"Brexit"

glasgowtolondon

labro said:

At least this can be considered a slightly humorous take on Brexit....

https://www.buzzfeed.com/robinedds/brexit-tweets-guaranteed-to-make-brits-laugh-cry-or-both?bffbmain&utm_term=.pe0KPEZW0#.paa3ZaOvA

I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry, or scream.

Why limit yourself to just one?

Lol at the new design of the pound coin - it's funny because it's true! *writhes on the floor whilst laughing, crying, and screaming at the same time*

glasgowtolondon

MCmeow said:

Some good news, there's a petition calling for a second vote because of the small margin: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215  It's now going to be debated since it has over 100k signatures

I'm not really down with that. We voted. We chose to leave. It wasnt done illegally, it was democracy in action. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but the people were asked and the people decided.

madamerwin

This is interesting and/or concerning: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/24/480949383/britains-google-searches-for-what-is-the-eu-spike-after-brexit-vote

ETA words

MCmeow

glasgowtolondon said:

MCmeow said:

Some good news, there's a petition calling for a second vote because of the small margin: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215  It's now going to be debated since it has over 100k signatures

I'm not really down with that. We voted. We chose to leave. It wasnt done illegally, it was democracy in action. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but the people were asked and the people decided.

Yeah I see your point. I also see the point that it should be at least 60% since it will make such a big impact to you guys, like on the economy. Either way good luck =\

glasgowtolondon

MCmeow said:

glasgowtolondon said:

MCmeow said:

Some good news, there's a petition calling for a second vote because of the small margin: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215  It's now going to be debated since it has over 100k signatures

I'm not really down with that. We voted. We chose to leave. It wasnt done illegally, it was democracy in action. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but the people were asked and the people decided.

Yeah I see your point. I also see the point that it should be at least 60% since it will make such a big impact to you guys, like on the economy. Either way good luck =\

I know what you are saying, I wish! I'm using today to get it all out of my system and them start the process of trying to make the best of this. In the meantime, it's 7pm in the UK so it's time to self medicate with some french red wine. 

Thanks for letting me moan on and on today, guys!

ScottishSarah

glasgowtolondon said:

kimmiinthemitten said:

scribe95 said:

I have heard there is a somewhat racist component of the whole debate. Can someone explain that? 

The argument is that the EU is forcing the UK to take in the dangerous Islamic refugees and that the refugees and immigrants are a drain on the UK economy.

Yeah. It's funny how I never hear anyone bemoaning the hundreds of thousands of Irish people, or aussies, kiwis, or south africans. It's almost as though you only put a strain on services if english is not your native tongue, are not white, or are not christian. Thats what I see and hear. 

They also put out this disgusting poster featuring herds of Syrian refugees fleeing conflict, but used to illustrate the "no more immigrants" rhetoric. Please also just be aware that the people pictured here are not photographed whilst queueing up to get into the UK or anything. Just walking for miles to get away from a war zone.



Eta spelling. I'm just too bloody angry today to check my spelling.

I'm fucking angry too.  The baby boomers had everything, student grants, real pensions, social mobility, a chance to totally fuck the housing market (a 2 bed apartment in my street is £300,000+) and now they have left us with this shit! 

PS I love you though daddy! 

PPS And yes the whole thing is very racist, problem being some of these people belong more in the studios of Jeremy Kyle than in a polling booth. 

madamerwin

Anyone else see this Donald Trump Tweet?  

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/746272130992644096

...Didn't Scots overwhelmingly vote to remain?

And this man is running for president. Scary.

TrixieJess

madamerwin said:

Anyone else see this Donald Trump Tweet?  

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/746272130992644096

...Didn't Scots overwhelmingly vote to remain?

And this man is running for president. Scary.

Did you see some of the tweets back? Hilarious! Lily Allen especially.

kimmiinthemitten

TrixieJess said:

madamerwin said:

Anyone else see this Donald Trump Tweet?  

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/746272130992644096

...Didn't Scots overwhelmingly vote to remain?

And this man is running for president. Scary.

Did you see some of the tweets back? Hilarious! Lily Allen especially.

Even worse, did you hear/ read his Q & A?

He draws the parallels between the UK and the US. And only if you think parallels look like this:

madamerwin

@TrixieJess Some are hilarious, some make me want to cry... Reading them reminds me how many US citizens don't think Trump is an "idiotic delusional psychopathic compulsive lying politician," to quote one of the responses.

ScottishSarah

madamerwin said:

Anyone else see this Donald Trump Tweet?  

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/746272130992644096

...Didn't Scots overwhelmingly vote to remain?

And this man is running for president. Scary.

I think every single Scottish constituency voted to remain.  It is indeed scary madamerwin

lovesclimbing

kimmiinthemitten said:

I read the rumors about a unified Ireland this morning.   And about the drop in the pound and stock market. That's crazy and scary!  My liberal friends seem to think this will bring Europe back to pre-WWII instability and naturally my libertarian friends think this was a great move. I guess only time will tell. 

ScottishSarah said:

Just curious, does anyone ever talk about spitting up the USA?

A few fringe groups but no one ever takes them seriously. Texas is always the biggest headline.

There's been talk about Alaska occasionally. None of it is super serious, mostly joking around, although I believe there was more serious talk in the past. 

thisismynickname2

madamerwin said:

This is interesting and/or concerning: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/24/480949383/britains-google-searches-for-what-is-the-eu-spike-after-brexit-vote

ETA words

I have a huge problem with this Google article and it disappoints me that even NPR played into it. 
GOOGLE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT PEOPLE VOTED! 

So many people are using that to paint the Leave people as uninformed morons. My assumption is that once the votes starting coming in and leaning towards Leave, people had that "holy shit it's actually happening" moment and started searching some more. I doubt a lot of people really believed the Leave vote would win, even if they did vote Leave and want it that way and are happy about it. 

For so long, there's been the campaigns and scare tactics for both sides. It's also logical that once a decision was made, people searched for the "what happens now" element. Because sure, I was aware of the debate and the reasons for both sides, but didn't know what would happen if a Leave vote actually won. I was Googling myself over in the US. 

FWIW, I have a lot of family in England on both sides of the fence. Facebook got interesting. My mom is 60 and her comment was that if she was still a citizen, she would have voted to Leave because she remembers life before the EU. It's no surprise many votes were along age lines-- the country did exist before the EU! 

themosthappy91

thisismynickname said:

madamerwin said:

This is interesting and/or concerning: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/24/480949383/britains-google-searches-for-what-is-the-eu-spike-after-brexit-vote

ETA words

I have a huge problem with this Google article and it disappoints me that even NPR played into it. 
GOOGLE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT PEOPLE VOTED! 

So many people are using that to paint the Leave people as uninformed morons. My assumption is that once the votes starting coming in and leaning towards Leave, people had that "holy shit it's actually happening" moment and started searching some more. I doubt a lot of people really believed the Leave vote would win, even if they did vote Leave and want it that way and are happy about it. 

For so long, there's been the campaigns and scare tactics for both sides. It's also logical that once a decision was made, people searched for the "what happens now" element. Because sure, I was aware of the debate and the reasons for both sides, but didn't know what would happen if a Leave vote actually won. I was Googling myself over in the US. 

FWIW, I have a lot of family in England on both sides of the fence. Facebook got interesting. My mom is 60 and her comment was that if she was still a citizen, she would have voted to Leave because she remembers life before the EU. It's no surprise many votes were along age lines-- the country did exist before the EU! 

I think the age lines thing is the most interesting part of all of this- it just seems so unfair to me that they people who overwhelming wanted to remain are the ones whose careers, families and lives are going to be the most affected by leaving! I have literally no idea what kind of mechanism you could institute to account for that kind of factor in a democracy... but it seems like there should be something.

I saw an article that, assuming people continue to die at current rates and all remains pretty much consistent, by the time leaving the EU is fully implemented (I think they said 2018?), leave would (based on statistics) no longer be in the majority if the vote happened then. Any idea if there is credibility to those projections?

thisismynickname2

themosthappy91 said:

thisismynickname said:

madamerwin said:

This is interesting and/or concerning: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/24/480949383/britains-google-searches-for-what-is-the-eu-spike-after-brexit-vote

ETA words

I have a huge problem with this Google article and it disappoints me that even NPR played into it. 
GOOGLE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT PEOPLE VOTED! 

So many people are using that to paint the Leave people as uninformed morons. My assumption is that once the votes starting coming in and leaning towards Leave, people had that "holy shit it's actually happening" moment and started searching some more. I doubt a lot of people really believed the Leave vote would win, even if they did vote Leave and want it that way and are happy about it. 

For so long, there's been the campaigns and scare tactics for both sides. It's also logical that once a decision was made, people searched for the "what happens now" element. Because sure, I was aware of the debate and the reasons for both sides, but didn't know what would happen if a Leave vote actually won. I was Googling myself over in the US. 

FWIW, I have a lot of family in England on both sides of the fence. Facebook got interesting. My mom is 60 and her comment was that if she was still a citizen, she would have voted to Leave because she remembers life before the EU. It's no surprise many votes were along age lines-- the country did exist before the EU! 

I think the age lines thing is the most interesting part of all of this- it just seems so unfair to me that they people who overwhelming wanted to remain are the ones whose careers, families and lives are going to be the most affected by leaving! I have literally no idea what kind of mechanism you could institute to account for that kind of factor in a democracy... but it seems like there should be something.

I saw an article that, assuming people continue to die at current rates and all remains pretty much consistent, by the time leaving the EU is fully implemented (I think they said 2018?), leave would (based on statistics) no longer be in the majority if the vote happened then. Any idea if there is credibility to those projections?

First bolded- no. That's not democracy, that's rigging. No offense, but that's another element that irritates me about the results of Brexit and the results of every US presidential election- that somehow the results aren't accurate, x population shouldn't be or should be allowed to vote, so forth and so on- anything to get the outcomes you want and you think is best for everyone else. 

Look, I'm in the minority on these boards in terms of political beliefs (Libertarian). My only skin in the Brexit game is that my 401k and IRA took a dive, but hey, when the market's down I'll just buy more shares and make more money in the long run; think I'll plan a vacay to see my family now that the Pound is down. People need to be able to vote how THEY want to vote, not how others THINK OTHERS should vote.  

Second bolded- no idea. Are that many more citizens going to come of age in the next two years, and are that many seniors going to die? Who knows. If I recall the stats correctly, not a majority of the young crowd voted, so would that even make a difference? 

You can like this or you can not like this, but millions of perfectly normal, reasonable people voted and Leave won. Trying to change the outcome is nothing but a temper tantrum and a vote for oligarchy. No thanks. 

themosthappy91

First bolded- no. That's not democracy, that's rigging. No offense, but that's another element that irritates me about the results of Brexit and the results of every US presidential election- that somehow the results aren't accurate, x population shouldn't be or should be allowed to vote, so forth and so on- anything to get the outcomes you want and you think is best for everyone else. 

Look, I'm in the minority on these boards in terms of political beliefs (Libertarian). My only skin in the Brexit game is that my 401k and IRA took a dive, but hey, when the market's down I'll just buy more shares and make more money in the long run; think I'll plan a vacay to see my family now that the Pound is down. People need to be able to vote how THEY want to vote, not how others THINK OTHERS should vote.  

Second bolded- no idea. Are that many more citizens going to come of age in the next two years, and are that many seniors going to die? Who knows. If I recall the stats correctly, not a majority of the young crowd voted, so would that even make a difference? 

You can like this or you can not like this, but millions of perfectly normal, reasonable people voted and Leave won. Trying to change the outcome is nothing but a temper tantrum and a vote for oligarchy. No thanks. 

I'm not saying older people shouldn't be allowed to vote or whatever- I'm just stating the fact that they have to live with their decision a lot less time. Which seems unfair to me, but, as I said, I have no idea what you could do to fairly account for that. 

thisismynickname2

themosthappy91 said:

First bolded- no. That's not democracy, that's rigging. No offense, but that's another element that irritates me about the results of Brexit and the results of every US presidential election- that somehow the results aren't accurate, x population shouldn't be or should be allowed to vote, so forth and so on- anything to get the outcomes you want and you think is best for everyone else. 

Look, I'm in the minority on these boards in terms of political beliefs (Libertarian). My only skin in the Brexit game is that my 401k and IRA took a dive, but hey, when the market's down I'll just buy more shares and make more money in the long run; think I'll plan a vacay to see my family now that the Pound is down. People need to be able to vote how THEY want to vote, not how others THINK OTHERS should vote.  

Second bolded- no idea. Are that many more citizens going to come of age in the next two years, and are that many seniors going to die? Who knows. If I recall the stats correctly, not a majority of the young crowd voted, so would that even make a difference? 

You can like this or you can not like this, but millions of perfectly normal, reasonable people voted and Leave won. Trying to change the outcome is nothing but a temper tantrum and a vote for oligarchy. No thanks. 

I'm not saying older people shouldn't be allowed to vote or whatever- I'm just stating the fact that they have to live with their decision a lot less time. Which seems unfair to me, but, as I said, I have no idea what you could do to fairly account for that. 

So you're saying that people with the longest to live should carry the most weight in elections. 

That also makes no sense. If young people were in control of the vote right now in the US, we'd be voted into Socialism by a bunch of millennials with massive student debt, poor job prospects, and degrees that were highly unlikely to contain any education in basic economics (why isn't finance General Education??). People who have no concept of what "free" means in terms stifling economic growth. People who voted for the ACA and caused the obvious repercussions of doubling and tripling premiums on older people trying to retire, who need all their savings possible that they're entitled to. But the older people's opinion- based on dozens of years of experience living through various economic peaks and valleys- on the quality of their golden years shouldn't matter in relation to younger people with barely any real life experience?
Um, ok. 

short+sassy

ScottishSarah said:

I never ever ever thought I'd say this, but I think we should have another referendum in Scotland.

Just curious, does anyone ever talk about spitting up the USA?

Not a split from the USA, but there has been talk for decades of Nothern CA splitting away from CA and becoming their own state.  The State of Jefferson.  It came the closest to happening (but not that close) in the few years before WWII, but then the US entered the war and serious efforts were abandoned.

short+sassy

TrixieJess said:

glasgowtolondon said:

Ah, thats Nigel Farage. The 'everyman' ex city trader who leads UKIP (UK INDEPENDANCE PARTY) and who spends all day long trying to convince us he is the common man by drinking pints, wearing a hat, and smoking. Oh yeah, and he is also a masssive fucking racist. Thats his poster you see him standing before. He can also be heard defending whatever recent racial slur members of his party have been caught using. Such as 'chinky'. A thai woman was branded a 'ting tong'. He himself said he would be worried if romanians moved in next door to him. One of their party in reference a famous man in the UK called Lenny Henry, said that he should emigrate to a black country. I mean, theres no maybe for me. They have shown themselves time and again to be hugely racist.

This is my favourite Brexit image so far:

Last night, I can't remember if it was the Daily Show or the Nightly Show, the host made this point also.  He said, historically, a better name for England would be BREnter.

kimmiinthemitten

thisismynickname said:

themosthappy91 said:

First bolded- no. That's not democracy, that's rigging. No offense, but that's another element that irritates me about the results of Brexit and the results of every US presidential election- that somehow the results aren't accurate, x population shouldn't be or should be allowed to vote, so forth and so on- anything to get the outcomes you want and you think is best for everyone else. 

Look, I'm in the minority on these boards in terms of political beliefs (Libertarian). My only skin in the Brexit game is that my 401k and IRA took a dive, but hey, when the market's down I'll just buy more shares and make more money in the long run; think I'll plan a vacay to see my family now that the Pound is down. People need to be able to vote how THEY want to vote, not how others THINK OTHERS should vote.  

Second bolded- no idea. Are that many more citizens going to come of age in the next two years, and are that many seniors going to die? Who knows. If I recall the stats correctly, not a majority of the young crowd voted, so would that even make a difference? 

You can like this or you can not like this, but millions of perfectly normal, reasonable people voted and Leave won. Trying to change the outcome is nothing but a temper tantrum and a vote for oligarchy. No thanks. 

I'm not saying older people shouldn't be allowed to vote or whatever- I'm just stating the fact that they have to live with their decision a lot less time. Which seems unfair to me, but, as I said, I have no idea what you could do to fairly account for that. 

So you're saying that people with the longest to live should carry the most weight in elections. 

That also makes no sense. If young people were in control of the vote right now in the US, we'd be voted into Socialism by a bunch of millennials with massive student debt, poor job prospects, and degrees that were highly unlikely to contain any education in basic economics (why isn't finance General Education??). People who have no concept of what "free" means in terms stifling economic growth. People who voted for the ACA and caused the obvious repercussions of doubling and tripling premiums on older people trying to retire, who need all their savings possible that they're entitled to. But the older people's opinion- based on dozens of years of experience living through various economic peaks and valleys- on the quality of their golden years shouldn't matter in relation to younger people with barely any real life experience?
Um, ok. 

In all fairness, I don't think that's what she is saying at all.  She is saying that the long term repercussions from this vote, which are yet to be known, will have the greatest and longest impact on the group of voters whose generation overwhelmingly voted against it.  It does seem unfair, yet there is no real way to change it.

It's like naming your son Sue and then taking off.  You had the power initially, but weren't around for the years of bullying he endured, even though at the end we learn you had the best of intentions.

madamerwin

kimmiinthemitten said:

thisismynickname said:

themosthappy91 said:

First bolded- no. That's not democracy, that's rigging. No offense, but that's another element that irritates me about the results of Brexit and the results of every US presidential election- that somehow the results aren't accurate, x population shouldn't be or should be allowed to vote, so forth and so on- anything to get the outcomes you want and you think is best for everyone else. 

Look, I'm in the minority on these boards in terms of political beliefs (Libertarian). My only skin in the Brexit game is that my 401k and IRA took a dive, but hey, when the market's down I'll just buy more shares and make more money in the long run; think I'll plan a vacay to see my family now that the Pound is down. People need to be able to vote how THEY want to vote, not how others THINK OTHERS should vote.  

Second bolded- no idea. Are that many more citizens going to come of age in the next two years, and are that many seniors going to die? Who knows. If I recall the stats correctly, not a majority of the young crowd voted, so would that even make a difference? 

You can like this or you can not like this, but millions of perfectly normal, reasonable people voted and Leave won. Trying to change the outcome is nothing but a temper tantrum and a vote for oligarchy. No thanks. 

I'm not saying older people shouldn't be allowed to vote or whatever- I'm just stating the fact that they have to live with their decision a lot less time. Which seems unfair to me, but, as I said, I have no idea what you could do to fairly account for that. 

So you're saying that people with the longest to live should carry the most weight in elections. 

That also makes no sense. If young people were in control of the vote right now in the US, we'd be voted into Socialism by a bunch of millennials with massive student debt, poor job prospects, and degrees that were highly unlikely to contain any education in basic economics (why isn't finance General Education??). People who have no concept of what "free" means in terms stifling economic growth. People who voted for the ACA and caused the obvious repercussions of doubling and tripling premiums on older people trying to retire, who need all their savings possible that they're entitled to. But the older people's opinion- based on dozens of years of experience living through various economic peaks and valleys- on the quality of their golden years shouldn't matter in relation to younger people with barely any real life experience?
Um, ok. 

In all fairness, I don't think that's what she is saying at all.  She is saying that the long term repercussions from this vote, which are yet to be known, will have the greatest and longest impact on the group of voters whose generation overwhelmingly voted against it.  It does seem unfair, yet there is no real way to change it.

It's like naming your son Sue and then taking off.  You had the power initially, but weren't around for the years of bullying he endured, even though at the end we learn you had the best of intentions.

Yep, this is how I was interpreting it as well. And I love the metaphor.

thisismynickname2

kimmiinthemitten said:

thisismynickname said:

themosthappy91 said:

First bolded- no. That's not democracy, that's rigging. No offense, but that's another element that irritates me about the results of Brexit and the results of every US presidential election- that somehow the results aren't accurate, x population shouldn't be or should be allowed to vote, so forth and so on- anything to get the outcomes you want and you think is best for everyone else. 

Look, I'm in the minority on these boards in terms of political beliefs (Libertarian). My only skin in the Brexit game is that my 401k and IRA took a dive, but hey, when the market's down I'll just buy more shares and make more money in the long run; think I'll plan a vacay to see my family now that the Pound is down. People need to be able to vote how THEY want to vote, not how others THINK OTHERS should vote.  

Second bolded- no idea. Are that many more citizens going to come of age in the next two years, and are that many seniors going to die? Who knows. If I recall the stats correctly, not a majority of the young crowd voted, so would that even make a difference? 

You can like this or you can not like this, but millions of perfectly normal, reasonable people voted and Leave won. Trying to change the outcome is nothing but a temper tantrum and a vote for oligarchy. No thanks. 

I'm not saying older people shouldn't be allowed to vote or whatever- I'm just stating the fact that they have to live with their decision a lot less time. Which seems unfair to me, but, as I said, I have no idea what you could do to fairly account for that. 

So you're saying that people with the longest to live should carry the most weight in elections. 

That also makes no sense. If young people were in control of the vote right now in the US, we'd be voted into Socialism by a bunch of millennials with massive student debt, poor job prospects, and degrees that were highly unlikely to contain any education in basic economics (why isn't finance General Education??). People who have no concept of what "free" means in terms stifling economic growth. People who voted for the ACA and caused the obvious repercussions of doubling and tripling premiums on older people trying to retire, who need all their savings possible that they're entitled to. But the older people's opinion- based on dozens of years of experience living through various economic peaks and valleys- on the quality of their golden years shouldn't matter in relation to younger people with barely any real life experience?
Um, ok. 

In all fairness, I don't think that's what she is saying at all.  She is saying that the long term repercussions from this vote, which are yet to be known, will have the greatest and longest impact on the group of voters whose generation overwhelmingly voted against it.  It does seem unfair, yet there is no real way to change it.

It's like naming your son Sue and then taking off.  You had the power initially, but weren't around for the years of bullying he endured, even though at the end we learn you had the best of intentions.

But it's not unfair. The policies that affect us now were decided upon by people (in some form of democracy or another) who came before us. Health insurance being tied up with employers (which I think is completely bonkers) dates back to the Depression and trudged along in various forms until the ACA. Federal student loans and the 70's. The Clinton years and NAFTA. This is how it's always worked and it is most fair for each individual person to vote by their conscious. If young people were that concerned about older people deciding their fate, they should have voted. 

Poll turnout:
18-24: 36% 25-34: 58% 35-44: 72% 45-54: 75% 55-64: 81% 65+: 83%

madamerwin

thisismynickname said:

kimmiinthemitten said:

thisismynickname said:

themosthappy91 said:

First bolded- no. That's not democracy, that's rigging. No offense, but that's another element that irritates me about the results of Brexit and the results of every US presidential election- that somehow the results aren't accurate, x population shouldn't be or should be allowed to vote, so forth and so on- anything to get the outcomes you want and you think is best for everyone else. 

Look, I'm in the minority on these boards in terms of political beliefs (Libertarian). My only skin in the Brexit game is that my 401k and IRA took a dive, but hey, when the market's down I'll just buy more shares and make more money in the long run; think I'll plan a vacay to see my family now that the Pound is down. People need to be able to vote how THEY want to vote, not how others THINK OTHERS should vote.  

Second bolded- no idea. Are that many more citizens going to come of age in the next two years, and are that many seniors going to die? Who knows. If I recall the stats correctly, not a majority of the young crowd voted, so would that even make a difference? 

You can like this or you can not like this, but millions of perfectly normal, reasonable people voted and Leave won. Trying to change the outcome is nothing but a temper tantrum and a vote for oligarchy. No thanks. 

I'm not saying older people shouldn't be allowed to vote or whatever- I'm just stating the fact that they have to live with their decision a lot less time. Which seems unfair to me, but, as I said, I have no idea what you could do to fairly account for that. 

So you're saying that people with the longest to live should carry the most weight in elections. 

That also makes no sense. If young people were in control of the vote right now in the US, we'd be voted into Socialism by a bunch of millennials with massive student debt, poor job prospects, and degrees that were highly unlikely to contain any education in basic economics (why isn't finance General Education??). People who have no concept of what "free" means in terms stifling economic growth. People who voted for the ACA and caused the obvious repercussions of doubling and tripling premiums on older people trying to retire, who need all their savings possible that they're entitled to. But the older people's opinion- based on dozens of years of experience living through various economic peaks and valleys- on the quality of their golden years shouldn't matter in relation to younger people with barely any real life experience?
Um, ok. 

In all fairness, I don't think that's what she is saying at all.  She is saying that the long term repercussions from this vote, which are yet to be known, will have the greatest and longest impact on the group of voters whose generation overwhelmingly voted against it.  It does seem unfair, yet there is no real way to change it.

It's like naming your son Sue and then taking off.  You had the power initially, but weren't around for the years of bullying he endured, even though at the end we learn you had the best of intentions.

But it's not unfair. The policies that affect us now were decided upon by people (in some form of democracy or another) who came before us. Health insurance being tied up with employers (which I think is completely bonkers) dates back to the Depression and trudged along in various forms until the ACA. Federal student loans and the 70's. The Clinton years and NAFTA. This is how it's always worked and it is most fair for each individual person to vote by their conscious. If young people were that concerned about older people deciding their fate, they should have voted. 

Poll turnout:
18-24: 36% 25-34: 58% 35-44: 72% 45-54: 75% 55-64: 81% 65+: 83%

I agree it is not unfair, per se, but rather it sucks for younger voters knowing that a large segment of the people who overwhelmingly voted to leave are not going to have to live with the consequences for the next 50 years. That being said, I also agree with the bolded - younger voters should have turned out in greater numbers if they wanted their opinion to matter... I always argue that if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the outcome.

charlotte989875

So Nigel Farage is a moron right? His speech to the EU isn't going to win anyone over to negotiate a favorable exit deal...

thisismynickname2

madamerwin said:

thisismynickname said:

kimmiinthemitten said:

thisismynickname said:

themosthappy91 said:

First bolded- no. That's not democracy, that's rigging. No offense, but that's another element that irritates me about the results of Brexit and the results of every US presidential election- that somehow the results aren't accurate, x population shouldn't be or should be allowed to vote, so forth and so on- anything to get the outcomes you want and you think is best for everyone else. 

Look, I'm in the minority on these boards in terms of political beliefs (Libertarian). My only skin in the Brexit game is that my 401k and IRA took a dive, but hey, when the market's down I'll just buy more shares and make more money in the long run; think I'll plan a vacay to see my family now that the Pound is down. People need to be able to vote how THEY want to vote, not how others THINK OTHERS should vote.  

Second bolded- no idea. Are that many more citizens going to come of age in the next two years, and are that many seniors going to die? Who knows. If I recall the stats correctly, not a majority of the young crowd voted, so would that even make a difference? 

You can like this or you can not like this, but millions of perfectly normal, reasonable people voted and Leave won. Trying to change the outcome is nothing but a temper tantrum and a vote for oligarchy. No thanks. 

I'm not saying older people shouldn't be allowed to vote or whatever- I'm just stating the fact that they have to live with their decision a lot less time. Which seems unfair to me, but, as I said, I have no idea what you could do to fairly account for that. 

So you're saying that people with the longest to live should carry the most weight in elections. 

That also makes no sense. If young people were in control of the vote right now in the US, we'd be voted into Socialism by a bunch of millennials with massive student debt, poor job prospects, and degrees that were highly unlikely to contain any education in basic economics (why isn't finance General Education??). People who have no concept of what "free" means in terms stifling economic growth. People who voted for the ACA and caused the obvious repercussions of doubling and tripling premiums on older people trying to retire, who need all their savings possible that they're entitled to. But the older people's opinion- based on dozens of years of experience living through various economic peaks and valleys- on the quality of their golden years shouldn't matter in relation to younger people with barely any real life experience?
Um, ok. 

In all fairness, I don't think that's what she is saying at all.  She is saying that the long term repercussions from this vote, which are yet to be known, will have the greatest and longest impact on the group of voters whose generation overwhelmingly voted against it.  It does seem unfair, yet there is no real way to change it.

It's like naming your son Sue and then taking off.  You had the power initially, but weren't around for the years of bullying he endured, even though at the end we learn you had the best of intentions.

But it's not unfair. The policies that affect us now were decided upon by people (in some form of democracy or another) who came before us. Health insurance being tied up with employers (which I think is completely bonkers) dates back to the Depression and trudged along in various forms until the ACA. Federal student loans and the 70's. The Clinton years and NAFTA. This is how it's always worked and it is most fair for each individual person to vote by their conscious. If young people were that concerned about older people deciding their fate, they should have voted. 

Poll turnout:
18-24: 36% 25-34: 58% 35-44: 72% 45-54: 75% 55-64: 81% 65+: 83%

I agree it is not unfair, per se, but rather it sucks for younger voters knowing that a large segment of the people who overwhelmingly voted to leave are not going to have to live with the consequences for the next 50 years. That being said, I also agree with the bolded - younger voters should have turned out in greater numbers if they wanted their opinion to matter... I always argue that if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the outcome.

I agree that it can suck to feel that way, yes. Everyone's entitled to their feelings, of course! 
I feel sucky about a lot of decisions that are democratically brought to fruition, but I'd never dare suggest any group be silenced so that my minority views can be implemented. When you think about all the people in the past and currently around the world that fight for and die for the right to vote, for their voice to at least be heard, I just shudder to think there are people that would prefer that some members of society shouldn't have as much say in their lives. That is the wrong, wrong, wrong path to go down. Every time a recount is demanded, a recall is demanded... holy shit. You lost, get over it. 

Ok, off my soapbox.  

glasgowtolondon

short+sassy said:

TrixieJess said:

glasgowtolondon said:

Ah, thats Nigel Farage. The 'everyman' ex city trader who leads UKIP (UK INDEPENDANCE PARTY) and who spends all day long trying to convince us he is the common man by drinking pints, wearing a hat, and smoking. Oh yeah, and he is also a masssive fucking racist. Thats his poster you see him standing before. He can also be heard defending whatever recent racial slur members of his party have been caught using. Such as 'chinky'. A thai woman was branded a 'ting tong'. He himself said he would be worried if romanians moved in next door to him. One of their party in reference a famous man in the UK called Lenny Henry, said that he should emigrate to a black country. I mean, theres no maybe for me. They have shown themselves time and again to be hugely racist.

This is my favourite Brexit image so far:

Last night, I can't remember if it was the Daily Show or the Nightly Show, the host made this point also.  He said, historically, a better name for England would be BREnter.

England is not the UK. There are 4 nations within the UK.

glasgowtolondon

thisismynickname said:

madamerwin said:

thisismynickname said:

kimmiinthemitten said:

thisismynickname said:

themosthappy91 said:

First bolded- no. That's not democracy, that's rigging. No offense, but that's another element that irritates me about the results of Brexit and the results of every US presidential election- that somehow the results aren't accurate, x population shouldn't be or should be allowed to vote, so forth and so on- anything to get the outcomes you want and you think is best for everyone else. 

Look, I'm in the minority on these boards in terms of political beliefs (Libertarian). My only skin in the Brexit game is that my 401k and IRA took a dive, but hey, when the market's down I'll just buy more shares and make more money in the long run; think I'll plan a vacay to see my family now that the Pound is down. People need to be able to vote how THEY want to vote, not how others THINK OTHERS should vote.  

Second bolded- no idea. Are that many more citizens going to come of age in the next two years, and are that many seniors going to die? Who knows. If I recall the stats correctly, not a majority of the young crowd voted, so would that even make a difference? 

You can like this or you can not like this, but millions of perfectly normal, reasonable people voted and Leave won. Trying to change the outcome is nothing but a temper tantrum and a vote for oligarchy. No thanks. 

I'm not saying older people shouldn't be allowed to vote or whatever- I'm just stating the fact that they have to live with their decision a lot less time. Which seems unfair to me, but, as I said, I have no idea what you could do to fairly account for that. 

So you're saying that people with the longest to live should carry the most weight in elections. 

That also makes no sense. If young people were in control of the vote right now in the US, we'd be voted into Socialism by a bunch of millennials with massive student debt, poor job prospects, and degrees that were highly unlikely to contain any education in basic economics (why isn't finance General Education??). People who have no concept of what "free" means in terms stifling economic growth. People who voted for the ACA and caused the obvious repercussions of doubling and tripling premiums on older people trying to retire, who need all their savings possible that they're entitled to. But the older people's opinion- based on dozens of years of experience living through various economic peaks and valleys- on the quality of their golden years shouldn't matter in relation to younger people with barely any real life experience?
Um, ok. 

In all fairness, I don't think that's what she is saying at all.  She is saying that the long term repercussions from this vote, which are yet to be known, will have the greatest and longest impact on the group of voters whose generation overwhelmingly voted against it.  It does seem unfair, yet there is no real way to change it.

It's like naming your son Sue and then taking off.  You had the power initially, but weren't around for the years of bullying he endured, even though at the end we learn you had the best of intentions.

But it's not unfair. The policies that affect us now were decided upon by people (in some form of democracy or another) who came before us. Health insurance being tied up with employers (which I think is completely bonkers) dates back to the Depression and trudged along in various forms until the ACA. Federal student loans and the 70's. The Clinton years and NAFTA. This is how it's always worked and it is most fair for each individual person to vote by their conscious. If young people were that concerned about older people deciding their fate, they should have voted. 

Poll turnout:
18-24: 36% 25-34: 58% 35-44: 72% 45-54: 75% 55-64: 81% 65+: 83%

I agree it is not unfair, per se, but rather it sucks for younger voters knowing that a large segment of the people who overwhelmingly voted to leave are not going to have to live with the consequences for the next 50 years. That being said, I also agree with the bolded - younger voters should have turned out in greater numbers if they wanted their opinion to matter... I always argue that if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the outcome.

I agree that it can suck to feel that way, yes. Everyone's entitled to their feelings, of course! 
I feel sucky about a lot of decisions that are democratically brought to fruition, but I'd never dare suggest any group be silenced so that my minority views can be implemented. When you think about all the people in the past and currently around the world that fight for and die for the right to vote, for their voice to at least be heard, I just shudder to think there are people that would prefer that some members of society shouldn't have as much say in their lives. That is the wrong, wrong, wrong path to go down. Every time a recount is demanded, a recall is demanded... holy shit. You lost, get over it. 

Ok, off my soapbox.  

This is where I am. Don't get me wrong, I'd give my eyeteeth to change this result, but I hate that it has descended into 'old people stole my future'. Maybe this will be a harsh lesson to some of the young affected by this - decisions are made by those that turn up. I get it though, I too feel impotent and angry and, yeah, sad about this result and get the temptation to lash out. It's a childish reaction, but I do get it. My hope is that the people saying these things are just lashing out out of hurt/anger/fear and don't really feel this way. We don't need any more division than we already have.

glasgowtolondon

charlotte989875 said:

So Nigel Farage is a moron right? His speech to the EU isn't going to win anyone over to negotiate a favorable exit deal...

Moron is too kind. I prefer a 4 letter word beginning with C.

themosthappy91

thisismynickname said:

madamerwin said:

thisismynickname said:

kimmiinthemitten said:

thisismynickname said:

themosthappy91 said:

First bolded- no. That's not democracy, that's rigging. No offense, but that's another element that irritates me about the results of Brexit and the results of every US presidential election- that somehow the results aren't accurate, x population shouldn't be or should be allowed to vote, so forth and so on- anything to get the outcomes you want and you think is best for everyone else. 

Look, I'm in the minority on these boards in terms of political beliefs (Libertarian). My only skin in the Brexit game is that my 401k and IRA took a dive, but hey, when the market's down I'll just buy more shares and make more money in the long run; think I'll plan a vacay to see my family now that the Pound is down. People need to be able to vote how THEY want to vote, not how others THINK OTHERS should vote.  

Second bolded- no idea. Are that many more citizens going to come of age in the next two years, and are that many seniors going to die? Who knows. If I recall the stats correctly, not a majority of the young crowd voted, so would that even make a difference? 

You can like this or you can not like this, but millions of perfectly normal, reasonable people voted and Leave won. Trying to change the outcome is nothing but a temper tantrum and a vote for oligarchy. No thanks. 

I'm not saying older people shouldn't be allowed to vote or whatever- I'm just stating the fact that they have to live with their decision a lot less time. Which seems unfair to me, but, as I said, I have no idea what you could do to fairly account for that. 

So you're saying that people with the longest to live should carry the most weight in elections. 

That also makes no sense. If young people were in control of the vote right now in the US, we'd be voted into Socialism by a bunch of millennials with massive student debt, poor job prospects, and degrees that were highly unlikely to contain any education in basic economics (why isn't finance General Education??). People who have no concept of what "free" means in terms stifling economic growth. People who voted for the ACA and caused the obvious repercussions of doubling and tripling premiums on older people trying to retire, who need all their savings possible that they're entitled to. But the older people's opinion- based on dozens of years of experience living through various economic peaks and valleys- on the quality of their golden years shouldn't matter in relation to younger people with barely any real life experience?
Um, ok. 

In all fairness, I don't think that's what she is saying at all.  She is saying that the long term repercussions from this vote, which are yet to be known, will have the greatest and longest impact on the group of voters whose generation overwhelmingly voted against it.  It does seem unfair, yet there is no real way to change it.

It's like naming your son Sue and then taking off.  You had the power initially, but weren't around for the years of bullying he endured, even though at the end we learn you had the best of intentions.

But it's not unfair. The policies that affect us now were decided upon by people (in some form of democracy or another) who came before us. Health insurance being tied up with employers (which I think is completely bonkers) dates back to the Depression and trudged along in various forms until the ACA. Federal student loans and the 70's. The Clinton years and NAFTA. This is how it's always worked and it is most fair for each individual person to vote by their conscious. If young people were that concerned about older people deciding their fate, they should have voted. 

Poll turnout:
18-24: 36% 25-34: 58% 35-44: 72% 45-54: 75% 55-64: 81% 65+: 83%

I agree it is not unfair, per se, but rather it sucks for younger voters knowing that a large segment of the people who overwhelmingly voted to leave are not going to have to live with the consequences for the next 50 years. That being said, I also agree with the bolded - younger voters should have turned out in greater numbers if they wanted their opinion to matter... I always argue that if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the outcome.

I agree that it can suck to feel that way, yes. Everyone's entitled to their feelings, of course! 
I feel sucky about a lot of decisions that are democratically brought to fruition, but I'd never dare suggest any group be silenced so that my minority views can be implemented. When you think about all the people in the past and currently around the world that fight for and die for the right to vote, for their voice to at least be heard, I just shudder to think there are people that would prefer that some members of society shouldn't have as much say in their lives. That is the wrong, wrong, wrong path to go down. Every time a recount is demanded, a recall is demanded... holy shit. You lost, get over it. 

Ok, off my soapbox.  

Just to be clear, that's not what I'm saying at all. No one should be silenced, and honestly nothing should be done about it- at least, I can't think of anything reasonable that could possibly be done.

I think you're trying to argue against an argument that isn't being made here- no one wants to take away votes from old people, we're just saying it's unfortunate that the negative consequences of Brexit, whatever they may be, will fall disproportionately on people who voted against it. It's also sad young people, for whatever reason, didn't feel moved to vote in greater numbers.

Also I get that you're being flippant or whatever but the whole "you lost, get over it" sentiment is a pretty gross attitude to take IMO. This vote is going to have very real consequences for people's lives so maybe they get to feel down about it for a little while? It's easy to shrug it off when you have little at stake, but recognized it's a privilege to be in that position.

lovesclimbing

thisismynickname said:

madamerwin said:

This is interesting and/or concerning: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/24/480949383/britains-google-searches-for-what-is-the-eu-spike-after-brexit-vote

ETA words

I have a huge problem with this Google article and it disappoints me that even NPR played into it. 
GOOGLE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT PEOPLE VOTED! 

So many people are using that to paint the Leave people as uninformed morons. My assumption is that once the votes starting coming in and leaning towards Leave, people had that "holy shit it's actually happening" moment and started searching some more. I doubt a lot of people really believed the Leave vote would win, even if they did vote Leave and want it that way and are happy about it. 

For so long, there's been the campaigns and scare tactics for both sides. It's also logical that once a decision was made, people searched for the "what happens now" element. Because sure, I was aware of the debate and the reasons for both sides, but didn't know what would happen if a Leave vote actually won. I was Googling myself over in the US. 

FWIW, I have a lot of family in England on both sides of the fence. Facebook got interesting. My mom is 60 and her comment was that if she was still a citizen, she would have voted to Leave because she remembers life before the EU. It's no surprise many votes were along age lines-- the country did exist before the EU! 

Agreed. 

http://www.ibtimes.com/no-britons-were-not-frantically-googling-what-eu-hours-after-brexit-vote-2387205

If that's TL:DR - 

"It turns out the figure is likely to be less than 1,000 people, or 0.001 percent of the population. According to analysis by Remy Smith on Medium, in the month prior to the Brexit vote, 8,100 Britons searched Google for 'What is the EU?' which translates to around 261 people a day. So a 250 percent increase could be generated by as few as 650 people searching Google for the answer to this question. As Smith says, this is hardly a sign the U.K. electorate as a whole was uninformed as the Washington Post article insinuates. 'Context matters,' he added."