22 votes

Topic deleted by author

12 comments

  1. [11]
    unknown user
    Link
    This is the bit that scares me. In everything the government releases, they say this like it's a good thing that people won't be able to move around as easily in the future. How can anyone think that?

    the agreement would:

    • end freedom of movement "in full and once and for all"

    This is the bit that scares me. In everything the government releases, they say this like it's a good thing that people won't be able to move around as easily in the future. How can anyone think that?

    15 votes
    1. [7]
      nacho
      Link Parent
      To me, when Brexit essentially boils down to an argument about ideals, May suggesting it's all about "sovereignty" over and over, about principals on this and that, that's an incredibly good...

      To me, when Brexit essentially boils down to an argument about ideals, May suggesting it's all about "sovereignty" over and over, about principals on this and that, that's an incredibly good indicator there's no good, practical, reason, no actual issue you fix by leaving the EU.

      The Brexiteers can't win a discussion on the merits of leaving, so they've shifted to arguing principles. Everyone knows Britons will be worse off outside of the EU.


      It's like when your only argument becomes "Free speech" that what someone is saying shouldn't be illegal. That's when you know you don't have any good arguments in practice, "I defend his right to say this horrible thing but I totally don't agree with it * wink wink* or support it in any way!"

      It's revealing.

      6 votes
      1. [6]
        Adys
        Link Parent
        The second part of your post is awfully wrong. There are practical reasons to defend free speech, even when the speech is things you don't like. Your comment makes it sound like everyone who...

        The second part of your post is awfully wrong. There are practical reasons to defend free speech, even when the speech is things you don't like.

        Your comment makes it sound like everyone who defends free speech is a closet racist or something. That's just really messed up, and wrong.

        1. [3]
          unknown user
          Link Parent
          This hugely depends on perspective and culture. In this instance, there's no such thing as simply 'wrong'. Many of us aren't Americans and don't come from a culture where free speech rules...

          The second part of your post is awfully wrong.

          This hugely depends on perspective and culture. In this instance, there's no such thing as simply 'wrong'. Many of us aren't Americans and don't come from a culture where free speech rules absolutely. I'm from New Zealand. We have some concepts which can be likened to free speech, but we don't have first amendment-style are speech.

          Personally, I find American-esque free speech disgustingly vague & open to corruption.

          1 vote
          1. Adys
            Link Parent
            My views on free speech TLDR, I'm not american either and I hold the same position as you. That doesn't mean I can't recognize when people do stand up for principles over what they agree with.

            My views on free speech

            TLDR, I'm not american either and I hold the same position as you. That doesn't mean I can't recognize when people do stand up for principles over what they agree with.

          2. nacho
            Link Parent
            This is not the case in the US either. There are a number of exceptions to free speech due to the harm uncontrolled speech causes ,and how it can be used. The US just chooses to be the only...

            Many of us aren't Americans and don't come from a culture where free speech rules absolutely.

            This is not the case in the US either.

            There are a number of exceptions to free speech due to the harm uncontrolled speech causes ,and how it can be used.

            The US just chooses to be the only developed country in the world to not have some hate speech law on the books.

            Suggesting that there's "total freedom of speech" is often used as an argument against further regulating speech. Those other exceptions somehow don't count so we totally can't consider ruining the principle of freedom of expression even though the concept itself is unworkable and so there are already a long list of exceptions.

            Somehow hate speech is just a bridge too far, and using the principle to explain why is misleading at best.

        2. nacho
          Link Parent
          Hate speech laws exist in every developed country in the world except one. Free speech has a number of exceptions even in the US: national secrets, fighting words, incitement, defamation,...

          Hate speech laws exist in every developed country in the world except one.

          Free speech has a number of exceptions even in the US: national secrets, fighting words, incitement, defamation, trademarked/copyrighted speech - the list is long.

          Hate speech is used to marginalize the voices of groups of people the speaker doesn't want to use their freedom of expression. Many argue (convincingly) that more speech isn't necessarily freer speech: Why should speech used systematically to intimidate groups from speaking and participating in the public debate be prioritized over conditions that allow them to feel safe speaking?

          On such a continuum of free expression, and due to the many other natural exceptions to freedom of speech, it seems to me that the defense against hate speech laws becomes just that: a defense of those who speak hate instead of defending those who're systematically targeted and marginalized by the speakers of hate.

        3. [2]
          Comment removed by site admin
          Link Parent
          1. Adys
            Link Parent
            Be that as it may, that's not supportive material to just paint everyone with the same brush. I especially think of my friends at the EFF who have to defend pretty vile shit they completely...

            Be that as it may, that's not supportive material to just paint everyone with the same brush. I especially think of my friends at the EFF who have to defend pretty vile shit they completely disagree with sometimes in order to protect americans' freedoms.

    2. [4]
      Comment removed by site admin
      Link Parent
      1. [4]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [3]
          SunSpotter
          Link Parent
          I agree with your interpretation as well. However, if Ireland (an EU state) has open travel with the EU and Northern Ireland has open travel to both Ireland and Britain, what does this really do?...

          I agree with your interpretation as well.

          However, if Ireland (an EU state) has open travel with the EU and Northern Ireland has open travel to both Ireland and Britain, what does this really do? What stops someone from just hoping around and effectively regaining freedom of movement anyways? I mean this as a genuine question, because I don't really know how freedom of movement works, so perhaps someone could enlighten me. But it seems like that little caveat potentially makes this whole situation arbitrary and weakens Britain's position.

          3 votes
          1. [2]
            Algernon_Asimov
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            Nothing. And the same thing applies to trade and customs as well: if Ireland has customs-free trade with the EU, and Northern Ireland has customs-free trade with Ireland... any item produced in...

            What stops someone from just hoping around and effectively regaining freedom of movement anyways?

            Nothing. And the same thing applies to trade and customs as well: if Ireland has customs-free trade with the EU, and Northern Ireland has customs-free trade with Ireland... any item produced in the EU can freely enter the UK. From what I've read, this particular issue is one of the big nasty problems that has made it so difficult to finalise an exit deal: the Brexiters don't want free movement between the EU and the UK, but the Irish people on both sides of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland don't want a hard border reinstated, and there's no easy way to reconcile these wants.

            1. SunSpotter
              Link Parent
              This was the answer I feared. I do wonder what will ultimately end up happening, because it seems that such a situation can't last indefinitely.

              This was the answer I feared. I do wonder what will ultimately end up happening, because it seems that such a situation can't last indefinitely.

  2. jackson
    Link
    I'm worried about the precedent this sets. Brexit is generally a net-loss for everyone involved, but as we've seen time and time again with populism (read: trump), the hardcore supporters will...

    I'm worried about the precedent this sets. Brexit is generally a net-loss for everyone involved, but as we've seen time and time again with populism (read: trump), the hardcore supporters will tend to ignore all that go against what the populist leader says. It's almost unnerving how much these people seem to follow the populist leaders.

    I'm concerned that other countries will choose to resort to this kind of solution in the near future, and we'll be returning to the kind of tribalist warfare that we used to have when we didn't have a global economy and a loose global culture.

    If that happens, it won't end well.

    6 votes