Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 3 Next »
From	Message
aussiespud 15-Dec-22, 22:07	Brexit Thoughtful peice… apple.news
softaire 15-Dec-22, 23:24	That's all interesting. How much change of heart do you think is due to the economics of it all and how much is due to negative media coverage over this long period? Have people really changed their opinions about the value of the move or have the reasons for the move changed?
aussiespud 16-Dec-22, 00:32	I think both have contributed. I have relatives in England who have moved away from very pro brexit position. Their view is that the potential benefits were over sold and the potential downsides underplayed.
stalhandske 16-Dec-22, 03:58	I have the same impression as Aussie, based on a number of friends and colleagues in England. It seems that a significant fraction of the support for Brexit was based on false information/propaganda. Just as an example, in the world of scientific research the UK loses with Brexit a huge amount of EU grants to young researchers. In fact UK researchers used to form a big proportion of those receiving EU grants.
softaire 16-Dec-22, 06:42	I think I remember that one of the problems was that England had lost control of their border while in the E.U. in that anyone, from anywhere, could come and go as they pleased and they were being inundated with (what I would call) illegal aliens from the Middle East and Africa... other places? First of all, is that even correct? And secondly have they regained control after Brexit or is it still uncontrollable?
stalhandske 16-Dec-22, 06:57	Immigration is a common problem in EU. Southern countries are in the worst situation, Greece, Italy, France, Spain. Other EU countries are currently trying to help out those countries by accepting migrants. However, it is important to realise that the vast majority of these immigrants are actually refugees. As far as I have understood, the UK wasn't really in any worse situation in this respect due to her membership in EU. EU cannot force its member states to take immigrants, but it can of course suggest repositioning refugees to help the southern members. I don't now where you have got the 'come and go as they pleased', although that might have been some pro-Brexit propaganda, much of which has now been realised to have been false.
softaire 16-Dec-22, 07:04	Stalh Thanks for the answer. "... come and go as they pleased" is because I am under the impression that anyone from anyone of the EU countries may come and go to any other EU country as they see fit, for whatever reasons such as employment, education, etc. Is that not true? And, I think that it applies only to residents of EU countries but not others such as Africa and/or the Middle East.
stalhandske 16-Dec-22, 08:06	Deleted by stalhandske on 16-Dec-22, 08:07.
stalhandske 16-Dec-22, 08:07	Softaire <I think that it applies only to residents of EU countries but not others such as Africa and/or the Middle East.> Yes, correct! 'Come and go as they please' is an EU principle which, I guess, is parallel to the free travel between states in USA. As far as I understand, it automatically includes rights to work (be employed).
softaire 16-Dec-22, 08:37	We seem to now agree on what "Come and go as they please" means and that it was not simply "pro-Brexit propaganda". It was a genuine concern. And apparently, according to the original article link, it is still out of control. My question is do you think the immigration policy since Brexit has helped or hindered England and gotten better or worse? Has this situation contributed to the decline in support of Brexit?
stalhandske 16-Dec-22, 09:16	Softaire <We seem to now agree on what "Come and go as they please" means and that it was not simply "pro-Brexit propaganda". It was a genuine concern. And apparently, according to the original article link, it is still out of control. > I fail to understand. "Come and go as they please" was there from the beginning of EU, one of the key reasons the EU was founded. Just as natural as the equivalent in USA. As the article notes, illegal immigration is now way hgher than during Brexit, directly contradicting the claim that EU membership would have caused it! That was the propaganda at the time of the voting! <My question is do you think the immigration policy since Brexit has helped or hindered England and gotten better or worse? Has this situation contributed to the decline in support of Brexit?> My impression is (and according to the article Aussie posted) the immigration problem has at least not gotten better after brexit! Whether the worse immigration situation now contributes to the decline in Brexit supporters I don't know. I doubt that it is a major reason. The article quites another much more important reason, more young people now able to give their vote.
softaire 16-Dec-22, 09:20	Thanks. I see your point of view. It seems that young people now reject the old reasons for the Brexit and now think it more beneficial to be back in the EU.
aussiespud 16-Dec-22, 13:30	I’ll try and find the source but I remember reading something recently that suggested the migration “ problem” had got worse for the UK since Brexit but I don’t recall the reasons.
stalhandske 16-Dec-22, 20:13	<I’ll try and find the source but I remember reading something recently that suggested the migration “ problem” had got worse for the UK since Brexit but I don’t recall the reasons. > It is right there in the article you posted. <It seems that young people now reject the old reasons for the Brexit and now think it more beneficial to be back in the EU.> LOL. It is now quite clear - and for many who supported Brexit - that the poll was accompanied by a lot of false propaganda. False propaganda in two directions. False information about 'bad effects of membership' as well as on 'the absence of good effects'. And, in the UK this was not a clear right vs left issue, so Softy doesn't really need to support Brexit and Brexiters post festum
bobspringett 16-Dec-22, 21:01	Stal 20:13 <And, in the UK this was not a clear right vs left issue,> I throw no rocks at you, Stal; you have put your finger on a festering sore in virtually all matters of public policy. Almost every question is shoe-horned into a 'right vs left' dichotomy. There is not rational need to do this! Let each question be decided on its own merits, and not bundled together with other separate issues! Unfortunately, too many people find thinking too hard for them, so they just follow whichever marching band they identify with. I recall one social experiment a few decades ago, when a 'survey' would show people in a shopping mall two pamphlets with different major party logos on them and a series of 'policies' in dot-point form. The people were asked which dot points they agreed with and which they disagreed with. Then, for 'background weighting', they were asked which way they intend to vote in the next election and which way they voted in the last. The real point of the survey was not to assess support for the policies. Half of the pamphlets were actual party pamphlets; the other half were the same dot points but with the party logos interchanged. The survey found that people overwhelmingly supported whatever policies were on the pamphlet that carried their preferred party's logo, regardless of which specific policies were printed on it. The voters didn't support the 'policies', they identified with their 'tribe'. That was a long time ago. There is evidence that this attitude of 'my party, right or wrong' is now in decline. More and more people are either deserting the major parties and voting for smaller parties or independents, or becoming swing voters. In Australia at least; we can hope the same for other countries, but America still seems to be stuck.
lord_shiva 16-Dec-22, 22:45	We Send the EU £350 Million a Week Let’s fund our NHS instead! This bus drove around with this ridiculously stupid lie plastered over it promoting Brexit. Only one if the many lies Brexit supporters told to persuade gullible, senile oldsters to vote for it. There is a great series on Brexit by James O’Brien on the many lies told for Brexit. Immigration was a big one. Oh, we don’t want THEIR kind here. Of course the nurses are ok. It’s those others stealing our jobs, who won’t work. The same kind of stupidity was pushed here. I do not know how many times I saw morons post that illegal immigrants get free college tuition, free housing, free health care, free cars and free gas, and that our border is open. You still see people pushing this stupidity. I guess if people can illegally cross the North Korean border, it must be open too?
lord_shiva 17-Dec-22, 07:51	Immigration This link is for Softaire, whose opinion on it I’m of keen interest: www.google.com Let’s see if that worked. Hm, I guess. Vexing I cannot determine how to snag the actual link instead of the redirect. He starts out slow, but gets around to the point at around four minutes. I turn on subtitles to better understand him.
lord_shiva 17-Dec-22, 10:06	Immigration II Here is another. He starts off pondering how 8 million quid becomes national news. If you won that in a lottery you might make the local paper at best. But the UK makes a huge publicity event in adding £8 to the £55 they are already paying France to do less than France is doing accepting immigrants, all while the UK suffers a severe labor shortage for being the only nation to impose economic sanctions on itself in the form of the disastrous Brexit. www.youtube.com
softaire 17-Dec-22, 13:48	LS Thanks for the invitation to join your conversation. I look forward to an honest conversation which would be about the topic with facts and opinions. I would hope to avoid insults and "humor that isn't funny" and discuss the pros and cons of it. It seems to me your topic is immigration and only tangentially aligned with Brexit. If that is not correct, let me know. I'm not sure where you come down on "immigration" but it seems this is (from your articles) mostly about "illegal immigration" and if I remember correctly you seem to believe it is completely warranted and anyone who opposes it is a racist, knuckle-dragger. Again, if not correct, let me know. I have an appointment that I need to leave for in a few minutes, but I look forward to your reply and statement of purpose for the topic, and an explanation of what you want to determine. I will reply later tonight or tomorrow based on what you say. This could be a good discussion! Thanks.
lord_shiva 17-Dec-22, 15:03	<<I'm not sure where you come down on "immigration" but it seems this is (from your articles) mostly about "illegal immigration" and if I remember correctly you seem to believe it is completely warranted and anyone who opposes it is a racist, knuckle-dragger. Again, if not correct, let me know.>> Was that an example of humor that isn't funny? There were a number of reasons offered for Brexit, chief among them the immigration issue. The UK felt they were unable to control their borders, and so Brexit was proposed as a solution to keep undesirables (particularly Albanians) out of the country. The three primary reasons given for Brexit are sovereignty (the British were tired of being told what they could or could not do), immigration, and the economy. Immigrants were taking all the good jobs, and the British were suffering as a result. Now that they must pay tariffs to trade with any European partners, and they no longer have to send $300 million A WEEK to Brussels, everything is hunky dory. Funny thing about that--one of the leading proponents for Brexit promised it would lead to more jobs. With its passage he promptly shuttered his UK plant and moved it where labor was cheaper. Go figure. In the years since Brexit passed UK new car sales have stagnated. Finally, a lot of young people voted for Brexit as a lark. They didn't think it would actually pass, and figured their vote in favor would shake up the "powers that be." They didn't realize just how close the vote actually was (I think it passed by 2%?) and that attitude was enough to shoot themselves in the foot. "I didn't know the gun was loaded!" Pathetic excuse. It is arguable which of these three issues, sovereignty, immigration, or economics was the primary driver. For many of the stodgier, senile set it was immigration--same thing Hitler used to arouse support in his Nazi party, and the same thing holy, godly hero Trump the magnificent and most glorious president--greater than Lincoln and Washington (by his own NFT trading card admission) used to garner MAGA support. Hating nasty, filthy immigrants is always a great appeal to an easily frightened, susceptible subset.
lord_shiva 17-Dec-22, 15:21	Forbes Key Elements "It’s vital to understand that Brexit was a vote against the British elite. Voters thought politicians, business leaders, and intellectuals had lost their right to control the system. Voters thought the elite had contempt for their values—for their nationalism and interests. This is not a new phenomenon in Europe. This is not a British phenomenon, either. It is something that is sweeping Europe and China. And with the rise of Donald Trump, it’s also present in the United States." www.forbes.com Chafing at rules: "Sometimes these EU rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can’t recycle a teabag, or that children under eight cannot blow up balloons, or the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners. " It should be noted these were all lies. There were LOTS of lies spread pushing Brexit. IL think most of the arguments in favor of it were actually just lies--similar to Trump's lies favoring his pointless vanity wall. Argument 5: The EU allows too many immigrants [From www.vox.com] This argument should have preceded others--it really should have been at least second given its broad appeal. Many of the callers to James O'Brien were of the opinion human beings from beyond the UK borders were garbage best disposed of in the channel, and similar rot. "The intellectual case for Brexit is mostly focused on economics, but the emotional case for Brexit is heavily influenced by immigration." And it is emotions that drive decisions as much as anything--this is surprisingly true in markets as well. On the other hand, two of the seven reasons given in the Vox article (cited above) concern immigration: Argument 6: The UK could have a more rational immigration system outside the EU On the Wiki link for the arguments for Brexit, the order is sovereignty followed by immigration: en.wikipedia.org Quote: Lord Ashcroft's election day poll of 12,369 voters also discovered that 'One third (33%) [of leave voters] said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders."'. So for a third of Brexit voters, immigration was the primary reason, not economics or sovereignty. Goebbels would have been proud.
lord_shiva 17-Dec-22, 15:22	Immigration I look forward to reading your opinion when you return.
dmaestro 17-Dec-22, 15:35	brexitlies.com It was well know Brexit was pushes by Lies amp.theguardian.com and if everyone had voted (many assumed the polls showing it would lose were correct it would have failed. Furthermore it was the usual less educated population that bought the lies. That’s why its proponents blocked a revote—they would have lost. People need to learn the right wingers lie and only make things so the UK needs to suffer until enough get it. I hope Scotland leaves and ends the UK for good.
dmaestro 17-Dec-22, 15:44	LS Good Luck with that. We already know Softaire’s position is this: www.fairus.org and it’s a well know extremist group www.splcenter.org.
stalhandske 17-Dec-22, 20:19	<We already know Softaire’s position is this> What kind of surprised me was indeed his pre-determinded opinion that Brexit was 'the best solution' and the reasons for it. Even though all that was presented in a modest tone, it was interesting to note the adherence to 'brexitism' for apparently no other reason than having listened to the right wing propoaganda in USA. This view wasn't even stirred when challenged by factual information, including the fact that large fractions of people in the UK who formerly were brexitists have now changed their minds. There can be no objective doubt that Brexit was a very bad decision overall, not only for the UK but also for the rest of EU! I wonder if Softaire would support a "Texit" in USA?
bobspringett 17-Dec-22, 20:38	Stel 20:19 Texit. Wouldn't that be a great idea! Think of the benefits:- 1. No Texan members of Reps or Senate; the Dems would control both houses for the foreseeable future. 2. Texas would bear most of the cost of that stupid, over-rated rabbit-proof fence. 3. No Federal subsidies for hurricane losses or other Climate Change damages. 4. A chance to bring in sensible gun laws. 5. Abolish NASA and form a more efficient Space Agency by combining with ESA. (ESA's facilities in French Guyana makes more sense as a launch site anyway; the closer to the Equator, the more payload can be launched by the same rocket and fuel load). Let that be a significant step towards America going metric.
softaire 18-Dec-22, 08:24	LS Thanks for mostly informational and non-sensational posts which I take seriously except for the (relatively) few insults that you seem adamant to include. I must say that you, and others here, don't half-step... you power through and provide a lot of links and posts. Being a slow reader, unable to understand nuances, and not being able to remember yesterday anymore, it takes me time to absorb everything and try to make sense of it all. I have not heard, or read, much about Brexit since it occurred. So, all that was interesting and mostly new to me. Thanks for those links... seemed fair and reasonable. Not sure what to argue about with them. Trying to go back to your original question to me about the link to James O'Brien, I had to listen to it again. It seems that he is accusing only conservatives of being "anti-immigrant" and that a lot of "ordinary" people seem to despise or fear others who were not born in his country (UK) and he (or you) are transferring that view to Americans in the USA. I can't argue with his sentiments that he judges people by their actions, not where they come from and therefore THAT is "extra-ordinary". I can't argue with his idea that we should not allow or condone the people who make money off the "hate foreigners" propaganda. I DO endorse his general idea to be tolerant and accept people from other places. What I see his mistake (maybe it is your mistake too?) is that he references "immigration" and the opposition to immigration by "ordinary" people is NOT opposition to LEGAL immigration... it is opposition to illegal-immigration. We should oppose those who promote hate against people from other places (immigrants whether legal or illegal). There are many, many good solid reasons to oppose illegal-immigration. We should have immigration reform which allow legal immigration, as needed. If any of this post is close to what you were originally looking forward, I am well pleased. If not, please advise.
dmaestro 18-Dec-22, 11:35	Softaire Nobody wants lots of illegal immigration. But like prohibition of alcohol and weed, some of the illegality is a product of bad laws. The solution is simple. Reform existing laws based on factual analysis of optimal immigration goals like CATO suggests. Holding Dreamers as a bargaining chip like you all do for example just shows bad faith. FAIR etc the right wing source of your info is very biased. The truth is your side gains more politically from no reform so that is why we won’t get anywhere. That’s also why your side was so happy about Brexit despite the lies and obvious problems.
softaire 18-Dec-22, 11:47	DM You are so full of crap that it smells here in San Diego. YOU Progressives have been in charge of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for almost two years now. You could have passed anything you want but once Biden undid all of Trumps accomplishments, we have heard NOTHING. Now we have astounding record numbers of people crossing illegally, along with the terrorists, gangs members, human traffickers, and drugs. It will soon be worse with the ending of Title 42 and you still will have done nothing. This, of course, is all on-purpose because Progressives want it.
lord_shiva 18-Dec-22, 16:11	1986, 2000, 2021 1.6 million came into the US illegally in 1986. Who was president? The Gipper? He granted them amnesty. Bill Clinton was president in 2000, one of the three worst years. We do need immigration reform. The present system IS a mess, where a person must wait twenty five years or more to be reunited with their family. What compromises have Republicans been willing to consider? The Devin Nunes family farm (in Iowa, not California) employs illegal immigrants. Bob noted how US corporations cheat them, though even legal immigrant green card holders get cheated out of earned pay.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, chess teams, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.