do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it?
— karl stone

No.

Well I could probably muster some evidence that the EU is not responsible for the woes it is credited with, because - well it just isn't a monolith by design, but a common bureaucracy controlled by the negotiations and agreements between nations. The democratic deficit is put there to restrict its power, not to augment it. If you look at what the UK has accepted, and what it has rejected, I think you will find support for it being the UK government's concern to protect its financial powers more than its industrial; Hull can die as long as London thrives is UK policy, not EU. — unenlightened

I studied the EU as part of a politics degree, and I'd like to see a United States of Europe. The 'us and them' dynamic underlying Leave campaign rhetoric and opinions is, as you suggest here - fundamentally false. We are the EU in as much as other member states are the EU. So where you said above: 'We got a bad deal over fishing, because...' That's just not how it is. The common fisheries policy has serious flaws - but it was a policy developed in coordination with member states represented in Council and the Parliament.

In my own view, fishing is barbaric and should be scrapped. A United States of Europe would allow us to develop and apply the technology to farm fish on an industrial scale (pun not intended). But anything smacking of federalism has been automatically resisted by the UK. In as much as Leavers have been denied a referendum, so have those who desire a US of Europe. It's what the UK signed up to - an explicit ambition to promote 'ever closer union among the people's of Europe' - a commitment with regard to which the UK government have unilaterally acted in bad faith since 1973.

So now, when I hear 'us and them' - when I hear 'sovereignty' trumpeted as an unquestionable good, I have to ask myself, to what purposes has that sovereignty been put, and the assumption that 'ever closer union' is resisted in defense of the interests of the British people is somewhere between dubious and ludicrous. They sold off all the council housing and haven't built any social housing in 40 years, sold off the utilities to their pals in the city for peanuts, they opted out of EU legislation designed to protect workers - the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty - to create a low wage low regulation jobs market, attractive to immigration, and subsidized shitty wages with tax payers money, starving public services of funding.

And so on and on. But to get back to the point, a brexit referendum sold on an 'us and them' dynamic, that simply presumes government employs sovereign powers in the interests of the British people, that blames the EU - for problems created by acting in bad faith toward the EU, and when you add in the corrupt nature of the referendum, and the fact that brexit will disadvantage the very people fooled into voting for it the most - to protect a sovereignty that has been protected at their expense, creating the very discontent upon which the Leave campaign preyed, I'm rendered speechless with anger. Suffice to say, brexit is the very worst remedy imaginable.

Not at all. I'm saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy politics and economics has no beliefs, no principles and no morals. I'm saying that neither Cameron or May give a fig about anything but their own position and their own power and status.

I'm saying Cameron wanted a referendum because he was losing support to Ukip, not because he had an opinion about the EU. I'm saying that hatred of the EU has been manufactured over years to divert attention from the real causes of the social degradation that has been taking place. We got a bad deal over fishing, because the people negotiating for us cared more about banking and insurance, and for them fish was a price worth paying. The British government has presided over regional decline, and impoverishment, and blamed it on the EU and Johnny foreigner. They really don't care about in or out, deal or no deal, because their world is tucked away on the Cayman Islands and won't be affected. — unenlightened

Your opinion makes more sense than most unenlightened views; do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it?

Your principle is sound, but does not apply in this case.
— karl stone
Why so?

How couldn't the rulers be oblivious to the fact that what they are proposing could go wrong? To think that fine, we have the support for EU membership, perhaps we can silence the opposition with a referendum that we will win? — ssu

If there was evidence showing a long and contentious relationship between two neighbors, and one of them was recorded on video telling the other 'I'm going to kill you' - and was then later discovered standing over the body with a bloody knife in hand, his claiming 'it was an accident' is not a defense. Clear evidence of premeditation renders false any such claim.

What you are asking me to believe is that a man who said he wanted a referendum, and who provided for a referendum, didn't in fact want the referendum he provided for. That's not credible. Yet people have been led to believe that Cameron didn't want a referendum, but was forced into it by the rise of UKIP. When you look at the voting statistics, that's clearly not the case. UKIP followed in Cameron's wake, only making significant gains from 2013 onward.

If you say you will do something and then you do it - it is a fact that you intended it. Cameron intended to have a referendum, and he provided for one as a manifesto commitment, such that it could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. He could easily have brought forward a bill in the normal way - and discharged any obligation he felt, knowing it would be rejected by Parliament as it was in 2011 by a massive majority of 485/111.

I could go on. I've stated the facts above - and there are a great long list of other things that cannot be explained in any other terms than that Cameron deliberately sabotaged his own credibility on key issues in the referendum campaign - which he provided for by undemocratic means, not least immigration, and adopted the Remain position in order to lose on purpose.

Having a degree from a highly appreciated university and rising in the ranks of a political party doesn't mean you have a grasp of political reality at all. Stupidity here doesn't mean that the person would score low in an IQ test. Stupidity here means that you go with the thinking of the power elite without actually realizing what you are doing and only in hindsight realizing how bad decisions have been done.

Just think about another example: Blair supporting Dubya's invasion of Iraq. How much applause and popularity did he get in hindsight for that? How crucial was it for the UK, really? The French passed that one and yes, Americans had their cry baby moment with "freedom fries" as a result... and forgot the whole thing later as they usually do.

And then when Obama wanted the UK to join a similar endeavour with bombing Syria, the UK did pass. Result: Obama didn't do anything, in fact he didn't start a war which he had promised. How worse did the relations got after that?

"Talented stars" in the political arena can make quite easily bad decisions they regret later. — ssu

Your principle is sound, but does not apply in this case.

It would be a violation of my prime directive to defend Cameron, but there's very little here to distinguish Cameron the machiavellian conspirator from Cameron the amoral advocate-whatever's-convenient smug incompetent. I do have a general principle, Occam's blunt penknife, that states that other things being equal, a cock-up is a better theory than a conspiracy - and a cock up a pig is certainly not evidence of cunning planning ability. — unenlightened

So, you're saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University genuinely believed he could reduce immigration to the tens of thousands - adding 'or vote me out' - and that it was merely a coincidence he found himself on the wrong side that pledge in the referendum that he provided for, and on which he failed deliver in spectacular fashion?

You're saying it's just coincidental incompetence that his Home Secretary Theresa May was the longest serving Home Secretary in living memory, who also cancelled the EU ID scheme six years before the referendum, sacked the longstanding head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clarke, allowed 660,000 immigrants into Britain in 2015, and published those figures during the campaign period? It's similarly coincidental she then became Prime Minister pursuing brexit with an absolute determination, and was not criticized or sacked as Home Secretary for her spectacular failure on immigration, despite the fact Cameron had said tens of thousands 'or vote me out'?

You're saying that people were led to believe that UKIP forced Cameron into a referendum he didn't want - when the facts show, quite clearly that UKIP were nowhere until Cameron made that silly immigration pledge - and also that Cameron wanted a referendum for many years before, because... of smug incompetence or something?

I am generally in agreement with Hanlon's Razor, the aphorism being: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

But it's not adequately explained, and Cameron is not stupid. He had a first class degree in PPE from Oxford and rose through the ranks of the Conservative Party like a rocket to the pinnacle of his profession - and you're saying he was a bumbling incompetent who fell out of the EU by accident?

If you look at the manifesto's and youtube video - they are evidence of clear premeditation of something he then actually did: call a referendum. He wasn't forced into by UKIP, because they were nowhere before Cameron, and because we vote in 650 constituencies - not nationally. UKIP's narrow policy platform may gain a lot of votes nationally, 11 million at the peak, but very rarely - a sufficient number in any one constituency. 11 million votes = 1 MP. And mostly Labour votes in the North. UKIP were never a threat to Cameron. So why have people been led to believe UKIP pressured Cameron into something he didn't want, that he clearly did want?

It's the fact he championed Remain in the referendum that is inconsistent with the facts. It just doesn't tally, and frankly - the cash for access scandal, proves his dishonesty. Would it be a surprise to find leading Leave campaign donors were among those who paid for access? Not to me!

Your claim makes more sense than most conspiracy theories; do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it? — unenlightened

Yes, plenty. Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who wrote a manifesto for Micheal Howard in 2005 - that related eu membership and immigration, calling for a referendum, and does so using leave campaign rhetoric word for word. There's the youtube video from 2009 of Cameron calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He called again for a referendum in the 2010 manifesto - at the same time he canclled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK that control over immigration, while making a non-credible promise to reduce immigration. In Europe, Cameron took the UK out of the centrist federalist alliance in the EU Parliament, and joined right wing nationalists. Once you start looking it just goes on and on - he was absolutely not a Remainer.

If you'll permit me to add my previous remarks here:

David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.

It's really rather obvious that Cameron was a false advocate for Remain. And the kicker is that the Leave campaign lied outrageously, incited racial hatred, stole facebook data to target people directly with propaganda - and still only won by a hair's breadth. Brexit is not the will of the people. It's a scam.

p.s. to say nothing of the rumour released in 2015 alleging he once .... a dead pig's head!

David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron did lie, I agree - obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.

Thanks Dave! You alone decided we would have a referendum, that you made a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. You pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly. You tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they required treaty change. You appointed yourself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. You carried vast amounts of baggage with you into the referendum, baggage of your own creation - to give the people a say on a policy that's either pointless or catastrophic. Thank you very pigging much!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-v9rGE4-o

If your research is supported by public funding, does it not seem the results should be available to the public? — prothero

Sounds reasonable. In relation to my suggestion that ideas* should be licensed and not confer exclusive rights to manufacture, marketing and distribution - would not researchers want their ideas to be open source - in order to sell licenses to produce?

*Not actually ideas, but a composition, production process, machine, tool, new plant species, etc.

How about formally produced knowledge disappearing behind the very high priced wall of academic journals? Journals didn't pay for the research to be done, they don't pay the salaries of the researchers, they don't support the universities, so really... what good are they? It seems like a few publishers control a lot of the journals - like Elsevier. — Bitter Crank

Is there not an editorial standard worth paying for?

Interesting side note - someone created a post modernist essay generator program, and produced entirely meaningless essays from random words set in a grammatical and syntactic structure (I presume.) The essays were published by the journal. Unsubscribe.

But arguably, is not the expertise required to understand, edit and publish worthwhile articles a skill and deserving of remuneration? Whether it's too high a price, I can't say. Would there not be a fairly limited readership? Lots of questions - when I could have just said, I don't know.

I don't think there is anything unjust about direct sales between creators and consumers of art work (music, writing, etc.) One could argue (it has been argued) that the present system exploits the author and reader by the printer. The direct sale (author to reader) might be more just; it might also be less efficient because it is too decentralized.

Books don't just sell themselves. Cover art work, recommendations, ratings, blurbs, and so forth all help get the book sold. Marketing books is a legitimate business activity (it's not merely a ripoff) and it helps move the product. Some form of marketing will be done, or most books will never find enough customers to keep the author from starving. — Bitter Crank

My thought was about things like video games, movies and music - which are now so easily reproducible, and available online that the industries are being decimated. Consider CEX - the second hand store, and how there's one primary purchase that benefits the creative talent, then a long line of other sales of the same physical object - at as close to market price as they can get away with, that are of no benefit to the creative talent, and indeed, deny them would be customers. It sucks! Then think about youtube - and the endless amount of music freely available. And movies, and the work of comedians, and so on and on.

All this goes back in turn, to Tim Berners Lee's ostensibly magnanimous gesture - where he gave away his invention - making it freely available. And it's used very freely indeed. Consider the dark web, endless amounts of gratuitous pornography, the dark web selling stolen visas cards, drugs and goodness knows what else.

Individual internet ID is less than ideal - sure, but it's got to be better than all of human knowledge dissolving into the infinite landscape of an open internet.

I can not make any sense of the concept being put forward here (help anyone). — prothero

The OP is a defense of metaphysics before epistemology. Heidegger was obsessed with 'being' - and considered it a fundamental concept. I don't. I think truth is fundamental. Hence my rebuttal of the idea that 'existence is everywhere' with reference to scientific facts. This example shows clearly how metaphysics is merely parsing language, and not reality.

I thought atoms were mostly empty space, and that 96% of the universe was missing.

The idea can be patented, but the manufacture, marketing and distribution cannot
— karl stone

I really don't know much about patents, but practice is the reverse, isn't it? -- you can't patent an idea (like toasting bread) but you can patent a novel toaster (it copies DVDs, it makes toast, it hops off the counter to vacuum the floor, and it recycles pet hair into dental floss). — Bitter Crank

Sure. I wasn't suggesting a change to the established doctrine on what can be patented:

"An invention can be patented if it has a useful purpose, has patentable subject matter, is novel, and is non-obvious. The patent could cover a composition, production process, machine, tool, new plant species, or an upgrade to an existing invention. Inventors must meet certain government guidelines to get a patent."

I could not patent the idea of individual internet ID's for example - unless there were some unique coding mechanism, or other such feature. But given that qualification, the argument remains the same. My principle concern is with the justice of the overall arrangement.

In 1994, Berners-Lee founded the W3C at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It comprised various companies that were willing to create standards and recommendations to improve the quality of the Web. Berners-Lee made his idea available freely, with no patent and no royalties due. The World Wide Web Consortium decided that its standards should be based on royalty-free technology, so that they easily could be adopted by anyone.

"Worst idea ever!"
(Comic Book Guy. The Simpsons.)

Okay, I think I know what I think, and I'd like for you to criticize these ideas. If you can. Or just tell me how right I am.

It occurred to me that the trademark question is unambiguous. Trading under someone else's name is fraud, as simple as that.

That so, if we apply it to the copyright question - what if everyone had their own internet ID? The only way to access the internet was via your own ID - and all forms of media were available online, and only online, and were charged directly to your account. That would imply that all sales were primary sales, that returned revenues to media producers - enabling them to produce better quality media at lower prices to consumers.

The other issue is patents - and there I think my instinct is correct. The idea can be patented, but the manufacture, marketing and distribution cannot. Anyone using the idea should pay the person who registers the patent, to license the idea. My reasoning is that, this is a question of rights - and while it is consistent with natural justice, and natural rights - that I get paid for my idea, it's not consistent with natural justice that my rights as inventor, inhibit everyone else's freedom in the whole wide world.

It's the cat's eye guy solution. I think it promotes a meritocracy of ideas negotiated through the market - rather than a system where, Dragons take 99% for 99 cents from some struggling inventor, and take the lion's share of the profit for doing nothing more than plug the idea into pre-exiting production, marketing and distribution chains - or, if the inventor won't sell, deny access to those chains.

So this is my reasoning - take it apart if you can.

A very interesting post, thank you. I should probably work up a list of questions, but at this stage I'm still struggling with the idea. Your practical experience is ample evidence that the question is a complicated one. I'm going to read and think about it some more. But great post. Thanks again.

What an interesting discussion you've been having since I've been gone. Quick, now babble until we're on page 18:

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!

But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.

Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.

and:


Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.

Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."

Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.

You've had my expert advice - for free! Take it or leave it. I'll leave you to it.

It wasn't democratic, for the reasons stated, at length, repeatedly above - and let's face it, probably below! The fact the referendum was well attended is not in dispute. The fact people had their reasons, is also not in dispute. The idea the myriad of reasons people voted Leave relate directly and solely to EU membership is a far more dubious proposition. To funnel all that discontent into a policy that would disadvantage those very people most, is the corrupt cheery on the huge shit sundae that is brexit.
— karl stone

You're wrong on that point, as I've also argued throughout this discussion. The referendum was indeed democratic, and not only was it democratic, if it wasn't democratic for the stated reasons, then many other votes would be likewise undemocratic. But that's hogwash. Baden tried to argue that the referendum is a unique situation which warrants exceptional and unprecedented treatment. I don't buy that argument. It ain't that unique. — S

I'm really not wrong though. That's the sad thing. You're only saying that, not actually challenging the facts as I've set them out. Because you can't. Am I right?

The 2016 referendum was utterly corrupt, and brexit is a bad idea. It really is a bad idea. It serves merely to empower a group of people who opted out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty to create a low wage, low regulation jobs market, while selling off all the council housing, and selling off the utilities for peanuts to their city slicker pals, who failed to put accession controls in place on the 2007 expansion of the EU, so all those immigrants came to Britain to work in that low wage, low regulation jobs market, who refused to build council housing while subsidizing shitty wages with tax payers money, starving public services of funding. None of which is the EU's fault. So yes, people had their reasons - but to funnel their discontent into a policy that will give those Thatcherite Tory bastards a clean slate and absolute power is the very worst thing those with real grievances could possibly do.

We'll still have our democracy though, so your premise is flawed. It's far from ideal that we've got ourselves in such a mess that one possible resolution which needs to be considered is going back on the results of a democratic vote. A democratic vote the result of which both main parties committed to honouring. But a no-deal Brexit is not a price worth paying for that. Not out of my wallet, anyway.

Cue the pro-Brexit propaganda, cherry picking, etc. — S

It wasn't democratic, for the reasons stated, at length, repeatedly above - and let's face it, probably below! The fact the referendum was well attended is not in dispute. The fact people had their reasons, is also not in dispute. The idea the myriad of reasons people voted Leave relate directly and solely to EU membership is a far more dubious proposition. To funnel all that generalized discontent into a specific policy that would disadvantage those very people most, is the rotten cherry atop the huge shit sundae that is brexit.

A hypothetical scenario? Do you expect me to respond to that? Something dredged from your fevered brexiteer imagination - when you won't respond to the facts laid out before you?
— karl stone

You haven't laid out a single fact though. — Inis

Another from the "brexit no matter what" club? The facts don't matter to you. Nothing else does. You have nothing to say, so STFU. Or engage with the facts:

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!

But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.

Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.

and:


Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.

Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."

Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.

Again, you seem to be sidestepping the issues raised in my posts. The 2016 referendum was undemocratic and corrupt
— karl stone

And had Remain won, I'm sure you would be complaining about the corruption. — Inis

A hypothetical scenario? Do you expect me to respond to that? Something dredged from your fevered brexiteer imagination - when you won't respond to the facts laid out before you? So let's get this straight - your position is: brexit no matter what. Yes? So now you can STFU. You have nothing else to say.

But we agree that it's nonsense either way, so let's not quibble.
— S

If UK abandons democracy, it will be like France on a Saturday, except it will be every day. — Inis

Great comment mate. Compared my comments:

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!

But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.

Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.

and:


Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.

Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."

Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius. — karl stone

That's a very compelling argument. Thanks for that!

You mean pro-Democracy nonsense, surely.

The UK cancelled their referendum on EU membership in 2006 because it was clear that the people would vote the same way as France and the Netherlands. At that point the idea that a referendum should be ignored, as they did on the continent, was anathema to even the Europhiles. How things change. — Inis

Again, you seem to be sidestepping the issues raised in my posts. The 2016 referendum was undemocratic and corrupt, and a valid democratic result cannot follow from an undemocratic and corrupt process. The vote should be ignored. It was a split decision in an advisory referendum. Despite rampant corruption, leave won by a nose. It's not the will of the people. There's no plan that commands a majority in the House of Commons, or the Lords, and the policy is a failed policy - certain to result in a damaging no-deal exit. Absolutely it should be ...set aside.

Lord Hill resigned if I recall correctly. But in fact, national appointees to the EU Commission represent the EU. Nation state governments are represented in the Council of Ministers, and the people are represented in the EU Parliament. — karl stone

You note correctly, that you have no representation on the EU body with monopoly on legislative initiative, monopoly on fiscal initiative, and which enforces EU treaties. You seem to be happy with this anti-democratic arrangement, yet complain that when people actually vote, the process is undemocratic. This makes no sense, unless you really don't care for democracy, but are happy to smear your opponents as undemocratic, because you know they care about such things. — Inis

Why did you respond to me with a subject entirely unrelated to anything I wrote? If you don't recall, I said this:

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!

But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.

Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.
— karl stone

and:

Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.

Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."

Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius. — karl stone

Do I bore you?

No. These:

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!

But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.

Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies. — karl stone

and:

Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.

Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."

Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius. — karl stone

You're right. I just can't think of any other examples of clever and qualified politicians whose plans have backfired. Is that even possible? — S

My informed and well worth reading posts have disappeared up the page under this progression of mindless pro brexit nonsense.

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways.
— karl stone

Who represents you on the EU Commission? — Inis

Lord Hill resigned if I recall correctly. But in fact, national appointees to the EU Commission represent the EU. Nation state governments are represented in the Council of Ministers, and the people are represented in the EU Parliament.

Contrary to common misconceptions, while the EU Commission alone proposes legislation, legislative proposals are developed in coordination with the Council and Parliament. Proposals are then voted on by the Council and the Parliament, but the Commission has no voting rights whatsoever. It's actually a very transparent and elegantly democratic system.

Brexit is a criminal conspiracy against the British people.
— karl stone

Grab your tin foil hats, folks! (It's incompetence, not conspiracy. You're giving Cameron & Co. too much credit). — S

Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.

Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."

Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.

p.s. check youtube, Cameron, 2009, Lisbon Treaty

Well, in the specific case of Brexit, democracy is embodied in the referendum, its result. and the government's promise to implement the result. This culminated in the EU (Withdrawal) Act which became law in June 2018. The well-funded attempts by the Establishment, the Elites, and Corporatists to undermine the democratic process, will have repercussions far beyond Brexit, if they succeed. — Inis

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!

But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.

Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.

Brexit is a criminal conspiracy against the British people.
— karl stone

How would you characterise the Soros funded campaign by the elites to undermine democracy? — Inis

I'd have to ask - when you say "democracy" what on earth are you referring to?

Brexit is a criminal conspiracy against the British people.

Cameron was a eurosceptic who sabotaged his credibility, and lost on purpose for Remain.

He cancelled an EU-ID card scheme in 2010, and his Home Secretary Theresa May presented the bill to Parliament. The same year he made a bizarre immigration pledge - adding, "or vote me out" - which Theresa May failed to deliver in spectacular fashion.

Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, in defiance of the expressed will of Parliament in 2011, who rejected a referendum by 485/111. Cameron then made it a manifesto commitment the Commons could not block, and the Lords could not amend. So Cameron DICTATED there would be an in/out referendum on the EU.

The EUID card could have given UK government exact numbers on who came and went, how long they stayed, and - as allowed under EU law, remove them if not employed after three months.

Instead, 330,000 EU immigrants in 2015, figures published during the campaign period.

Add to that Cameron's "renegotiation" weeks before the vote - that was predestined to fail because it asked for things that would require EU treaty change. It served to educate the public - with all the coverage it got in the media, but had no genuine purpose.

As soon as he touched back down on UK soil, he appointed himself chief advocate for Remain - and appointed his aide, Craig Oliver, to oversee the Remain campaign.

When Cameron resigned, Craig Oliver was recommended for a knighthood. May was promoted to Prime Minister - and is pushing on with brexit based on a crooked referendum, a marginal vote, rejected by MP's, and rejected by the House of Lords, regardless!

It's a criminal conspiracy.

If hunter gatherers had not discovered God, and appointed him as an objective authority for social morality - such that, tribes could overcome their natural tribal hierarchies without slaughtering eachother, the civilization that gave rise to the Nazis could not have occurred, and we'd still be running around in the forest with sharp sticks
— karl stone

My point was that Nietzsche wasn't talking about God or religion in general, but about Christianity and the Christian God. So even if it were true that hunter gatherers united because of their discovery of God, which I doubt ( I think technology, agriculture was the primary cause and religion followed to 'keep' these new societies together), even then this isn't a counter argument to Nietzsches point. — ChatteringMonkey

My argument is not that hunter gatherer tribes untied "because" of their discovery of God - they united because of the practical benefits you allude to. God is not the why, but the how. Specifically, how they overcame the 'alpha male' problem. They adopted a common understanding of reality, in which God served as objective authority for laws that applied equally to everyone. This created a template for how society was possible - and that template was reworked endlessly before we get to Judeo Christian morality.

Then there's a misunderstanding in Nietzsche - following from Darwin's survival of the fittest, actually not Darwin - but Darwin's bulldog, name of Huxely, I think - that natural morality was merely selfish and violent. I don't believe that's so - in part because of the fact they stuck together and raised children.

All that said, the "transvaluation of values" is a real phenomenon. It's the difference between tribal and multi-tribal morality, wherein the former, is the rule of the alpha male, and the latter, an explicit moral code justified with reference to the authority of God, applying equally to both tribes within the fledgling society. Nietzsche's misunderstanding of this phenomenon led him to God is dead, nihilism and the unermennsch. But he's wrong. Even the alpha male within the hunter gatherer tribe was not selfish, immoral and brutal. When that happens in chimpanzee society - the beta males join forces and drive him out or kill him.

This leads, oddly to Hobbe's Leviathan - and his observation that the King cannot simply behave tyrannically, because the cost is ultimately too great. These are natural laws mirrored in political philosophy. So please, feel free to disagree - but if you think my argument is that it was "because" of God - hunter gatherers joined together, and that's not just a careless form of words, I can only repeat what I've already said. Of course there were practical benefits of cooperation, but a cooperative multi-tribal society was difficult to maintain without an objective authority i.e. God.

Then, in regard to Nietzsche - you have another misunderstanding to contend with that revolves around Galileo's imprisonment and trial for heresy by the Church, for formulating scientific method in the first place, rather than recognizing that scientific truth is valid knowledge of Creation - and thus, effectively the word of God. So really, the Church set religion and science a collision course. Nietzsche plucked at these threads, but failed to understand, and drew all the wrong conclusions.

I don't know much about Nazis - as I said at the beginning. I have only the most cursory understanding of how Nietzsche plays into Nazism, and have shied away from comment on that matter. I'm more familiar with the idea of the ubermensch as it plays out in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. A great book, well worth reading - for it indicates, something else I believe follows from the evolutionary reality, and goes undiscovered and misunderstood by Nietzsche.

In my view, human beings are moral creatures. Chimpanzees are moral creatures in a primitive tribalistic sense. Raskalinkov kills two women because he thinks himself above herd morality - but that's not the seat of morality. It's in us, ingrained by evolution in a tribal context.

It only becomes explicit - where hunter gatherer tribes need to join together, and that's religion. Nietzsche didn't understand this, but Dostoevsky did, because Raskalinkov breaks down under the weight of his guilty conscience. He can't even spend the proceeds of the crime while he's starving. So, there is no ubermensch because human beings are possessed of an innate moral sensibility. Nietzsche is quite simply factually incorrect.

Nietzsche is referring to a metaphysical God. “God is dead” doesn’t refers to the existence or even just to the death of a religious tradition in society. He is making a specific metaphysical point about our world and our place within it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And I'm making a point about the role God served in civilization - as objective authority for moral law, not saying anything about whether God exists or not. I've stated plainly that I don't know, and no-one else knows either. Do you? Hold the front page of Time Magazine. Do you?

Obviously, a Darwinian explanation of the origins of man undermines religious conceptions of reality, but that is explained. The Church made a mistake when they imprisoned and tried Galileo for heresy. They should have embraced Galileo as discovering the means to decode the word of God as made manifest in Creation. If there's a Creator God, (as I suggest was first hit upon by some pre-historic homo sapien, fashioning a stone hand axe - when it occurred to him to ask, "if I made this, who made me, and who made the world?") and if, science is true, then science is the word of God.

Primitive homo sapiens went on to employ God as objective authority for moral law, to enable hunter gatherer tribes to join together, as the basis of society and civilization. This eventually led to Judeo Christian religious ideation, and Darwin, and Nietzsche's effect on society. But that's not what should have happened. The effect of imprisoning Galileo was immense - and still resounds unto this day. The Church effectively divorced science as an understanding of reality, from science as a cornucopia of endless bounty - upturned by industry in pursuit of profit from the 1700's.

Religious, political and economic ideological bases of civilization were protected, at the cost of using science as a tool, but ignoring science as a rule for the conduct of human affairs. We lent the power of science and technology to primitive ideologies, and the consequences persist. You may have noted, we have all the knowledge and technology we need to address climate change, deforestation, over-fishing, pollution and so on, but don't. Why? Because we apply technology as ideology dictates, not as scientific truth dictates. We have ignored 'the word of God' - as revealed by science!

..we need to accept a scientific understanding of reality
— karl stone

This would seem difficult to do when one insists on ignoring readily available evidence from the real world. — Jake

What evidence, and who is ignoring it? I set out ideas I spent a lot of time and effort on - and this is my thanks, is it? Let me make myself quite clear. If you can't tell truth from a hole in the ground, then your entire silly species will end up in the hole. If you don't like that, think on how much future generations are going to despise you. Think on what they will suffer. It's all me, me, me with you people. Get a grip.

I'm tired and I'm going to bed. I got about three lines in when the irresistible droop of dog-tiredness hit me. Maybe it's a consequence of you throwing any old shite at me - to suggest I'm wrong. That could get very tiring, very quickly. If you're as energetic as you seem, might I suggest having a proper go at understanding what I'm actually saying, before insisting I'm wrong. Organisms effect the environment! No shit! What's your real problem?

Your thinking is rooted in a particular metaphysics (worldview, paradigm, personal construct system) just as is everyone else's. That worldview evolves over time, but very slowly — Joshs

If philosophy doesn't begin with epistemology, then it's basically intellectual masturbation. Take Heidegger and his obsession with being, from which people such as he are able to construe endless - perhaps socially useful, but more often socially destructive implications.

Why is being fundamental - and by what rules does he proceed? Truth is not his guide, facts are either adduced or cast aside to suit his argument. Maybe there's some loose logic, or process of reason to string things together - but based on some insubstantial concept that more likely arises from language than reality. It's tosh, designed to paper over the mistake of suppressing science as truth for 400 years.

"To my mind, science has nothing to say on the existence of God."

They may not talk about God, but science has plenty to say about metaphysics, in the sense that every era of science implies its own understanding of method that changes over time with shifts in philosophy(Bacon, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend), which is rooted in underlying metaphysical assumptions that are generally hidden from them. — Joshs

Metaphysics is tosh.

Bear in mind please that the modern ideas of God are recent, and we can not assume at all that they were equivalent to what people believed tens of thousands years ago. The concepts of divinity have changed over time as human social phenomena changed; it is true as you say that Heaven is in correspondence with social hierarchies, and helps to legitimate these structures. But the God that Nietzsche declared dead was his society´s God; when people become atheist, they are atheist of the god of their parents, and assume that all of the other gods are false or are different images of the god of his parents. — DiegoT

Imagine if, instead of arrest and trial for heresy - the Church of Rome had welcomed Galileo as discovering the means to decode the word of God as made manifest in Creation, and thereafter - scientific knowledge were pursued as a sacred trust and integrated into religion, politics and economics - such that our politics bridged the divide between Hume's ought and is. The role of politicians would simply be to know what's true, and do what's right in terms of what's true. Had that occurred, Nietzsche's philosophical campaign against Judeo-Christian morality would not have occurred.

To my mind, science has nothing to say on the existence of God. It remains a mystery even while the earth most certainly does orbit the sun in contradiction of religious orthodoxy. This is consistent with the development of knowledge over time, from less to more, and worse to better - and would not imply, religious political and economic ideologies unable to recognize climate change as a fact, nor apply technologies we have available to combat it.

Clearly, therefore Nietzsche was as wrong as is Richard Dawkins to conflate religion and God. They are not the same thing. I don't know if God exists or not, but I do know the Bible says the earth is fixed in the heavens and it isn't. It's actually spiralling through space.