Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Iwasfrozen

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Of course it is. I'd rather buy a weapon made in the US than one made in Somalia but I could buy far more from Somalia as they would be cheaper.

Somolia doesn't have much of an arms industry. Usually it would be a choice between NATO, and Russian produced weapons.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why?

will leaving the eu mean the uk exports more weapons to Saudi?

I don't know. It could be more or it could be less. What it will mean is that Britain will be freer to make unilateral decisions, many of which will have moral implications.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Of course it is. I'd rather buy a weapon made in the US than one made in Somalia but I could buy far more from Somalia as they would be cheaper.

hhhmmm, would you rather Saudi bought US/UK/French/German weapons, or ones supplied by China or Russia?

Professor Moriarty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Somolia doesn't have much of an arms industry. Usually it would be a choice between NATO, and Russian produced weapons.

Indeed. The moral argument remains though.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't know. It could be more or it could be less. What it will mean is that Britain will be freer to make unilateral decisions, many of which will have moral implications.

they are free now, just as France (who sell more to Saudi than the uk do) are free.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

hhhmmm, would you rather Saudi bought US/UK/French/German weapons, or ones supplied by China or Russia?

Personally, I'd rather see less arms supplied to Saudi. Oil is a major factor in the decision to arm the Saudis and keep the regime under western influence. Doesn't make it morally right but it's a reason if you're looking for one.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

they are free now, just as France (who sell more to Saudi than the uk do) are free.

Indeed. But morality extends beyond weapon sales to issues such as immigration.

Grayson

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Personally, I'd rather see less arms supplied to Saudi. Oil is a major factor in the decision to arm the Saudis and keep the regime under western influence. Doesn't make it morally right but it's a reason if you're looking for one.

I'd say the billions in arms sales are a bigger factor.

Professor Moriarty

Grayson wrote: »

I'd say the billions in arms sales are a bigger factor.

Possibly

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Personally, I'd rather see less arms supplied to Saudi. Oil is a major factor in the decision to arm the Saudis and keep the regime under western influence. Doesn't make it morally right but it's a reason if you're looking for one.

that is the choice though. Keep an ongoing influence within the country, or lose them to China or Russia and I think we all know what would happen if Russia decided to help out in Yemen.

None of this is relevant in a discussion about the eu though.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that is the choice though. Keep an ongoing influence within the country, or lose them to China or Russia and I think we all know what would happen if Russia decided to help out in Yemen.

None of this is relevant in a discussion about the eu though.

I think a country's morality is very much relevant to Brexit. Restricting immigration, which was a core tenet of the Leave campaign, implicitly involves a moral decision.

The morals underpinning weapon sales by a country is an excellent example of how a country must make moral decisions which is why it was being discussed.

Iwasfrozen

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. The moral argument remains though.

No, it doesn't. Because a weapon made in any country can commit atrocities just as well as any other.

Professor Moriarty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Because a weapon made in any country can commit atrocities just as well as any other.

No. It can't. Some weapons are more efficient than others.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think a country's morality is very much relevant to Brexit. Restricting immigration, which was a core tenet of the Leave campaign, implicitly involves a moral decision.

The morals underpinning weapon sales by a country is an excellent example of how a country must make moral decisions which is why it was being discussed.

limiting immigration is immoral?

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

limiting immigration is immoral?

It can be.

Iwasfrozen

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. It can't. Some weapons are more efficient than others.

Sure, but no type of weapon has an exclusive seller. Nor does the make of the weapon affect its ability to commit atrocities.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It can be.

it can be? in what way then does the UK leaving the eu mean that there is a potential for it to act immorally with regards immigration?

this is becoming more and more tenuous.

Maybe you could explain how the UK leaving the eu means it is likely to act less morally with regards arms sales as well.

Professor Moriarty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sure, but no type of weapon has an exclusive seller. Nor does the make of the weapon affect its ability to commit atrocities.

Indeed. But quantity and price are always better if you source directly from the manufacturer.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Should that not apply to all trade, or is taking money from oppressive regimes OK as long as it isn't for arms?

Do you seriously not see the problem with selling weapons to a state that may be involved in terrorism and/or pointless wars. For instance selling weapons to the Nazi regime was OK?

Iwasfrozen

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. But quantity and price are always better if you source directly from the manufacturer.

Always? That's nonsense.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it can be? in what way then does the UK leaving the eu mean that there is a potential for it to act immorally with regards immigration?

this is becoming more and more tenuous.

Maybe you could explain how the UK leaving the eu means it is likely to act less morally with regards arms sales as well.

I've explained the context of the weapons discussion. Read back through the thread if you require further explanation.

It could act more morally or more immorally than it presently acts. Its decision making will be done in the context of withdrawing from an EU-wide consensus on a wide variety of issues. Thus an external influence is removed from its decision making.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do you seriously not see the problem with selling weapons to a state that may be involved in terrorism and/or pointless wars. For instance selling weapons to the Nazi regime was OK?

GODWINNED

I'm not happy with the UK selling arms to Saudi Arabia, but if they are that bad, should the eu not impose a complete embargo on them?

and wtf has this got to do with the UK leaving the eu?

Professor Moriarty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Always? That's nonsense.

A buys a gun from B and sells it to C for 10% less. Ok.

Let's settle this idea that all weapons are the same and where they come from doesn't matter. I'll meet you around the back of the bicycle shed. You bring your catapult and I'll bring my Kalashnikov.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I've explained the context of the weapons discussion. Read back through the thread if you require further explanation.

It could act more morally or more immorally than it presently acts. Its decision making will be done in the context of withdrawing from an EU-wide consensus on a wide variety of issues. Thus an external influence is removed from its decision making.

true. It could turn itself into a hippy commune and legalise marijuana as well.

Do you really think the main eu players give a **** about morality and eu pressure? The eu parliament voted in favour of an arms embargo on saudi earlier this year, yet Germany will still ship in excess of €1bn of arms to them, as will France.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

true. It could turn itself into a hippy commune and legalise marijuana as well.

Do you really think the main eu players give a **** about morality and eu pressure? The eu parliament voted in favour of an arms embargo on saudi earlier this year, yet Germany will still ship in excess of €1bn of arms to them, as will France.

I understand the concept of realpolitik. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't wish for as moral a society as possible. Are you suggesting that a society without morals is preferable?

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

GODWINNED

I'm not happy with the UK selling arms to Saudi Arabia, but if they are that bad, should the eu not impose a complete embargo on them?

and wtf has this got to do with the UK leaving the eu?

Fred only people who can't debate use godwinned.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fred only people who can't debate use godwinned.

I think you'll find people who can't debate resort to nazi analogies.

any chance you could answer what this has to do with Brexit?

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I understand the concept of realpolitik. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't wish for as moral a society as possible.

yes and what a lovely world it could be.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a society without morals is preferable?

how the hell did you come to that conclusion?

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes and what a lovely world it could be.




how the hell did you come to that conclusion?

I must have misunderstood your sarcasm. So you believe a moral society is preferable?

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I must have misunderstood your sarcasm. So you believe a moral society is preferable?

depending on your definition of morals.

what has this got to do with Brexit?