Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[SMcM]

I completely get it. Civilization has always been a trade of security against liberty that people have been rather glad to accept.

Currently, I think the likelihood of something terrible happening to an individual due to government surveillance is very low.

The problem is the abuse of power that comes with such powerful systems and they are only getting smarter and cheaper. Terrorism seems scary because it is terrorism, that is its point. Statistically you have better odds of dying in ten completely different ways that are much more mundane.

Yes, I don't think there is really any chance I'll be the victim of a terrorist attack either. But there almost seems to be an assumption in this argument that I am only thinking about my own survival; not the case. Yeah, sure, maybe more people are killed by cows than terrorism, but terrorism is a deliberate affront to and attack on our society. And if terrorists were left unchecked, our problems with them would get infinitely worse; I think it is easy to take for granted our current situation. You might think leaving them alone would remove their incentive, but we have seen this is not the case.

If push comes to shove terrorism can be solved crudely. You cannot say the same of an autonomous system that will collate your data, be eventually passed onto corporations and likely hacked because opsec is pretty crap in sectors both public and private.

And what is your crude solution to terrorism?

As for hackers, surely government systems should eventually become to sophisticated for those? And what is the likelihood a hacker will manage to achieve something devastating? Would it be greater than the likelihood of another 9/11 scale terrorist attack?

 

[Lohrenswald]

Europe is exactly like a co-owned building without a trustee. That's just what it is. Maybe the EU parliament could be that trustee?

Alright, seriously, do you have any real arguments to back up this claim?

No, seriously, huge numbers of people voted without knowing what the EU is or what it does.

It's easy to call the people who dissagree with you ignorant. Do you have any evidence at all to back this up?

 

[SMcM]

It's easy to call the people who dissagree with you ignorant. Do you have any evidence at all to back this up?

The fact that Google reported that record numbers of British people searched 'What is the EU' after the vote. Though I suppose that could have in part been remain voters as well.

 

[Lohrenswald]

The fact that Google reported that record numbers of British people searched 'What is the EU' after the vote. Though I suppose that could have in part been remain voters as well.

That record number was roughly 1000 people

Only about 1000

I'll try to find the citation on that later when I get home

 

[Lohrenswald]

Here's the article

https://medium.com/@dannypage/stop-using-google-trends-a5014dd32588#.8v8mt4c67

It can even be noted that more people searched "what is EU" the month before the referendum than the day after

 

[SMcM]

That record number was roughly 1000 people

Only about 1000

I'll try to find the citation on that later when I get home

Oh, I suppose the media exaggerated that one then!

 

[Takhisis]

Don't you think it's a telling fact that people knew so little about what the European Union is that they had to look it up on the Internet, and how little information you can get from that?

 

[Lohrenswald]

Don't you think it's a telling fact that people knew so little about what the European Union is that they had to look it up on the Internet, and how little information you can get from that?

Do I think that it's a telling fact that among the tens of millions of voters in the referendum, about a thousand of them lloked up EU on google afterwards?

hm, let me think

no

 

[Takhisis]

Do you see what you're doing?

 

[Lohrenswald]

Do you see what you're doing?

enlighten me

 

[Traitorfish]

The US had an alliance with the Royal French government and the Republicans cut the King's head off so, yes, George Washington was correct that the US had no alliance with Republican France.

George Washington was either mistaken or disingenuous. The First French Republic was the legal successor to the Kingdom of France, just as the restored Kingdom was the legal successor to the First Republic and Empire, the July Monarchy to the Restoration, and so on and so forth down to the Fifth Republic. Disputing that meant disputing the legitimacy of the Republican government itself, and the Americans never made any such claims even implicitly.

A lie told because it is diplomatically convenience does not become, through that motivation, somehow true.

 

[Takhisis]

enlighten me

*turns on desklamp and shines it at Lohrenswald's avatar*

 

[Lohrenswald]

*turns on desklamp and shines it at Lohrenswald's avatar*

Listen mate, I'm not going to give the guy who dismisses all my points as "slogans" the benefit of the doubt or whatever have you.

The whole google search statistic means nothing. Did you even take a look at the article I linked? It's short.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm illustrating your behaviour.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I'm illustrating your behaviour.

You're illustrating nothing

I am trying to make a point about perception of the EU in Britain. You seem to be trying to make me look like a fool or something.

Cut to the chase

 

[uppi]

Are tensions between CDU and CSU high currently?

Yes. I don't think the tension has been this high since that (shortlived) decision to split in 1976.

And how big an effect would a split have on the German political system?

Immediately, that would be 6-7% less of the vote in the federal election for the CDU. It would still be the strongest party, but only because the SPD is so weak right now. The CSU would have no option to be part of a federal government without the CDU while the latter might find a new partner.

Long term, the effect is hard to predict. The question would be, how much support the CSU would get outside of Bavaria. I think there would be some potential to get votes from the right wing of the CDU base and possibly the AfD, but I have no idea how large the potential voter base would be.

At the same time, the CDU could get some of the CSU voters in Bavaria. If they can get a large fraction of those and the CSU fails to drum up enough support in the rest of Germany, they might be supplanted by the Bavarian branch of the CDU at some point in the future.

A split would be highly risky for the CSU, which is why I think it will not happen anytime soon. But they might want to use the thread of a split in order to get concessions, or even a compromise candidate for the chancellorship.

Also, surely no other party would join a collation with AfD?

No. At the moment they are seen as being outside of the acceptable political spectrum by the established parties. Any politician in a party left of the CDU would face a rebellion for even suggesting a coalition with the AfD. The CDU and CSU are still hoping that the AfD will implode soon and including them in the government would give them too much legitimacy. If the AfD survives 8 or 12 years and manages to present themselves as a respectable political party, they could be an option for right-wing coalition in the future, but not right now.

 

[Kozmos]

Currently, I think the likelihood of something terrible happening to an individual due to government surveillance is very low.

The likelihood of people hearing about it is low. NSA has seen numerous case of misuse of its own systems by its employees.

Yes, I don't think there is really any chance I'll be the victim of a terrorist attack either. But there almost seems to be an assumption in this argument that I am only thinking about my own survival; not the case. Yeah, sure, maybe more people are killed by cows than terrorism, but terrorism is a deliberate affront to and attack on our society. And if terrorists were left unchecked, our problems with them would get infinitely worse; I think it is easy to take for granted our current situation. You might think leaving them alone would remove their incentive, but we have seen this is not the case.

And what is your crude solution to terrorism?

Terrorists have a really limited play book. They can do either do uncoordinated terror attacks or go overt and present a big target for professional militaries and law-enforcement.

As for hackers, surely government systems should eventually become to sophisticated for those? And what is the likelihood a hacker will manage to achieve something devastating? Would it be greater than the likelihood of another 9/11 scale terrorist attack?

Not as long as you have humans interacting with those systems and attack is always simpler than defense because you have to be perfect all the time while they just have to get lucky once. It's not solely a government problem, corporations are basically doing what the government wants by proxy but for their own financial interest of course. Their security is just as crappy and your personal and financial data is worth a lot of money to the right people.

Depends really...hackers can do tons of stuff that isn't necessarily lethal but can extremely devastating and disruptive to society. It should tell you enough that USCybCom is concerned.

 

[Old Hippy]

Do I think that it's a telling fact that among the tens of millions of voters in the referendum, about a thousand of them lloked up EU on google afterwards?

hm, let me think

no

it shows how disinterested in the UE both sides of the remain/leave debate were that they did not look up on the internet what the results implied for them

most of them searches probably came from posters on OT, who have shown an interest on its implications, that so few searches were done is actually sad

 

[Lohrenswald]

it shows how disinterested in the UE both sides of the remain/leave debate were that they did not look up on the internet what the results implied for them

most of them searches probably came from posters on OT, who have shown an interest on its implications, that so few searches were done is actually sad

damned if you do, damned if you don't, then

And you don't think people got much information on those things from television and newspapers, both during and after the campaigning?

There's some serious grasping at straws here
and yet I am the ignorant one

 

[innonimatu]

You are certainly not the ignorant one here. Those talking points about Google searches having risen 300% or somesuch were shameful manipulative propaganda, debunked when it was pointed out that the actual numbers were infinitesimal in relation to the population of the UK.

It's just that some people are unable to admit when they believed a lie. They'll keep defending the lies and propaganda either because they feel ashamed of admitting they were fooled, or because it agrees with a wider agenda. You see it also with worse things like "humanitarian wars".