I voted out, and I want you to understand why:
1. I simply don’t consider it to be a legitimate form of governance, in being neither representative of, nor accountable to, any useful definition of a collective ‘us’. I respect that you may feel differently.
2. The noble ideal of increasing harmony and wellbeing between european nations reached its high water mark pre-Maastricht, and that since then it has been working in reverse. I will not condone what has been done to an entire generation of young people in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. Life chances ruined by the Euro with endless 40% youth employment.
In what universe was I going to tacitly support an institution I didn’t believe in, carrying out actions that I abhor?
Well blow me down! I thought it would be 52:48 to Remain, not 52:48 to Leave. Now it has happened, how do we make the best of it? First of all; the sky is not falling in. It’s a big change, but the reason why the UK has survived over three centuries without revolution, invasion, or collapse, is because we always step up to a challenge. And because we know a changing world demands continual adaptation. Moreover, it is a victory won by Vote Leave not Leave.eu.
So we don’t need to run scared of Nige…
Regardless of whether ‘Remain’ or ‘Leave’ wins the day. Because regardless of who wins, it won’t be decisive in either direction.
The question is to whom will we be the better neighbours?
I give my consent that you may govern in my name, and assent to be bound by the actions you take in my name as if they were my own.
However, the authority to govern that you possess in consequence is never to be leased out to a third party, and I will not deem those actions as were they my own.
What it boils down to is who ‘us’ is.
I want a Europe that enables the power and influence of Britain in the world. For, in achieving this, our government then has in its hands the tools to maximise the welfare and well-being of the people in Britain. This requires change. At all times and in all places the willingness of a nation-state to embrace change is an absolute precondition of its future success. Allowing divergence is not something the post-Maastricht EU is known for, and this has retarded our capacity for change.
If we seek we maximise the power and influence of Britain in the world, then we need to change and we likewise need Europe to change too.
If so, how does this work with AMD’s upcoming high-end Summit Ridge CPU’s? It is widely accepted that HSA does not deliver on its promise (at least under current architecture) if there is not a tight coupling of the CPU and GPU with a shared memory allocation, and also affected by latency problems with PCIe. Hence, i can buy a £300 laptop which supports HSA, but I cannot build a PC that leverages the power of my £600 graphics card and £300 CPU. Either they sort out this limitation of shared memory pool and latency over PCIe, they stick shaders on Summit Ridge, or, HSA has no part to play in their high-end offerings.
At least that is what I used to think, but perhaps I have been looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
The conflict between traditionalist or conservative values and progressive or liberal values. If that makes you picture a Manichean conflict between Shoreditch and the Duchy or Cornwall you’re missing the point. It’s simply a question of the pace of change, and whether the pace is evolutionary or revolutionary in character. But that’s by the by, the interesting part of who starts it and what that says about the nation in question.
Society is aware of where it’s heading, and those losing do the fighting.