EU referendum are you in or out

[gilesgoat]

If I understand correctly what Cloudane is writing is that he means that instead of creating a multi cultural society where different societies with different things would co-exists someone would prefer ALL cultures to be "assimilated" into a single "homogenous" one ?

Like to say instead of being "various different things in a place" we'd be like "the Earthlings race/culture/society" ?

That sounds like .. by "cosmological equivalent" similar to the famous "heat death" :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deat ... e_universe

" the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium ".

Like to say "when there are no more differences, there's nothing more to evolve into".

[zip accident]

Double post.

[Harlequin]

When I play RPGs I like to have a group comprised of different races, species and cultures, employing the distinctive advantages of each. Similarly, I do not want to be surrounded by homogeneous people in real life.

[KlaxonCow]

Genetically, homogeneity is a very bad idea.

That's why every complex - that is, multicellular (that is, of sufficient complexity and size to be able to host the underlying mechanisms or "once it can do it, then it does it") - organism on the planet is male and female, and employs sexual reproduction.

Asexual reproduction is essentially self-cloning. And it has two major problems.

The first is that homogeneity is atrociously bad "self-defence" from disease and plagues. If some epidemic sweeps the globe then it might kill me off. But as you're genetically different to me then you might have a natural immunity to it (or, at least, it affects you sufficiently less that you survive). So though I'm gone, the species as a whole ultimately survives.

But if we were all essentially genetically identical clones of one another then along comes a particularly nasty virus or disease and - bang! - we have the potential for "instant extinction". All of us get wiped out in one fell swoop. No survivors. The species is gone for good.

As I say, genetically, this is an atrociously bad idea because you're placing the species in a state where there's a massive "single point of failure".

Even plants are male and female, not just animals. It's nigh-on universal in the natural world (once you reach sufficient multicellular complexity to make the mechanism possible at all). This, therefore, suggests that this is a pretty real and present danger, genetically speaking, as every organism that didn't do this must have hit that "instant extinction" event to leave essentially none of them behind.

The second problem is the permanent preservation of "copying mistakes".

DNA has quite excellent copy fidelity, in fairness to it, considering the sheer amount of cells in your body, the number of times during your life each of these has divided and copied its DNA - we're talking in the trillions at least - and though we'd wish cancer rates were absolutely 100% zero and no-one ever got it, if you compare how often it does happen compared to how often it could potentially happen, DNA has insanely high "copy fidelity".

But it still goes wrong sometimes and if you're just cloning yourself, then every single one of those "copying mistakes" is also copied forward and preserved.

Or, in colloquial parlance, this is why it's also a terrible idea to fuck your own sister (as you're straying far too close to "cloning" and all these problems rearing their ugly heads - quite literally ugly heads too, as the kids aren't guaranteed to come out 100%, if you know what I mean).

Whilst we can certainly debate the famous quote that "nature does nothing uselessly", in this case it's a great wisdom to take note of.

It's almost universal in nature - where there's sufficient complexity to an organism to allow it to host the mechanism in the first place - to invariably prefer sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction, exactly because too much homogeneity is a really, really bad idea.

It is, in fact, no less than an extinction-level threat.

Bad idea. You don't want it.

(And though I'm speaking genetically, one can make a similar analogous case for memetic reproduction too, in terms of ideologies and culture. But that's beyond the scope of this post, as I have to go to work now. But I could return to that, if anyone's remotely interested.)

[snaff]

Varadkar was keen on talking before the Benn Act when he thought that the choice would be ‘new deal or no deal’. Since the Benn Act passed he has gone very cold and in the last week the official channels and the backchannels have also gone cold

You do realise that no deal isn't an endpoint, right?

Once no deal happens, we then have to negotiate deals - from a much more desparate position than the one we're in today.

Anyone who thinks no deal is a "bargaining chip" is basically saying "Well, if I threaten to shoot myself in the foot, they'll have to cooperate with me." They may well try and cooperate with you, to stop you harming yourself. But eventually, they will give in and let you blow your foot off.

I guess if you're lucky they might help you put a bandage on it afterwards. If you're not lucky, they'll kick you in the bleeding part until you agree to anything to get them to stop.

Boris was using no-deal as part of the negotiations, as leverage to get a deal that could get through parliament. When the remainers in parliament removed no-deal as a bargaining tool, they ruined our ability to negotiate anything new and made no-deal as a reality more likely.

[Rhythm]

Boris was using no-deal as part of the negotiations, as leverage to get a deal that could get through parliament. When the remainers in parliament removed no-deal as a bargaining tool, they ruined our ability to negotiate anything new and made no-deal as a reality more likely.

"No Deal" has never been a workable solution. The "Remainers" were right to request that it be removed from the table as an option. It's not a credible threat to the EU, it threatens the GFA and it damages only the UK. I know everyone keeps pointing back to "you should always maintain a position where you can walk away during any negotiations" but No Deal isn't "walking away".

Quoting James O'Brien: "No desirable Brexit is deliverable and no deliverable Brexit is desirable".

Maybe if this had been thrashed out a bit before our cunty MPs voted to allow the triggering of A50 we wouldn't be here, but hey ho :-/

To further the point. No Deal really isn't walking away. It would be if we were signing up to join in the first place. "Let us join your club, we can bring 'x' to the table, what can you offer us in return?" Then you could offer to "walk away".

But we've already got a deal. And we're proposing that they give us a better one somehow, else we'll scrap the deal we've already got, damaging ourselves in the process. That's not "walking away".

[Dio]

Boris was using no-deal as part of the negotiations, as leverage to get a deal that could get through parliament. When the remainers in parliament removed no-deal as a bargaining tool, they ruined our ability to negotiate anything new and made no-deal as a reality more likely.

This logic is spectacularly circular and completely misses the point of my previous comment.

There is no 'no deal'. There is just "Crash out without a deal and then have to scramble to negotiate one from a much worse bargaining position'.

If it wasn't for trying to do something for Ireland, the EU would almost certainly have gleefully accepted the offer of no deal, because then they know they can dictate whatever terms they like to us and watch us be forced to accept as the economy turns south. We're only getting away with it because of the strong Irish desire for no border.

Macron is already there, but the Irish and Germans have been able to hold France back so far. And just imagine the rogering that Trump is going to demand.

If you prefer the pithy quote:

"Mr. Dent, do you know how much damage this bulldozer would suffer if I let it drive right over you? None at all."

[Rhythm]

A friend works for the EU and this very morning has posted a pretty illuminating thread

In short, deal or not, expect years of disruption before we're even back on a "level" (note, not actually very level) field again

[Harlequin]

A friend works for the EU and this very morning has posted a pretty illuminating thread

I like the birth analogy. "Let's get this baby out then, once the pregnancy's over, we can get back to our lives."

[Ollie]

I think what the no-dealers think (the ones who genuinely think no deal will be good, not the ones who just cynically want to make money out of how bad things will get) is that if they are forced to do without us the EU will come grovelling back offering us anything we want just for the chance to trade with us again. The reality, I suspect, will be closer to the reverse.

[merman]

I think what the no-dealers think (the ones who genuinely think no deal will be good, not the ones who just cynically want to make money out of how bad things will get) is that if they are forced to do without us the EU will come grovelling back offering us anything we want just for the chance to trade with us again. The reality, I suspect, will be closer to the reverse.

There is still a worrying perception out there that "no deal" means nothing changes.

A lot changes.
Freedom of movement, queueing at airports, driving in Europe, healthcare both regular and emergency (the EHIC no longer applying), customs, business, medicines, manufacturing, agriculture...

I could go on but there are those who will be putting their fingers in their ears and going "no, no, not listening, Project Fear, we can do this on our own..."

We can't. We are in a global economy and our proximity to Europe plays to our advantage. Without a deal there is no easy way through Britain to the European market.

[Rhythm]

A lot changes.

Indeed. Leadsom posted 11 "explainer" videos showing some of the stuff that will change. Spoiler, they don't explain anything, other than there'll be shitloads more admin for everyone

[Whiteball]

Genuine question.

What makes everyone think the EU is actually doing ok?

[tufty]

Genuine question.

What makes everyone think the EU is actually doing ok?

Well, its the second largest economy in the world, its GDP overall is growing for the seventh year in a row. For an economic union of small countries, that's pretty damn good.

Sure, there's things that aren't going so well. There's a very worrying swing to the extremes (particularly to the extreme right), politically speaking, but that's arguably global. A few years back, there were signs of a lot of the far right / populist parties across europe working to destroy the EU from the inside using the same anti-immigrant schtick the Brexiters have been using, but, and largely thanks to the highly visible fiasco of Brexit, they've pretty much all lost support and shut the fuck up. Some areas, and the people who live there, are suffering, and that's a lot of where the anti-EU sentiment comes from.

The EU is stronger and more united now than it was in 2015. Remember how Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Greece were about to crash financially and bring down the EU? Of the 28, only Italy still has a negative GDB growth rate, and it's improving year on year. The UK, on the other hand, is still positive, but on a steepening downward trend since 2016.

[Dio]

What makes everyone think the EU is actually doing ok?

For me, the main strength of the EU is that of the world political superpowers it's the least unpleasant one. It makes some kind of effort to stand up to the US and other bully-boys and to corporatism, and that's only possible if it's an institution of that size doing it. It has more belief in the rights of the individual against business and government, in most cases.

There's also plenty wrong with it (most obviously the CAP, the governmental structures, the remnant problems from the eastward expansion wave and an unstable financial structure that requires larger intrastate capital flows than can be made politically acceptable). It's a hard institution to love. But of the world's governmental agencies, it's usually the most effective force for (relative) good that exists today.

The UK alone will be powerless to do the same sort of thing - we'll be a rules follower with no influence other than what we can beg bigger institutions to lend to us.