,806
Again, we fundamentaly disagree on wether the Eu is a confederacy or "growing into a federation". I have always made the argument that the EU is a confederacy and you argued that it was moving towards federation.
I don't understand what this notion would do for youre argument that FoM is discriminatory, rather you seem to use this reply to strenghten youre view that Europe is a federation but thats silly because you do this since i made a reference to the USA???
The weird notion you seem to hold is that controlling immigration from outside is not discriminatory if a) it's done by a stae or b) it's done by a federation but crucuially it's discrimination if c) it's done by a confederation? OR, if you argue that the EU is a federation of which the UK "up till now" is nominally a member then it's neither discriminatory? Or maybe it's about "an identity you do not subscribe to" as you lperceive that "americans are all americans, but Europeans do not have a shared nationality?
The fact is though that under FoM Europeans HAVE a shared nationality of sorts, one that will only stop for the UK once it's actually out of the EU.
PERSONALLY i believe you call either all nationalism/internationalism discrimonatory or none of it, simply because under all circumstances they are about territorial entity's that exclude outsiders from the priviliges given within trough the (arguably egoistic) self determination of the people within. The reason why i don't see it as discriminatory from a pragmatic p.o.v is because i see a "one world goverment" as unpracticle and because cultural and linguistic differences can be significant.
A "non EU citizin" does not enjoy the same rights as a EU citizin, no'r does he hold the same obligations. The latter is afcourse an important distinction in regards to nationalism, or otherwise one could perhas ask the question "is it not Eu citizins that are discriminated against because non-EU citizins don't have to pay taxes to EU states or follow Eu-wide rules? The fact is that the rights given within a nation state are typically also coupled to obligations towards it. It would neither be fair to give outsiders the same rights as Europeans withought the obligations assosiated with being a Eu citizin. So no on youre first question, but i disgagree with youre premise that this deserves the mark of discrimination for reasons i stated earlier because as a legal entity the EU confederation is similar to any state or (con)federation thereof.
I find the wording "discrimination" in the context of nationalism as poor as calling the destruction of an ant hill in one's garden "genocide".
Last edited:
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Pretty certain everyone that doesnt vote, including newborns upwards will be claimed as being lib dem and anti brexit if they had the choice.
@Rascal - thank you - with regard to coming to the UK to work or settle, it is such an obvious fact that EU citizens are recognised as having a distinctive status that ensures that they enjoy favourable differentiation from those that are not from an EU member.
I do not know why there has been such a kerfuffle about admitting it - perhaps for some there may be some aversion to being associated with/supportive of something that is inherently discriminatory - even if it can be seen as a positive.
BTW, for others the definition of discriminate:
discriminate
VERB
VERB
recognize a distinction; differentiate.
Last edited:
hilts
Well-Known Member
Without a doubt fella this is the laughable logic of remainers on Brexit. 17.4 million is not enough but say 8 million in a election is plenty if the result suits. Plus people vote for lots of different issues at a general election if they lose unless of course a remain party wins then obviously every vote for them was solely based on Revoke alone.
A cynic would claim people are only interested in getting what they want but don’t have the balls to accept its a little bit dodgy morally. They are as self interested as Boris bless them.
FlemishDuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,806
You can count that as an example for the reason why i argue "either the priciple of the nation state is discriminatory, or it and 'similar or extended structure that flows from it' isn't."
Afterall, the nation state by principle is founded on a distinction between the rights (and obligations!) of those within compared to those outside.
And i repeat that point: Non-Eu citizins neither have the obligations that come with the extra rights that Eu citizins have.
Last edited:
Ok we got there in the end
I can fully accept that we have different views on the status of the EU
Re the use of the word discriminatory - it is just the English language I am afraid:
discriminate
VERB
- recognize a distinction; differentiate.
genocide
NOUN
- the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
Of course anyone who knows anything about politics will know this.
FlemishDuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,806
Lol ok, looking up the word i see it was actually coined 1949, thats surprising. I guess my confusion stems from the fact that Genocide is a Latin word which translates as "killer of tribes". Youre right to point out that the context in which i used it would not be the normative one given the history of the term then. From a linguistic PoV i'm somewhat free to interpret the word literally especially when it comes to making a example "of poor word choice" as i was doing. :p
Anyway, currently youre reply doesn't adress my point that "arguably the very concept of the nation state could be considered discriminatory" besides that you didn't adress the fact that Eu citezinship besides extra rights also entails extra obligations.
Also, English is fubar!!!!
i mean really, if someone differentiates between object a and object b that means "discrimination?? Yes it does! Only in the english languaghe "to discriminate" doesn't automaticly entails a action of social consequence, which is distinctly different in other languaghe's! It just happens that in English there is a synonim between treating people of other background differently and differentiating between 2 objects like meh shoes. In dutch afaik discrimination has only 1 meaning, the former.
It must be said that "to recognise a distinction" is significantly different than "enforcing a social difference". Goes to show how poor youre choice of definition is for the context of youre argument.
Last edited:
denislawsbackheel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 27,392
- Team supported
- We went to Rotherham…
Johnson just bottled a press conference in Luxembourg because of ex pats demonstrating against him. It didn’t stop the Luxembourg PM ripping Johnson a new arse and tearing apart the Brexshiteers’ stance.
Pathetic, useless, embarrassing.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 33,967
FFS.
Your desperation to be proved right is embarrassing.
If you can't credibly discuss anything that is actually a real issue you resort to building a straw man that revolves around the dictionary definition of the word "discriminate".
Do you actually realise how pathetic it is?
Anyway, in your words, Crack on.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 26,034
Just read the transcript of the speech from Xavier Bettel the Luxembourg PM, for the leader of a country to talk in such terms, shows the utter contempt they have for Johnson on the continent.
We're a laughing stock.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 33,967
I wonder if The Sun or any of the right wing press will superimpose a picture of Johnson's face on a chicken?
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 26,034
Luxembourg PM's press conference - Snap verdict
That was extraordinary. Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, has just been humiliated by the leader of the tiniest country in the European Union.
We were expecting a joint, open-air press conference but, with a large crowd of anti-Brexit campaigners threatening to drown out Johnson, it was announced that the British PM was not going to take part (presumably because of the demonstration, although that has not officially been confirmed yet). Normally in these circumstances the polite thing to do is to re-arrange. But instead Xavier Bettel, the prime minister of Luxembourg, just went ahead anyway, effectively “empty chairing” his guest. At one point he even gestured at the space where Johnson was supposed to be.
And then Xavier just let rip. People often wonder what EU leaders say or think about Johnson in private. Well, now we know. The leave campaign was a pack of lies, Johnson’s talk of progress in the Brexit talk is unfounded, the UK still has not come up with any ideas. On and on he went, with particular emphasis on the point that the UK, not the EU, was to blame for the crisis. It was a “nightmare” for EU citizen, said Bettel. At several points he was loudly applauded by the protesters, because they felt he was articulating their anger.
Yesterday Johnson depicted himself as the Incredible Hulk. As the Telegraph’s Michael Deacon suggests, the reality could not be more different.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ey-meeting-with-juncker-live-news-latest-news
That was extraordinary. Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, has just been humiliated by the leader of the tiniest country in the European Union.
We were expecting a joint, open-air press conference but, with a large crowd of anti-Brexit campaigners threatening to drown out Johnson, it was announced that the British PM was not going to take part (presumably because of the demonstration, although that has not officially been confirmed yet). Normally in these circumstances the polite thing to do is to re-arrange. But instead Xavier Bettel, the prime minister of Luxembourg, just went ahead anyway, effectively “empty chairing” his guest. At one point he even gestured at the space where Johnson was supposed to be.
And then Xavier just let rip. People often wonder what EU leaders say or think about Johnson in private. Well, now we know. The leave campaign was a pack of lies, Johnson’s talk of progress in the Brexit talk is unfounded, the UK still has not come up with any ideas. On and on he went, with particular emphasis on the point that the UK, not the EU, was to blame for the crisis. It was a “nightmare” for EU citizen, said Bettel. At several points he was loudly applauded by the protesters, because they felt he was articulating their anger.
Yesterday Johnson depicted himself as the Incredible Hulk. As the Telegraph’s Michael Deacon suggests, the reality could not be more different.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ey-meeting-with-juncker-live-news-latest-news
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 21,511
Whilst indeed discrimination could be used/associated to all sorts of 'choices' - I am not talking about choosing shoes - in the UK the use of discrimination is generally used with regards to people as individuals or groups of people
So I am more than happy with my choice of words in this case as the situation is that certain groups of people are discriminated against/in favour depending on whether they are from an EU member country or not.
It is just a straightforward and indisputable fact and I do not understand all the angst that Remainers have had - just comes across a bit double-standards to see people getting all 'precious' about a factual and accurate description - especially taking into account the amount of labels that have been falsely/inaccurately used to describe Leavers.
Anyway, having got the simple point proven I have moved on from that point.
- Status