Post by: Neonivek on June 28, 2016, 06:25:09 pm
If things go badly I'll close the thread but so far nothing too bad.
Post by: Max™ on June 28, 2016, 06:27:13 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on June 28, 2016, 06:28:42 pm
Post by: da_nang on June 28, 2016, 06:31:26 pm
In particular:
Quote
3. Stresses that the will of the majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom should be respected via a swift and coherent implementation of the withdrawal procedure;What exactly do they expect this to do when the referendum was non-binding? If the UK ignores the referendum, then what? Article 7? If the ECJ has any credibility, any invocations of Article 7 will get shot down.
Post by: Neonivek on June 28, 2016, 06:36:13 pm
There is no reason I can see for the people in power not to respect it beyond intentionally going against the will of the people.
---
Personally I am surprised that there are people against referendums.
I was always under the impression that they were a good thing. Giving power to the people directly.
Sure to 48% of the population this was a tragedy... but it is the result.
Post by: Max™ on June 28, 2016, 06:38:03 pm
I suspect that the Welsh might have something to say about that.Just leave some sheep loose when the vote for the new name is scheduled?
;)
Post by: nenjin on June 28, 2016, 06:58:38 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on June 28, 2016, 07:03:36 pm
It would be a rather tragic misstep if they backed out from the referendum in a democratic state.
There is no reason I can see for the people in power not to respect it beyond intentionally going against the will of the people.
---
Personally I am surprised that there are people against referendums.
I was always under the impression that they were a good thing. Giving power to the people directly.
Sure to 48% of the population this was a tragedy... but it is the result.
simply hold a second referendum to show that in fact the people do not want to leave. done, democratic process upheld.
Post by: Leafsnail on June 28, 2016, 07:06:48 pm
Post by: itisnotlogical on June 28, 2016, 07:09:47 pm
Post by: Vattic on June 28, 2016, 07:10:40 pm
Only thing I wanted to add is that "irregardless" is bloody irritating to see an Englishmen of all people continue to write.Always figured the unnamed poster was trying to get a rise.
Post by: Neonivek on June 28, 2016, 07:13:11 pm
I imagine the old thread was locked by the OP because people were getting too mad and needed time to cool off, making another to circumvent it is probably bad form.
He didn't leave a closing message AND he said it was fine.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 07:14:23 pm
I imagine the old thread was locked by the OP because people were getting too mad and needed time to cool off, making another to circumvent it is probably bad form.I gave it my blessing, if someone else is OP, it's no longer my problem.
...Regardless, in the news:
Cameron: Europe wants closest links with the UK. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36656753) Perhaps he means they want to close links, not closer links?
Also wat
"gli inglesi hanno violato le regole. Non è la filosofia UE che la folla possa decidere del suo destino"
"the British have violated the rules . It is not the EU 's philosophy that the crowd will decide his fate " (https://twitter.com/gzibordi/status/747242697119891457)
TOO SMUG
We got any Poles who can verify this crap (https://archive.is/2wNWv)
Post by: BFEL on June 28, 2016, 07:15:07 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on June 28, 2016, 07:16:07 pm
PenisAgreed.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 07:24:06 pm
Quote
The full extent of how hackers managed to hijack the petition demanding a second EU referendum can be revealed by MailOnline. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3662545/How-hackers-hijacked-petition-demanding-second-EU-referendum-mocked-British-democracy-signing-42-000-signatories-Vatican-City-population-840.html)
Hackers boasted about their exploits in online forums and openly mocked how easy it was to infiltrate the UK Parliament petition website.
The petition has attracted more than 3.7million signatures and has led high profile figures to use the petition as proof of the public appetite for a re-run of last week's referendum, which was won by the Brexit campaign by more than 1.2million votes.
Computer bots were able to use scripts that automatically signed up hundreds of thousands of fake signatures by using the same UK postcode - many of which were the Palace of Westminster's SW1A 0AA address.
They deliberately directed their names to appear as residents of a range of different countries, including tiny states such as Vatican City to 'show your democracies are a joke'.
It meant more than 42,000 signatures were registered in the Vatican City, despite the tiny papal state having a population of just 840.
There were more signatures registered from the least populous country of Pitcairn Island than the 56 residents living there.
There were even 24,867 signatures registered in North Korea, where the internet is highly censored and accessed by a tiny minority of the population.
Thousands were signed up from other tiny states, including Palau, the British Virgin Islands, Liechtenstein, British Virgin Islands, Liechenstein and St Kitts and Nevis - as well as the disputed Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Writing in a mix of Arabic and English, a hacker claiming to be in Syria said 'God willing' the number of signatures from the Vatican City would 'soon exceed actual Vatican population and from then on it's pure bants'.
Spoiler: lmao (click to show/hide)
Post by: Radio Controlled on June 28, 2016, 07:29:47 pm
I imagine the old thread was locked by the OP because people were getting too mad and needed time to cool off, making another to circumvent it is probably bad form.
Ninja'd
Seems like Sturgeon is already facing some roadblocks in her efforts to try and keep Scotland in the EU somehow.
Quote
Nicola Sturgeon suffers major setback as Donald Tusk rejects invitation for Brexit talks on Scotland's future (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/nicola-sturgeon-heading-to-brussels-for-talks-with-european-parl/)
Nicola Sturgeon’s plan to bypass the UK Government and lobby the EU directly to let Scotland stay has suffered a major setback after the president of the powerful European Council rejected her invitation for talks.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Also, sorry to bang this drum again, but it seems this (possibly) Brexit-related incident is a step up in magnitude from the previously reported ones:
Quote
Halal butcher in the Midlands is firebombed as tensions run high after Brexit vote (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1356778/halal-butcher-in-the-midlands-is-firebombed-as-tensions-run-high-after-brexit-vote/)I've heard people claim that these might not point toward the UK having an unusual amount of racists compared to other countries, but more that they feel emboldened now that the vote result could be somewhat interpreted as the majority of voters backing this kind of sentiment (not the case probably, but with the way the immigration horn was blown by the leave campaign, I could see why some would interpret it like that :/ ).
A HALAL butchers was destroyed in a sick petrol bomb attack just days after Britain voted to leave the EU.
The vile destruction at Kasmir Meat & Poultry in Pleck, Walsall, is the latest in a string of sick hate crimes in the wake of Brexit.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Other source: http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/28/butcher-hit-by-petrol-bomb-in-latest-racist-incident-5971947/
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 07:31:57 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Frumple on June 28, 2016, 07:59:43 pm
Also watHey, that again. Anyone know if folks ever found out when schulz was supposed to have said that? Closest someone seemed to come to a source was this (https://twitter.com/gzibordi/status/747578804764295168/photo/1), which apparently (https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/posts/6338325/) translates (at least partially) out to something more along the lines of "the fate of the EU should not be decided by decisions of the mob", but still wasn't attributed to a specific date or somethin'. google translate spits out madness that disagrees with both the reported translation and that second one from a native german speaker :V
"gli inglesi hanno violato le regole. Non è la filosofia UE che la folla possa decidere del suo destino"
"the British have violated the rules . It is not the EU 's philosophy that the crowd will decide his fate " (https://twitter.com/gzibordi/status/747242697119891457)
TOO SMUG
Maybe helg could get in on this? Pretty sure it's either him or sheb (or both) that speak german, so they could at least confirm the meaning if not identify the actual source.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 08:17:16 pm
Post by: Radio Controlled on June 28, 2016, 08:57:54 pm
Not only that, but the referendum was explicitly not legally binding, and while not following through would be political suicide, it wouldn't be breaking law (it would be a massive breach of trust of course, and could lead to rioting in the streets according to some).
Now, from the way I've been reading things, it kinda seems like a lot of leave supporters almost fear a revote (as if they're assuming, again, that remain would win). But if leaving is truly the will of the people, won't they simply vote it again? Thereby erasing any doubts or regrexits or whatever.
To be very honest, right now it kinda seems like a situation where a person has been conned, and then the conman quickly going 'no backsies!' as the duped person realizes what happened. Even though the con was obvious and the victim really should've known better, it's still something I wouldn't want to see for the British people. I don't want to see them suffer, even though I do love the idea of a strong, integrated EU myself (provided it's implemented well of course) and I realize the fact that (from the perspective of the current EU) a member leaving kinda has to hurt to make it clear why staying is better.
I am NOT saying that leave is the empirically wrong camp here (even though I personally am a remain backer, which was probably clear by now), or that they don't have legit grievances (lord knows the current EU isn't perfect), nor that they're just a bunch of racists. The fact that so many of the remain camp just dismiss them like that is atrocious. I do think however that the leave camp is run by incompetents and liars. I think there's quite some evidence that whoever ends up executing the will of the people (whatever that may be), these clowns aren't the ones to do it.
Thing is, if brexit happens now, the way things were run, I really don't think it'll be pretty, not in slightest way, for the people of the UK. It could cause a deep rift in society, and would hurt more (eg economically) than an exit from the EU would have anyways (for example, due to the continued uncertainty we are seeing right now even, which is really bad for investments and business and all that jazz).
In case of a revote however, very clear rules should be set up from the start, and a clear plan of what will happen for every possible result. Eg in case leave wins again, immediate invocation of article 50 and a clear idea on who will run negotations. And that after this referendum, no more new ones will be held (in case of leave victory), or a period in which no new ones will be held unless 2/3 majority approves it in parliament (in case of remain victory, to try and prevent the 'neverendum' situation). Also clear rules on what majority needs to be gotten and what voter turnout is needed. It might very well still be simple majority (though I personally don't think leaving such an enormous decision to 50%+1 is a good idea), but whatever it is, make it clear and argued.
In order to make it so the results of the previous aren't ignored, a certain arrangement could be made. For example, saying that remain must win by a certain margin (eg more than 53%) and that if not, leave is said to have won. Averaging the two results is also an option. Just letting a second referendum stand on its own would be easiest of course, and give the least headaches, but might not be the fairest. I dunno honestly.
Anyways, sorry for wallness of that post.
/rant
Post by: Flying Dice on June 28, 2016, 09:04:07 pm
RE: the Polish source. If it's verified, I'm curious to see if Brexit will actually kick the EU's ass into gear. Regardless of how it turns out for Britain an Europe that's actually trying to fix its problems and settle its differences would be astonishing.
Post by: Sonlirain on June 28, 2016, 09:10:57 pm
We got any Poles who can verify this crap (https://archive.is/2wNWv)Well TVP.info reposted this document.
http://www.tvp.info/25939371/nasz-news-superpanstwo-zamiast-unii-europejskiej--ultimatum-francji-i-niemiec
http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1356,title,Superpanstwo-zamiast-Unii-Europejskiej-Wyciekl-tekst-ultimatum-Francji-i-Niemiec,wid,18397368,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=117464
Aaaand it's kinda legit i guess? TVP is the polish public TV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telewizja_Polska which includes info channels.
and WP.pl is your Polish MSN.com equivalent.
I fucking swear it looks like a hoax but it does seem legit as far as the sites go.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 09:27:35 pm
On the possible revote, I do understand the arguments against. Just revoting until you get the 'right' result isn't fair at all, and a mockery of democracy. However, in this particular case, with all the blatant lies during the campaign and the fact that the full consequences are just now sinking in, the implosion of the political top of some of the major parties and the fact that nobody there has a goddamn idea on what to do, it becomes more complicated.Quite so, it is now impossible
Not only that, but the referendum was explicitly not legally binding, and while not following through would be political suicide, it wouldn't be breaking law (it would be a massive breach of trust of course, and could lead to rioting in the streets according to some).Quite so
Now, from the way I've been reading things, it kinda seems like a lot of leave supporters almost fear a revote (as if they're assuming, again, that remain would win). But if leaving is truly the will of the people, won't they simply vote it again? Thereby erasing any doubts or regrexits or whatever.There are no credible doubts except where Remain sees them (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=157166.msg7066438;topicseen#msg7066438); just keep making referendums until your opponents are not able to keep up with your funding is a surefire way to keep a healthy democracy and erase "doubts" right? No, it is quite a mockery. Remain had state support, state funds, EU funds, most all celebrity endorsements, charity endorsements, Uni endorsements, all the high office posts, near all the economists, and a good portion of the City of London - still lost. Osborne went on TV saying if OAPs voted Brexit he'd cut pensions, Cameron started a media campaign that outspent the entire Leave campaign using state funds in one day - still lost. Cameron had an advantage in that Tory MPs could not even begin campaigning for Brexit until he concluded negotiations, still lost. Our Remain MPs unilaterally changed the voting registration deadline to coincide with a 2 day media blitz to get the most Remain voters registered, having decided such an illegal action was legal because - still lost.
To be very honest, right now it kinda seems like a situation where a person has been conned, and then the conman quickly going 'no backsies!' as the duped person realizes what happened.To me, it seems the conmen have reared their ugly heads and shown their colours. When Remain broke the law to mobilize Remain voters, that was democratic, and to oppose it was counter-democratic. Yet to say that the referendum should be overturned because old people voted for it, that is not counter-democratic, that is pro-democratic.
Hell, do you know what response I got when I criticized the Remain campaign's inequity?
"Misleading voters is a tradition and an expectation." (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=157166.msg7046707#msg7046707)
If 2 million more of your voters still doesn't win after you control the legal playing field and you control the state media and you still lose? Why is it so hard to accept the result?
I recall how the Remain spokesperson for the BBC talked of reconciliation when they were counting the results. This was when it was predicted that Remain would win. The spokesperson talked of reconciliation, of respecting the people's will, of reaching out to the other half - and then it turns out they lost and it takes less than a day for utter demonization of Leave as some of the vilest things I've had the displeasure of having to endure. Living in London, I will endure much, much more, from people who genuinely believe more money and more education makes them superior to the less fortunate.
Even though the con was obvious and the victim really should've known better, it's still something I wouldn't want to see for the British people.Good thing this vote was had, so what other people see as best for the British does not override what the British want.
I don't want to see them suffer, even though I do love the idea of a strong, integrated EU myself (provided it's implemented well of course) and I realize the fact that (from the perspective of the current EU) a member leaving kinda has to hurt to make it clear why staying is better.In the course of a day I have gone from being eurosceptic to wanting the utter destruction of the European Union, its total disintegration as a matter of guarantee. Ordinary Europeans have looked upon this situation and not seen an opportunity to prove the European Union's worth by showing why it is valuable, but rather by showing how if you attempt to leave you will be destroyed, made to suffer. I do not think ordinary Europeans harbour hatred for the UK, some harbour suspicion, but few hatred. Yet even so, ordinary Europeans who cheer the EU feel compelled to destroy the UK out of fear that its success would inspire too many, out of a desire to protect an Empire that has not brought its people prosperity. All the whilst Eurosceptics cheer the UK, and wave our flag in support. Thus the European Union must die, before it continues to make others suffer in order to preserve its own ambitions.
I do think however that the leave camp is run by incompetents and liars. I think there's quite some evidence that whoever ends up executing the will of the people (whatever that may be), these clowns aren't the ones to do it.I do not place my faith in men, these are all I have. When I have trusted in Oxbridge MPs, they have used their intelligence to advance their own careers and ignore their constituents. If I placed my faith in them, they would obligate us to further integration and find a way to disguise it, with their skills, they could even succeed. Thus the departure of the likes of Cameron is welcome, and the arrival of Boris, welcome.
The last part of your post, I find agreeable, bar the notion of more referendums of course.
Ah... I wonder why British news does not relate this, but Polish does. I suppose British news is busy with useless crap, but that this is legit... Well, reality is not without more than a few good surprises these days. I suppose it's not too surprising, yesterday's satire is today's reality, bring on the united stateWe got any Poles who can verify this crap (https://archive.is/2wNWv)Well TVP.info reposted this document.
http://www.tvp.info/25939371/nasz-news-superpanstwo-zamiast-unii-europejskiej--ultimatum-francji-i-niemiec
http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1356,title,Superpanstwo-zamiast-Unii-Europejskiej-Wyciekl-tekst-ultimatum-Francji-i-Niemiec,wid,18397368,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=117464
Aaaand it's kinda legit i guess? TVP is the polish public TV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telewizja_Polska which includes info channels.
and WP.pl is your Polish MSN.com equivalent.
I fucking swear it looks like a hoax but it does seem legit as far as the sites go.
Post by: Neonivek on June 28, 2016, 09:34:11 pm
Any Leaver worth their salt would say the obvious: "Many people voting stay would only do so because they are afraid of the current economic turmoil then because it is genuinely something they believe they should do"
The equivalent of starting a war, letting people see how expensive it is to field the troops, and THEN making another vote as to whether they should go through with the war.
---
A second referendum with Remain won is a BIT more legit since the votes will generally stay the same.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 09:53:14 pm
The reason a second referendum would be impossible in my mind is because wellTo quote some anonymous grafitti:
Any Leaver worth their salt would say the obvious: "Many people voting stay would only do so because they are afraid of the current economic turmoil then because it is genuinely something they believe they should do"
The media didn't want it
The politicians didn't want it
The corporations didn't want it
The bankers didn't want it
The bureaucrats didn't want it
The people wanted it
The people won
Who wants to be the man who tells all of those people their opinion doesn't matter, and that they need to think again and vote for the right option - the one they selected? Assuming of course, our country can survive another referendum, or that the established parties do not get kicked out - the majority of our Parliament has now just realized they as pro-EU MPs, are ruling off of mandates in constituencies that voted to leave the EU. I don't need to trust in their good faith, or dutiful service to the UK, to know they are smart enough to act in self-interest, in preserving their careers.
Remain promised economic destruction for the UK, the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, the cessation and collapse of British trade with the world, the destruction of the NHS and the elimination of all pensions and they still lost, with more media coverage and literally having been able to send multiple leaflets to every household in the UK without factoring in all of the established parties were using their funds to support the EU. And the fact I keep stressing, is that they lost.
Simple matter is, why does Remain on the one hand say the Scottish referendum result must be upheld, yet push for more and more referendums on the EU because they lost? If the Scottish Nationalists won, would they have told the Scottish Nationalists to have a second referendum result in lieu of the panic its uncertainty caused?
What Britons now must face is the notion of the SNP and Westminster both having two simultaneous drives to veto the result from within, whilst the EU tries destroying us from without. What a harmonious project of democracy and peace, that must inflict suffering upon all those who oppose it with democracy.
Post by: Sonlirain on June 28, 2016, 09:59:23 pm
What a harmonious project of democracy and peace, that must inflict suffering upon all those who oppose it with democracy.(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/0c/0cbab72d90342d24c66a356bdbfbaf477ea3e43d8d9f2131feec0f6d4f611b71.jpg)
Unless we lose that is.
The we will renegotiate as many times as needed till we win.
Post by: Frumple on June 28, 2016, 10:06:43 pm
Yeah, sorry, democratic politics isn't a game where you get to quickload over and over until the RNG gives you the outcome you want.Hey man, trying again was exactly what the leave campaign intended to do if they lost. Goose and gander et al. Kinda' hard to say it's fair to cry foul when you're on record saying you'd do the same thing.
... also democratic politics is totally a game where you quickload over and over until the RNG gives you what you want. Continuing to push an agenda over a long period is... really basic stuff? Normal and necessary to a functioning democracy? So on and so forth. You don't poll once and then call it forever binding, heh. Plus revotes are a normal thing, yeah. Usually over more mechanical issues, but still. A second referendum, even in fairly short order, wouldn't exactly be some kind of trampling of democracy people seem to be trying to frame it as.
Longer wait would be a better thing, make no doubt about that, but there's a lot of signs a longer wait would get nothing for anyone involved with this (and the EU itself has serious and entirely reasonable reasons a long wait is not something they want to see; it's got 27 other countries to worry about while the UK unfucks itself in one direction or the other). It's already looking a fair amount like article 50 just won't get invoked, and I could see the UK not really getting a second chance any time soon if they don't kick their politicians in the ass even harder. A second go, a more clear mandate that the public wants it, and some kind of legal guarantee that a leave win would mean an immediate A50 invocation instead of this dithering around bullshit, sounds like it'd be kinda' nice. Do it again and make that shit binding this time, with a clear period of time (or major event of some sort) before the next one's allowed. Don't give the folks they've managed to elect any room to wiggle out of it, because we're already seeing they're trying to on both sides of the proverbial aisle.
But yeeeaaah, as an american I'd definitely be supporting a supermajority for a decision like the UK's looking at. Simple majority's fine for electing people, 'cause they're only going to be there for a few years, but stuff that'll be on the books or have seriously long term and far reaching effects, you go for more consensus, both for the initial institution (and the UK did vote ~67% in favor to stay in what would become the EU the first time around, for what it's worth) and for any major changes (such as dissolution of the whatever). You want to be fucking over as small amount of your population as you can, not, y'know, around half of it. Something more along the lines of the original referendum to stay would be nice, yeah?
S'like... c'mon, folks. Even florida needs 60% support for a constitutional amendment these days, and the scale of that is way smaller. Know this thing wasn't binding and it's basically a glorified poll, but people're calling something a political mandate that heat addled druggies would balk at, which is a little weird t'me living among heat addled druggies.
Who wants to be the man who tells all of those people their opinion doesn't matter, and that they need to think again and vote for the right option - the one they selected?Well, many (most?) of the major leave politicians did until a few days ago :P
Now they want to tell all those other people that their opinion doesn't matter, and they don't get the second (third, Nth) chance leave was intending to go for, of course.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 10:28:25 pm
Hey man, trying again was exactly what the leave campaign intended to do if they lost. Goose and gander et al. Kinda' hard to say it's fair to cry foul when you're on record saying you'd do the same thing.Oh what, Nigel Farage, head of the United Kingdom Independence Party, head of the Leave group which was not selected by the Electoral Commission to represent the Leave Campaign, whose sole career has been spent fighting to secure the United Kingdom's independence - promising to continue irregardless of result? Who'd have thought it?
Now would Nigel Farage have gotten that second referendum if he lost?
With one MP in Parliament, not representing the Leave Campaign, all high office in Parliament held by pro-EU MPs, Conservative leadership despising him - no. He'd have a chance on a 50/50 split, but a 50/50 split would be anyone's job.
Now a devolved Parliament and Westminster outright ignoring a decisive result in order to pursue their personal agenda? Look at this, Nigel Farage is not an MP, he holds no power - yet Remain has made such a big deal about his hypothetical pledge whilst trying to veto the referendum in actuality. And for the time being they have the power to do so, Scottish Nationalist Party maybe less so, but they're damn well going to try.
... also democratic politics is totally a game where you quickload over and over until the RNG gives you what you want. Continuing to push an agenda over a long period is... really basic stuff? Normal and necessary to a functioning democracy? So on and so forth. You don't poll once and then call it forever binding, heh. Plus revotes are a normal thing, yeah. Usually over more mechanical issues, but still. A second referendum, even in fairly short order, wouldn't exactly be some kind of trampling of democracy people seem to be trying to frame it as.It's hard not to frame trampling on democracy as anything but. You don't get to excuse ignoring the people just because it's your agenda you want to preserve, that democracy is a game of destroying your opponents until you get what you want.
Longer wait would be a better thing, make no doubt about that, but there's a lot of signs a longer wait would get nothing for anyone involved with this (and the EU itself has serious and entirely reasonable reasons a long wait is not something they want to see; it's got 27 other countries to worry about while the UK unfucks itself in one direction or the other). It's already looking a fair amount like article 50 just won't get invoked, and I could see the UK not really getting a second chance any time soon if they don't kick their politicians in the ass even harder. A second go, a more clear mandate that the public wants it, and some kind of legal guarantee that a leave win would mean an immediate A50 invocation instead of this dithering around bullshit, sounds like it'd be kinda' nice. Do it again and make that shit binding this time, with a clear period of time (or major event of some sort) before the next one's allowed.Why?
But yeeeaaah, as an american I'd definitely be supporting a supermajority for a decision like the UK's looking at. Simple majority's fine for electing people, 'cause they're only going to be there for a few years, but stuff that'll be on the books or have seriously long term and far reaching effects, you go for more consensus, both for the initial institution (and the UK did vote ~67% in favor to stay in what would become the EU the first time around, for what it's worth) and for any major changes (such as dissolution of the whatever). You want to be fucking over as small amount of your population as you can, not, y'know, around half of it. Something more along the lines of the original referendum to stay would be nice, yeah?We voted to stay in a free trade union, then it became a political union. Upon becoming a political union, we voted to leave it - that's what it's worth.
S'like... c'mon, folks. Even florida needs 60% support for a constitutional amendment these days, and the scale of that is way smaller. Know this thing wasn't binding and it's basically a glorified poll, but people're calling something a political mandate that heat addled druggies would balk at, which is a little weird t'me living among heat addled druggies.Already more excuses.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Well, many (most?) of the major leave politicians did until a few days ago :PCitation please Frump, when did Boris Johnson go on the record to say young people are naive and stupid, so we must have another referendum to get out of the EU if we lose? You're trying to make me forget that every poll was saying Remain would win, Remain was counting on a safe win, and it was only at 3AM on counting day did Remain realize they lost. All their talks were of making peace with Leave, not of more referendums - in their eyes, they had already won.
That is, until they lost. Then they began incessantly attacking Leave and demanding more referendums, or vetos, or votes in Parliament - anything which would guarantee the highest chance of success with the least amount of interference from normal people, to ensure the UK stays in the EU, and does not threaten their six figure career prospects.
Post by: Neonivek on June 28, 2016, 10:33:54 pm
Say... Deporting all Refuges and Immigrants (first and second generation) from undesirable countries. (and pretend it was legal, since I don't think the UK could do that if they tried, but I don't know)
If they had a referendum and got a 52% majority... They should still enact it. However vicious it would be.
---
The only reason a political power should not enact a democratically reached referendum that was fair and legal... is if something OUTSIDE the original situation demands it.
So if... the UK is falling into a outright depression for example...
But the UK is holding in there, there is no need to declare it a sinking ship just yet. The market hasn't even stabilized.
---
Democracy isn't about never making mistakes.
It is about having a system of government that is better then all others in spite of all the mistakes you will make along the way.
---
Now... How far I can stretch this belief... if say the UK wanted to enact a second holocaust or I dunno bomb all their banks... >_>
Luckily Brexit is FAR away from any of those things.
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on June 28, 2016, 10:39:00 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 10:39:59 pm
Ok lets just pretend this wasn't Brexit. Lets just pretend it was something mildly evil.Real subtle comparing Brexit WITH THE HOLOCAUST. You've already taken your stance on all else. Ffs.
*EDIT
Luckily Brexit is FAR away from any of those things.Oh, you edited this in. How great, that qualifies comparing migration control with racist elimination of undesirables, the bombing of banks, and the holocaust.
Post by: Neonivek on June 28, 2016, 10:41:19 pm
Ok lets just pretend this wasn't Brexit. Lets just pretend it was something mildly evil.Real subtle comparing Brexit WITH THE HOLOCAUST. You've already taken your stance on all else. Ffs.
My intent was to give an extreme example of this being an evil referendum.
That this STILL should be enacted.
Unless... Brexit really is deporting people O_O Nooo... that can't be true...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/15/three-million-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-could-be-deported-if-britons/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/15/three-million-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-could-be-deported-if-britons/)
No no no, don't believe you!
Oh, you edited this in. How great, that qualifies comparing migration control with racist elimination of undesirables, the bombing of banks, and the holocaust.
I do a lot of edits. Especially when I could be misunderstood (doesn't help)
AND I was writing in the Stay perspective. Not a neutral one :P
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 10:45:49 pm
My intent was to give an extreme example of this being an evil referendum.Oh yeah, sure. I'm just supposed to take your word for it that your comparisons were founded with innocent intentions, that your intent was just to portray Brexit as evil, literally Hitler, out of purely academic concern, because as we all know, nothing helps debate like painting everyone you don't like as Hitler.
That this STILL should be enacted.
Unless... Brexit really is deporting people O_O Nooo... that can't be true...TIL immigration control = holocaust
*EDIT
I do a lot of edits. Especially when I could be misunderstood (doesn't help)It is incredibly annoying replying to a post, only to submit it and find the post has changed in meaning.
AND I was writing in the Stay perspective. Not a neutral one :PDoes it look like I care about your neutrality to care about you comparing Brexit with the holocaust? Do you even understand why the original thread got locked? It's because of this, all discussion reduced to one side saying the other is composed of the vilest grime, not fit to coat hell's walls.
Post by: Neonivek on June 28, 2016, 10:47:29 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 10:51:43 pm
I am going to assert that no one thought I was comparing Brexit to the holocaust or economic suicide.And I'm going to disagree, because I am someone who saw you make a lot of assumptions about the laws and attitudes of my country and freaking compare it to bombing banks and committing mass genocide. What did men like this die for? (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7afb4c56-37ef-11e6-aa72-a53adb7df446) Ha, fuck their finest hour, they stood in the way of the Commission, that means they're genocidal nazis.
Post by: Neonivek on June 28, 2016, 11:09:41 pm
I am going to assert that no one thought I was comparing Brexit to the holocaust or economic suicide.And I'm going to disagree, because I am someone who saw you make a lot of assumptions about the laws and attitudes of my country and freaking compare it to bombing banks and committing mass genocide. What did men like this die for? (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7afb4c56-37ef-11e6-aa72-a53adb7df446) Ha, fuck their finest hour, they stood in the way of the Commission, that means they're genocidal nazis.
He didn't die for anything. He survived WW2
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 11:13:08 pm
Post by: Neonivek on June 28, 2016, 11:14:29 pm
Men like him did not, hundreds of thousands lost. It's no USSR, but it was much.
So they died to... vote for Brexit in WW2?
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 11:18:56 pm
So they died to... vote for Brexit in WW2?They didn't fight to be compared to the men they defeated, in death or legacy.
Post by: Neonivek on June 28, 2016, 11:24:00 pm
So they died to... vote for Brexit in WW2?They didn't fight to be compared to the men they defeated, in death or legacy.
I don't think you want to engage me on this battlefield. "Revisionist WW2" is one of my favorite topics. :P
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 11:28:04 pm
Post by: Neonivek on June 28, 2016, 11:37:14 pm
Captain Britain is going to die as a result of Brexit, or turn evil, or be replaced by a darker version of himself.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 28, 2016, 11:41:53 pm
Post by: Frumple on June 29, 2016, 12:03:48 am
Citation please Frump, when did Boris Johnson go on the record to say young people are naive and stupid, so we must have another referendum to get out of the EU if we lose?Credit to johnson, he actually did say the referendum would stick*... after apparently being in favor of cumming's (who seems to have been one of the major proponents for a second referendum strategy? Campaign director of Vote Leave? Hell if I really know, I'm catching up with all this mess) plan until pressed on it, though it seems like he was fairly quiet about it beforehand. Y'can look up the news and whatnot noting it yourself... I've got bugger all idea what you'd consider acceptable sources among UK media, and it's been a pain in the ass just to piece together that much with all the more recent news clogging everything up.
Said bugger all about naivety or whatever, though, just like you didn't in the post I quoted. Just that a fair few came out in support of a second referendum in the case of a loss, that there was indeed support from the leave campaign for saying the first was "wrong", just as there's support in the remain side now.
Quote
Already more excuses.You... do realize that graph kinda' undermines your point, right? Twice as often as they ran a second referendum, they accepted the anti-EU results, if those dots are anything approaching complete or accurate (it's kinda' hard to tell, but *shrugs*). And as far as I know, voters changing their mind a year or so later is... not exactly unusual, or some kind of sign of malice. S'really why you kinda' do stuff like that, because people do, and with major issues it's oft better to make sure they're not going to before settling on a decision, especially when there's not a major advantage to one choice or another (and you'll note with all of those, the eventual yes vote was a notably larger margin -- 57 vs 51, 63 vs 54, 67 vs 53... well, assuming the other rest of the 100% was nos, anyway. It'd be even worse if it was just yes vs yes instead of for/against EU, too.). That thing really kinda' looks like they were doing the right thing in those cases, if perhaps not in others -- that a second referendum actually was called for.Dealing with an entity that accepts referendums when they agree with them, and denies them when they don't, it is sickening.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
... actually, nice treaty, the second was on a changed amendment. Lisbon, yes vote came after renegotiations. Denmark's only came after exceptions were granted. So, uh. It wasn't the EU accepting referendums only after they agreed with it, or something like that. It was the second referendum being in the face of changed circumstances, generally addressing the population's concerns, and then said population changing their mind.
Quote
Why?... well, there's at least three different things why could be directed at in there, so the answer in order... the why to the longer wait is to let things shake out more, to have people be able to decide looking at longer term effects instead of the immediate fallout. The why it's looking like there's fair odds A50 isn't going to be invoked is because one of the apparent major components of the leave campaign was an immediate invocation, and instead we're seeing a great deal of feet dragging, backpeddling, and "woah, hold on now" responses from y'all's politicians (the latter of which is also why it's non-negligible that if something doesn't happen now, it won't for a while -- a lot of your politicians got a taste of what could be involved with the exit, and don't seem to like it). The why to making it binding and whatnot is to make sure it actually gets bloody done -- as noted, it's looking a fair bit like your politicians are going to try to brush the results off to one extent or another.
*E: Well, he said "Out is Out", at least. Didn't notice him explicitly saying there'd be no attempts at a second go if leave didn't manage it.
Post by: palsch on June 29, 2016, 12:25:57 am
The vote of no confidence was no more binding than the referendum, and only showed the views of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), excluding the 20 MEPs who weren't invited to my knowledge. It arguably makes his position untenable but doesn't end it.
However, a leadership election can be triggered if one or more MP gets the backing of at least 20% of the PLP. If ~51 Labour MPs/MEPs can rally behind a single candidate then there will be a leadership contest.
The problem is that Corbyn is seen as the easy favourite, as the two big lobbies are his Momentum group (~8,000 members but tens of thousands of supporters) and the unions, both of which still back him. He won without the PLP last time and could easily do it again, likely triggering a split in the Labour party or at least a number of defections.
There is conflicting legal advice over whether Corbyn can be kept from the ballot (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-legal-advice-automatically-on-ballot-leadership-challenge_uk_577003cfe4b0d2571149d42a). Essentially he doesn't believe he needs the 20% support and that as the current leader he should automatically be on the ballot. His opponents have advice saying he would need that 20% support, which looks unlikely given he only had 40 MPs backing him in the confidence motion and that number has decreased since. So there could be a court battle that decides whether Corbyn can face the challenge at all or is simply deposed by lawyers.
In that case I'd expect to see Corbyn and his core supporters jump party, although where they go depends on if they can count on union support or not. Expect to see a lot of meetings between his potential challengers and the big unions in the coming days.
Post by: Sheb on June 29, 2016, 01:23:21 am
Also, I don't really see the EU trying to punish the Brits. Sure, Juncker and Schultz have been loud, but they're also powerless in this case (And Juncker might be forced to resign for this). It's a Council matter, and so far, the answer seems to have been "Sure, you can leave, but we won't negotiate until we know for certain you're leaving. Sort yourself out, Britain", both from Tusk, Merkel, Ayrault and others. I don't see how you can call that "punishing" Britain.
And one more thing: given that BoJo did the classical Eton-Oxford-MP rigmarole, how is it you don't consider him an Oxbridge politician?
And I have one more question for Rolan7. In the other thread, you mentioned the fact that EU citizens have freedom of movement has an example that the leave campaign lied on Britain having control of its borders. Did the Leave campaign really made such a claim (about having control re:European citizens moving around)? I don't remember one, but that'd be a lie, yeah.
Post by: Sergarr on June 29, 2016, 02:25:33 am
But when else will I get the moment to call an entire nation (well, 52% of it) as "idiotic racist retards who shouldn't have been allowed to vote at all", and then call everyone who objects to my words as "xenophobic bumfuck nazis who're going to suffer economical destruction and total misery", all the while being cheered on by large masses of the "educated and highly cultured" Europeans?I am going to assert that no one thought I was comparing Brexit to the holocaust or economic suicide.And I'm going to disagree, because I am someone who saw you make a lot of assumptions about the laws and attitudes of my country and freaking compare it to bombing banks and committing mass genocide. What did men like this die for? (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7afb4c56-37ef-11e6-aa72-a53adb7df446) Ha, fuck their finest hour, they stood in the way of the Commission, that means they're genocidal nazis.
It's a unique once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, you see.
Post by: mainiac on June 29, 2016, 02:59:35 am
Yeah, sorry, democratic politics isn't a game where you get to quickload over and over until the RNG gives you the outcome you want.Hey man, trying again was exactly what the leave campaign intended to do if they lost. Goose and gander et al. Kinda' hard to say it's fair to cry foul when you're on record saying you'd do the same thing.
It's Democracy (TM) when my side wins. It's not Democracy (TM) when the other side wins.
You gotta feel sorry for the conservatives. When liberals lose a case on say, gay marriage, they know that they can just try again ten years down the line and probably win. If you have that wind at your back you dont need to be so obdurate in your outlook. The reversal of the California gay marriage law for instance was a huge disappointment but not the end of the world because... well we all knew that the reversal would get reversed in time.
Post by: Ultimuh on June 29, 2016, 03:41:23 am
I am a bit out of touch with current events.
Post by: palsch on June 29, 2016, 03:47:16 am
So did they actually get out of the EU, or did they crawl back apologizing?
I am a bit out of touch with current events.
The referendum was advisory only. The UK voted to leave, but now the government has to work out what to actually do. Currently that is run around on fire.
Post by: Sheb on June 29, 2016, 04:00:06 am
Edit: Nice hindsight in the power struggle going on in Brussels to know who's going to lead the negotiations. (http://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-power-struggle-over-brexit-negotiations/) I wonder if the pressure on Junckers to resign is part of this, making him understand that he has to accept a back seat if he wants to keep a seat at all.
Post by: scrdest on June 29, 2016, 04:27:09 am
Wouldn't supporting a second referendum be the more consistent belief here? If they truly do want it, all the result will prove is 'yep, Brexit o'clock'.
It sounds more like you believe it won't pan out the same way. But hey, vox populi, vox dei, isn't it?
Post by: Sergarr on June 29, 2016, 04:35:53 am
wew m8
Post by: Ultimuh on June 29, 2016, 05:16:56 am
Post by: SirQuiamus on June 29, 2016, 05:49:22 am
So did they actually get out of the EU, or did they crawl back apologizing?A quick recap of "current events:" The Remainers are intensely butthurt because they lost a fair and democratic referendum, and the Leavers are intensely butthurt because the Remainers are saying mean and nasty things about them. At this point the whole "debate" has devolved into a typical culture war conflict à la internet: all participants are crying like babies and flinging shit at the opposing side while the issue itself slips further into oblivion.
I am a bit out of touch with current events.
Good times. *grabs more popcorn*
Post by: mainiac on June 29, 2016, 05:58:07 am
Post by: Starver on June 29, 2016, 06:16:00 am
...Regardless, in the news:IRTA 'closet'...
Cameron: Europe wants closest links with the UK. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36656753) Perhaps he means they want to close links, not closer links?
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2016, 06:17:25 am
@LW if you're so confident that Brexit is 'what the people want'...
Wouldn't supporting a second referendum be the more consistent belief here? If they truly do want it, all the result will prove is 'yep, Brexit o'clock'.
It sounds more like you believe it won't pan out the same way. But hey, vox populi, vox dei, isn't it?
A second referendum would be like... say...
You have a patient who has a large spike through his torso that must be removed and you get his permission to yank it out (pretend that this situation you can do so).
So you lightly tug at it and everytime the pain sets in you go "Are you sure you want it out?" until he relents from the pain.
Leaving was going to cause mayhem and craziness. Another vote would just make a lot of leavers change their vote JUST because they are feeling the consequences.
At the same time, one could argue that, THAT is a perfectly legitimate reason to hold another referendum that it gives people a better idea of what was really at stake.
Post by: Radio Controlled on June 29, 2016, 06:22:42 am
Quote
Yeah, sorry, democratic politics isn't a game where you get to quickload over and over until the RNG gives you the outcome you want.True enough, but it also isn't supposed to be run on a list of lies both blatant and immediately backpedalled on, nor is it really supposed to be run by people so incompetent, nobody has an idea what to do. Not the ruling clowns or the clowns who literally got exactly what they wanted.
Next to that, like I said, it would be very explicit there would not be a revote if it's for leave, and clear guidelines to prevent neverendum.
Quote
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
But again, if you are sure that leave would win again because it is truly what the people want, a revote will confirm it, right? So then the UK could actually leave in a reasonable fashion, lessening the damage the UK will have to endure (uncertainty over what will actually happen is damaging on its own) and going about it with more competent leadership and an actual plan. It would also give the people in charge a chance to make it clear to whatever minority that's currently actively harassing people that, no, a leave vote is not about giving you popular mandate to be racist pricks.
Quote
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And in the event of a revote, the rules can be made clear and irrevocable, anyone breaking them gets sued their pants of. I'm assuming that, at least, separation of powers is still a thing and the entire legal body hasn't been compromised?
Small question, when the remain campaign broke the law, did the leave campaign sue them? Honestly don't know. If yes, what came of that, if not, why not?
Quote
Good thing this vote was had, so what other people see as best for the British does not override what the British want.Sure, if it's what they want, it's what they should get regardless of what others think. But I am allowed to have an opinion on the matter, right? I am expressing why I think it could be a good idea, but apart from that I don't have an influence on what'll happen. It's not like I'm commanding anyone what they have to do, I have zero power here, just why I think they should consider it.
Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here, in which case, care to explain?
Quote
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
That's not what I have been seeing, in my environment at least. I've seen sympathy for the common Brits, even though I've hardly seen anyone think it was actually a good idea. Then again, echo chambers and all that.
As for the EU 'punishing', I think it's more that they're determined to drive a hard bargain and also try to get the outcome that they see as most beneficial for the countries and people of the EU. And not giving in on fundamental values they say they support, such as no access to the common market without free travel of people and having to abide by EU regulations.
Finally, I think that the EU, flawed as it is, does give tangible benefits above the purely economic partnership it started as. But, y'know, that's just me.
Quote
The last part of your post, I find agreeable, bar the notion of more referendums of course.Glad to see we found some common ground. But isn't it kinda useless to say that a referendum should be run competently after the previous one was run badly, and a new one being run better and fairer is not on the table?
Another option I've seen would be to call for a new general election. Automatically, leaving or remaining would be the major issue, so that could be another way to see how to go forward with clarity and an actual plan.
Post by: mainiac on June 29, 2016, 06:23:05 am
Post by: Leafsnail on June 29, 2016, 06:25:46 am
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2016, 06:27:29 am
A similar scenario would be when the USA wanted to enact gun regulations. Who did the news show? The Crazy people.
With a bonus of having a "KKK Support Effect" with the Leaver Racists coming out and basically going "Yes, this was about racism."
---
I've cooled and know the leavers aren't racists (give me a break! I just found out about the whole situation a few days ago!) Though ohh boy do they need a better PR firm.
Come on UK isn't your media OWNED by Rupert Murdock?
Post by: Dorsidwarf on June 29, 2016, 06:32:30 am
The EU is just maneuvering, like all political blocs, into a position most beneficial for its members. Which just so happens to not include the UK after the next couple of years.
Post by: Starver on June 29, 2016, 06:32:46 am
Also I am making a prediction...(Loud Whispers replies: Who?)
Captain Britain is going to die as a result of Brexit, or turn evil, or be replaced by a darker version of himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Britain
And I've seen it suggested that the SNP could field (directly, or by an alternate 'umbrella' brand) candidates outside of Scotland, to oppose all Eurosceptics of all parties...
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2016, 06:40:24 am
---
Hmm doing actual research... Yeah the UK had a severe problem with racists before this whole Brexit thing.
Post by: Sheb on June 29, 2016, 06:45:21 am
Post by: mainiac on June 29, 2016, 06:46:18 am
Everywhere has problem with racists.
Not your mom's bedroom.
(If this gets me banned I have ZERO regrets)
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2016, 06:50:30 am
Everywhere has problem with racists.
No, I mean it has big problems with it and that it was getting worse over time since early 2000s apparently. (though seeing how they gathered such a statistic, it can be debated... though apparently not?). With a few race riots here and there (not that many. Like 10 in the past 100 years)
It is one of the major issues facing the UK and IMO unlikely to quiet down until ISIS is gone.
It is actually pretty interesting.
---
And to be fair to the UK, so it doesn't seem like I am picking on them for having problems. Canada has had Race Riots as well.
Then again... Canada has only really attempted to develop its "We are a nation of immigrants" philosophy post WW2. Before that "White Canada Forever" was... yeah... History isn't kind to Canada's current political climate.
Post by: Frumple on June 29, 2016, 07:13:58 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 29, 2016, 08:31:56 am
Cameron to Corbyn: "For heaven's sake man, go." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36663181)
Shit is getting saaaaaaaaaaaaad
Post by: scriver on June 29, 2016, 08:45:54 am
I think people crying that the UK is being "punished" by the EU for brexit are entirely too full of themselves.
The EU is just maneuvering, like all political blocs, into a position most beneficial for its members. Which just so happens to not include the UK after the next couple of years.
For a lot of countries who do trade with the UK the most advantageous position would be one that where their economy isn't in shatters.
"We are a nation of immigrants" philosophypost WW2after all natives were genocided.
I borked a bork.
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2016, 08:49:08 am
"We are a nation of immigrants" philosophypost WW2after all natives were genocided.
I borked a bork.
To my knowledge this was mostly the US who did this.
---
Suffice it to say... Brexit sure has a lot of action. It seems like everyday so far something interesting happens.
Honestly the UK Elections are going to be especially interesting.
Post by: Grim Portent on June 29, 2016, 11:43:19 am
So the Australian republican movement has decided to poke it's head up again and press for another Aussie referendum on leaving the Commonwealth. They last had a referendum on the matter in 1999.
Post by: Sonlirain on June 29, 2016, 12:03:56 pm
For a lot of countries who do trade with the UK the most advantageous position would be one that where their economy isn't in shatters.Well the kicker here is that individually the countries the EU consists of don't trade all that much with UK while the UK trades quite a bit with the EU as a whole and losing ~10% of your trade is not nearly as dramatic as losing 47%.
Post by: Frumple on June 29, 2016, 04:01:56 pm
Post by: Frumple on June 29, 2016, 04:14:33 pm
... theLike. The word does have a meaning, but it's not one that just stands on its own?pointultimatum in this case being? I could take a few guesses at what you're trying to think, but it's probably better to just ask.
Post by: mainiac on June 29, 2016, 04:18:20 pm
Also it kind of ties directly into the US's election, seeing as not only are the positions similar, but so are the campaign strategies. Including similar missteps by Clinton, arguing against the "danger" of a Trump presidency rather than what she would do to listen to those who currently struggle.
Clinton was just at a high profile rally with Elizabeth Warren. They talked about manufacturing, climate change, the minimum wage, equal pay, banking reform, taxes and Donald Trump.
Guess which of these subjects got the headline?
Post by: mainiac on June 29, 2016, 04:24:58 pm
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2016, 04:26:32 pm
The media is a bit worse then usual. But it really doesn't help that policy speeches dont sell fishwrappers. If the positions were controversial maybe there would be some jazz.
It is just weird watching the presidential election's media coverage since it looks like a parody...
They are better at commentating wrestling then actual wrestling shows. Too bad this is a presidential debate... AND THEN TRUMP HIT CLINTON WITH A BODYSLAM!
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2016, 04:32:41 pm
Besides, right now everything's way too early to make any calls one way or another. There's just some lessons to be learned from Brexit, is all.
Once the shock wears off people will calm down and HOPEFULLY won't be tearing eachother's throats out.
Or they can do the true British thing and seethe with a secret undercurrent of rage... Possibly forming a new party.
Goodness I HOPE what I said was a joke... But weirder stuff has happened.
Post by: Frumple on June 29, 2016, 04:44:54 pm
Oh, uh... "Let us feel like we have an actual say in our government or we'll burn this whole place down".Well, can understand that sentiment, at least. Can't figure out a way to say anything else that's not fairly hostile (there's, y'know, ways to get the former that doesn't involve fucking everyone*), but I understand it.
*Step one for the UK would have been to stop electing the shitheels that were shafting them and blaming it on Brussels, ferex.
Post by: Max™ on June 29, 2016, 05:00:37 pm
"We are a nation of immigrants" philosophypost WW2after all natives were genocided.
I borked a bork.
To my knowledge this was mostly the US who did this.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Baffler on June 29, 2016, 05:31:02 pm
Post by: Max™ on June 29, 2016, 05:51:59 pm
Don't think we ever did.
That's all off topic though.
Post by: mainiac on June 29, 2016, 05:54:01 pm
Post by: Frumple on June 29, 2016, 10:46:12 pm
Quote
Does the government accept that there are about 3 million EU nationals living at present in the United Kingdom, but there are also 1.2 million British people living in the European Union? So when present tensions have calmed down why would either Brussels or London want to do anything to upset this mutually benefical situation? Does the government agree however that if the EU were to get difficult with our nationals living there it is we who hold the stronger hand if we retaliate because so many more of them are living here?Well, I guess if there was ever question that some of UKIP is actively intent on destroying the UK, there isn't anymore.
How. How does someone consider straight up suicide to be a stronger hand?
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2016, 11:02:55 pm
Post by: Frumple on June 29, 2016, 11:13:41 pm
Or in other words, straight up declare war on the EU and probably most of the rest of the developed world. The brain dead thing apparently thinks the UK would be the one holding the advantage there.
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2016, 11:15:30 pm
Critter's saying that if the EU starts playing hardball with the UK nationals in the EU, the UK would be in the stronger position if they hold the EU citizens in the UK hostage/retaliate against said civilians.
Or in other words, straight up declare war on the EU and probably most of the rest of the developed world. The brain dead thing apparently thinks the UK would be the one holding the advantage there.
Well... that is... evil.
Post by: sneakey pete on June 29, 2016, 11:16:58 pm
And something like extra taxes happens all the time, not going to be declaring war on anyone.
Post by: Neonivek on June 29, 2016, 11:19:05 pm
I think it means more do stuff like extra taxes or something along those lines, not straight up hostage taking.
And something like extra taxes happens all the time, not going to be declaring war on anyone.
Not a literal war... But "We will make life difficult for all UN nationalists in our country for no other reason then as a threat" is malicious.
I swear if the UK adopts this I will have NO sympathy for whatever the EU decides to do. Luckily I don't think that is gonna happen, it would be silly.
Post by: RedKing on June 29, 2016, 11:25:35 pm
Scottish Parliament votes 92 to 0 to give Scot Govt a mandate to do all it can to keep Scotland in the EU. (https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/747834473245454336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
wew m8
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: mainiac on June 29, 2016, 11:38:18 pm
I think it means more do stuff like extra taxes or something along those lines, not straight up hostage taking.
And something like extra taxes happens all the time, not going to be declaring war on anyone.
This is literally the exact way that England lost the 13 colonies. It pissed people off so much that it was one of the few civil rights that made it into the main body of the constitution instead of being contained in the bill of rights. Just start doing post-facto bills of attainder to punish anyone you dont like. Marvel at how quickly Scotland can be independent and Ireland can be unified.
Post by: evilcherry on June 30, 2016, 12:21:53 am
I think it means more do stuff like extra taxes or something along those lines, not straight up hostage taking.At this stage its EU which wanted UK out, They might be a net contributor but its a direct consequence of their existence in the common market.
And something like extra taxes happens all the time, not going to be declaring war on anyone.
I would even say that Germany will now actually working towards driving UK out of the common market so they can move London to Frankfurt.
Post by: Zangi on June 30, 2016, 12:34:12 am
Its called retaliation, if the EU does it to the UK citizens in the EU first. Its not saying the UK will be the first to shit on EU citizens, but rather saying that UK could do the same if it comes to it.Critter's saying that if the EU starts playing hardball with the UK nationals in the EU, the UK would be in the stronger position if they hold the EU citizens in the UK hostage/retaliate against said civilians.
Or in other words, straight up declare war on the EU and probably most of the rest of the developed world. The brain dead thing apparently thinks the UK would be the one holding the advantage there.
Well... that is... evil.
Unless you are saying that the EU is in the wrong for doing it first, then its fine.
(Didn't watch video, just from what is said in quote.))
This whole shenanigan seems pretty salty.
Post by: Neonivek on June 30, 2016, 01:02:03 am
the UK is moving out of the house and goes to the UE and goes "I am leaving and taking all my stuff with me! I have a better house where I am king!"
So the UE goes: "Fine, get out!"
And the UK goes: "What? aren't you going to cook me dinner first?"
UE: "You're already leaving, why do I have to cook you dinner?"
UK then goes: "Because your daughter is also living with me... and if you don't cook me dinner I'll raise her rent. Ohh and I'll need some meals for my new house too"
Well ok the UK isn't saying that... Critter is.
Post by: palsch on June 30, 2016, 01:22:24 am
Pretty much all politicians have declared they can remain if they are already here, and it is even questionable under international law if they can be kicked out. In principle revoking a treaty doesn't remove the residency rights someone gained under that treaty.
That probably won't make some of the 'we voted leave, now get out' crowd happy, but it is what it is.
The problems are more to do with healthcare and pensions. A huge swathe of the British expatiates in Spain and France are retired and so depend heavily on the deals that were struck through the EU. In particular those who retire to countries within the common market see their pensions pegged to local inflation/wage increases. Outside the common market your pension is frozen at the level it was when you retired. Combine that with the possibility of nations choosing to charge healthcare costs out of pocket rather than through the NHS payment schemes set up and you could see a lot of pensioners with growing costs and shrinking (in real terms) income.
The only realistic retaliation in that scenario would be denying EU nationals in the UK benefits or access to the NHS, which could be tricky to justify legally if they are tax payers.
Post by: Zangi on June 30, 2016, 01:24:27 am
Critter's saying that if the EU starts playing hardball with the UK nationals in the EU, the UK would be in the stronger position if they hold the EU citizens in the UK hostage/retaliate against said civilians.Let me try again.
That there highlight is pretty significant. Its not a one lane road to hell.
Post by: Owlbread on June 30, 2016, 02:00:39 am
Scottish Parliament votes 92 to 0 to give Scot Govt a mandate to do all it can to keep Scotland in the EU. (https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/747834473245454336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
wew m8
I believe the Tories abstained.
There's quite a hubbub at the moment about Mariano Rajoy's emphatic denouncement of the idea of Scotland negotiating with the EU - saying that we're a part of the UK and we should be treated as such. Francois Hollande is saying the same thing. Juncker on the other hand is saying "Scotland has won the right to be listened to" or something.
I am not surprised that the Usual Suspects are coming out in force to discourage treating Scotland like a country in any way, but I am not so sure Unionists should be celebrating these snubbings as they are. To be told "You can't get negotiate unless you're independent" kills their hopes of staying in the EU as a part of the UK, like a reverse-Denmark/Greenland scenario. I have also read that claims of a potential Spanish veto on Scottish EU membership would kill Spain's arguments against Catalan sovereignty; they argue the issue is purely constitutional, because under Spanish law a province can only become independent if all regions vote on it, hence their support of the Serbian position in Kosovo.
If however they attempted to block Scottish membership of the EU in a situation where we have constitutionally become independent i.e. through democratic referendum, they will show that they are actually not constitutionalists, rather they are opposed to national self determination and then the Catalans can take their challenge to an international court.
Post by: palsch on June 30, 2016, 04:25:29 am
There are still wildcards there, but this seems a plausible path to me. Not a nice one, but plausible.
Post by: Azkanan on June 30, 2016, 05:54:33 am
Post by: palsch on June 30, 2016, 06:01:30 am
Now it looks like Gove vs May vs Crab.
Post by: Azkanan on June 30, 2016, 06:08:21 am
BoJo not running for Conservative leader/Prime Minister.
Oh no. I was really looking forward to the political cartoons of Boris VS
Post by: Frumple on June 30, 2016, 06:12:04 am
D... do I really have to explain why trying to play chicken with three million lives against an entity that's roughly ten times your size in population and near that in gdp is a bad idea? How that body of civilians would not be something that puts them in a stronger position, but a yoke around their neck the UK would have to handle with kids gloves or be driven into the ground by likely considerably more than just the EU?Critter's saying that if the EU starts playing hardball with the UK nationals in the EU, the UK would be in the stronger position if they hold the EU citizens in the UK hostage/retaliate against said civilians.Let me try again.
That there highlight is pretty significant. Its not a one lane road to hell.
The problem is not just that it's a morally repugnant suggestion. It's also that it would so massively, incredibly stupid that it's somewhat amazing the person that made it is not literally clinically brain dead, somehow managing to unintentionally spasm in such a way to produce the sounds we heard. Those are not the words of someone describing a two way road to hell. Those are the words of someone whose ability to consider political repercussions could be accurately described as, completely non-metaphorically, suicidal.
E: Credit to the... house of lords, I think? That this was one guy and he was basically booed off stage. Probably shouldn't downplay it, that colossal dumbfuck was more or less singular, and probably shouldn't be a indictment against the rest of the UK body political (well, except maybe against UKIP both for letting the critter talk and having 'em be one of their representatives to begin with). But holy bloody hell.
Post by: mainiac on June 30, 2016, 07:33:25 am
Post by: Neonivek on June 30, 2016, 07:34:48 am
They got into this situation by blaming the EU and exaggerating what Britain is capable of. I imagine they will stick with that strategy if it comes to hardball.
Yes but the EU's proper response to this... Would be to go from "No, get yourself together then we will talk, you won't weasel past us" to "We will crush you so hard you will beg us to stop"
At least in my mind that is the case. Threatening to harass helpless citizens unless we bend over backwards for you? How about some trade embargos buddy! (ok that is a bit extreme)
Post by: evilcherry on June 30, 2016, 07:42:12 am
If an international court can solve these problems China and Russia would have disintegrated long ago.Scottish Parliament votes 92 to 0 to give Scot Govt a mandate to do all it can to keep Scotland in the EU. (https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/747834473245454336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
wew m8
I believe the Tories abstained.
There's quite a hubbub at the moment about Mariano Rajoy's emphatic denouncement of the idea of Scotland negotiating with the EU - saying that we're a part of the UK and we should be treated as such. Francois Hollande is saying the same thing. Juncker on the other hand is saying "Scotland has won the right to be listened to" or something.
I am not surprised that the Usual Suspects are coming out in force to discourage treating Scotland like a country in any way, but I am not so sure Unionists should be celebrating these snubbings as they are. To be told "You can't get negotiate unless you're independent" kills their hopes of staying in the EU as a part of the UK, like a reverse-Denmark/Greenland scenario. I have also read that claims of a potential Spanish veto on Scottish EU membership would kill Spain's arguments against Catalan sovereignty; they argue the issue is purely constitutional, because under Spanish law a province can only become independent if all regions vote on it, hence their support of the Serbian position in Kosovo.
If however they attempted to block Scottish membership of the EU in a situation where we have constitutionally become independent i.e. through democratic referendum, they will show that they are actually not constitutionalists, rather they are opposed to national self determination and then the Catalans can take their challenge to an international court.
The Spaniards wanted to make the worst example out of the Scots and Llanitos mainly to hound Catalans and Basques (and to a lesser extent Galicians and Valencians) back into their position.
Post by: palsch on June 30, 2016, 07:53:25 am
Oh no. I was really looking forward to the political cartoons of Boris VSStalinPutin.
We should get some good ones out of Gove stabbing him in the back.
For those not following the minutiae of the Tory leadership kerfuffle, Gove originally backed Boris and there were rumours he would be his chancellor. Then Boris fucked up badly a couple of times. He first managed to publish his vision for exit that included retaining the freedom of movement and had to completely denounce his own article. He then was supposed to meet with Remain MPs and abandoned the meeting 15 minutes before it started. Somewhere along the line he is also rumoured to have refused to promise Gove a job.
Meanwhile Rupert Murdoch said he would quite like to see Gove as the leader, despite Gove having ruled himself out of the running. For his part Gove had remained mostly silent since the referendum.
So last night an email from Gove's wife was leaked warning that Boris would a terrible leader. Gove's wife, by the by, is Sarah Vine who writes for the Daily Mail. The email raised doubts about the support Boris would have (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/michael-goves-wife-doubts-boris-johnson-email-sarah-vine-dacre-murdoch) and his capability as leader.
Meanwhile polls showed that May was trouncing Johnson among the Conservative membership, while having retained a rather strong position by staying mostly out of the debate. She is viewed as a natural Leaver who stayed loyal to the government by backing Remain, but quietly. She is also viewed as a potentially strong leadership figure, if not the second coming of the Iron Lady herself. She had started her campaign by ripping Boris to shards over his negotiating abilities and the time she overruled him over the use of water cannons in London. (https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/748441206590304256)
Then today Gove announces only hours before the deadline and Boris ends up pulling out of the race only minutes before it begins. He was quickly backed by a number of senior figures, including Nicky Morgan. According to one leaked text message (https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/748435615163756544), Boris's camp think this was a planned coup from Gove's side from the very beginning, so it may be that Gove no longer gets the support of the united Leave campaign.
The stories that should come out of this are going to put most political farces to shame.
EDIT: And it gets better. (https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/748494254188658688)
Quote
I'm told Boris' widely criticised @Telegraph column - was SUB EDITED by Michael Gove who suggested changes - and Boris put them in
Post by: Frumple on June 30, 2016, 08:10:31 am
Post by: palsch on June 30, 2016, 08:20:48 am
I swear this whole thing is like the incarnation of a katamari clusterfuck. Everything just keeps rolling into a larger tangle of snafus.
I think we are way past the point of satire being dead. (https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/748502331713589248)
EDIT: Waaaaay past. (http://labourlist.org/2016/06/liveblog-shadow-cabinet-resignations/)
Quote
11.55 Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth has left the anti-Semitism event in tears after an audience member has accused of of “colluding” with The Daily Telegraph to undermine Corbyn.
Post by: Neonivek on June 30, 2016, 08:29:05 am
Post by: palsch on June 30, 2016, 08:29:53 am
I think we are way past the point of satire being dead. (https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/748502331713589248)
Now denied. (https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/748503725245927424)
Post by: Neonivek on June 30, 2016, 08:52:00 am
What next? A Sports Riot? A party meltdown? A bank bailout?
The Trump campaign was a car pileup that made me sad as I watched because of the implications.
Brexit on the other hand has full license to be hilarious.
Post by: palsch on June 30, 2016, 08:58:52 am
Today's anti-Semitism meeting was called weeks ago, after a number of statements eventually resulted in ex-London mayor Ken Livingstone being suspended for making stupid comparisons to Hitler. It just happened to fall on the worst possible day for Corbyn, whose hard-left group is commonly seen as susceptible to anti-Semitic conspiracies and views.
There is also the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war due to be published next week, which is likely to further inflame tensions between the Blairites and the anti-war left. That was always going to be a shitshow. Now it is just going to be piling more on to the ongoing.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 30, 2016, 10:22:02 am
Scottish Parliament votes 92 to 0 to give Scot Govt a mandate to do all it can to keep Scotland in the EU. (https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/747834473245454336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
wew m8
I believe the Tories abstained.
There's quite a hubbub at the moment about Mariano Rajoy's emphatic denouncement of the idea of Scotland negotiating with the EU - saying that we're a part of the UK and we should be treated as such. Francois Hollande is saying the same thing. Juncker on the other hand is saying "Scotland has won the right to be listened to" or something.
I am not surprised that the Usual Suspects are coming out in force to discourage treating Scotland like a country in any way, but I am not so sure Unionists should be celebrating these snubbings as they are. To be told "You can't get negotiate unless you're independent" kills their hopes of staying in the EU as a part of the UK, like a reverse-Denmark/Greenland scenario. I have also read that claims of a potential Spanish veto on Scottish EU membership would kill Spain's arguments against Catalan sovereignty; they argue the issue is purely constitutional, because under Spanish law a province can only become independent if all regions vote on it, hence their support of the Serbian position in Kosovo.
If however they attempted to block Scottish membership of the EU in a situation where we have constitutionally become independent i.e. through democratic referendum, they will show that they are actually not constitutionalists, rather they are opposed to national self determination and then the Catalans can take their challenge to an international court.
No. Spanish law does not recognize any territorial independence whatsoever, and a surprisingly large chunk of the population subscribe to this philosophy. Stating that countries such as Canada or the UK have done binding independence referendums without breaking up, and, indeed, managing to let steam off social tensions in the process, will only get you scoffed at.
I used to think that most people werent like that, but then I was sorely disappointed in the last 15 years
Post by: Helgoland on June 30, 2016, 03:13:23 pm
Post by: Azkanan on June 30, 2016, 04:20:31 pm
I thought Gove had played the entire thing to his benefit.
Post by: Starver on June 30, 2016, 04:30:25 pm
Here's me thinking that Boris Johnson was a good head for the government...There's not so many occupied spikes, these days, so at the very least there'd be room on one for his head, and probably also room on another for his johnson...
:P
Post by: Frumple on June 30, 2016, 04:33:43 pm
Post by: Azkanan on June 30, 2016, 04:36:44 pm
If there's anything I've took away from watching this stuff, it's that the only good candidate for a head of government that the UK seems to have right now appears to be Sturgeon. And there's some obvious problems with that option :V
Strangely, you're right. Complete outside idea, but not only is she a humane politician, she's strong-willed, no-nonsense and would keep Scotland in the UK.
Meanwhile, stranger dangers are arising in meltdown-country labour and the tory leaders are cropping up and dropping down like waves in a pool party.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 30, 2016, 05:11:20 pm
Possibly. The "historicity" card is oft played by nationalisms both centrifuge and centripete.Scottish Parliament votes 92 to 0 to give Scot Govt a mandate to do all it can to keep Scotland in the EU. (https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/747834473245454336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
wew m8
I believe the Tories abstained.
There's quite a hubbub at the moment about Mariano Rajoy's emphatic denouncement of the idea of Scotland negotiating with the EU - saying that we're a part of the UK and we should be treated as such. Francois Hollande is saying the same thing. Juncker on the other hand is saying "Scotland has won the right to be listened to" or something.
I am not surprised that the Usual Suspects are coming out in force to discourage treating Scotland like a country in any way, but I am not so sure Unionists should be celebrating these snubbings as they are. To be told "You can't get negotiate unless you're independent" kills their hopes of staying in the EU as a part of the UK, like a reverse-Denmark/Greenland scenario. I have also read that claims of a potential Spanish veto on Scottish EU membership would kill Spain's arguments against Catalan sovereignty; they argue the issue is purely constitutional, because under Spanish law a province can only become independent if all regions vote on it, hence their support of the Serbian position in Kosovo.
If however they attempted to block Scottish membership of the EU in a situation where we have constitutionally become independent i.e. through democratic referendum, they will show that they are actually not constitutionalists, rather they are opposed to national self determination and then the Catalans can take their challenge to an international court.
No. Spanish law does not recognize any territorial independence whatsoever, and a surprisingly large chunk of the population subscribe to this philosophy. Stating that countries such as Canada or the UK have done binding independence referendums without breaking up, and, indeed, managing to let steam off social tensions in the process, will only get you scoffed at.
I used to think that most people werent like that, but then I was sorely disappointed in the last 15 years
Wasn't there a Spanish forumgoer here before who argued that because the Catalans never had their own sovereign state in the first place, they get no right to have one now? It isn't the only time I've heard that argument, and it makes no sense to me.
But as far as the law is concerned the matter is much simpler: the Spanish constitution has no provision about regional secession, has a specific provission about being "indivisible" in article II, and with both major traditional political parties (the conservative PP and the "centre-left" PSOE) holding a majority in both chambers its unlikely to get amended. Not only because of the party line, but because making noise about secessionist movements in Spain is one of their most useful tools for mobilizing their bumpkin voter base.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on June 30, 2016, 05:32:58 pm
Post by: Max™ on June 30, 2016, 05:41:24 pm
Post by: Baffler on June 30, 2016, 05:45:59 pm
I think that in the long, long run Brexit is actually a pretty terrible idea. An increasingly integrated Europe is a good thing, is it not? Nobody is looking to erase anyone's cultural identity, and this is a huge setback on a global scale. I don't understand why so many people are nationalistic. As an American I wouldn't care if I lived in a United States of the Western Hemisphere.
You'll note that the EU turns a blind eye toward France's ridiculous cultural exception stuff and their suppression of Basque, Breton, and Occitan cultural identity.
Post by: mainiac on June 30, 2016, 05:47:31 pm
Nobody is looking to erase anyone's cultural identity
Well leftists are generally okay with the idea that a nation can have many different cultures that take aspects from each other but aren't homogeneous. So they are fine with ideas like Muslims moving to western and northern European countries.
Some people dont seem to think such coexistence is practical.
Post by: nenjin on June 30, 2016, 06:02:04 pm
I think that in the long, long run Brexit is actually a pretty terrible idea. An increasingly integrated Europe is a good thing, is it not? Nobody is looking to erase anyone's cultural identity, and this is a huge setback on a global scale. I don't understand why so many people are nationalistic. As an American I wouldn't care if I lived in a United States of the Western Hemisphere.
You'll note that the EU turns a blind eye toward France's ridiculous cultural exception stuff and their suppression of Basque, Breton, and Occitan cultural identity.
Just curious how you believe France suppresses Basque identity. I was in France last year for a couple of weeks. Toulouse has street signs in Basque, still. I heard people speaking Basque. Now, maybe those are pretty weak allowances for culture, but, what other examples do you know of? Seems like a good way to NOT suppress a culture is to let their language flourish on your streets. For reference I was in Spain as well around the same time, and it was certainly Basque-y-er but not so much that a stupid American like me could tell. If anything, I saw less mixing of cultures in Spain and Basque areas than I did in France.
Post by: Baffler on June 30, 2016, 07:24:21 pm
Post by: mainiac on June 30, 2016, 08:14:01 pm
But the point is that France has the same kind of love hate relationship with local cultures that you will see everywhere. The really big wave of trying to stamp out the local cultures was in the early 19th century and a generation later you see cultural pushback with novels like Les Mis and realist art like The Gleaners (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Millet_-_Gleaners_-_Google_Art_Project_2.jpg/1280px-Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Millet_-_Gleaners_-_Google_Art_Project_2.jpg) venerating the provincial culture. For the people of that generation these were works expressing cultural frustration against the establishment like Pink Houses (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOfkpu6749w) or Born in the USA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPhWR4d3FJQ).
I imagine that North Korea is the only nation in history not to be torn between nationalism and diversity.
Post by: DG on June 30, 2016, 10:08:35 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-01/dal-santo-brexit-was-about-making-politics-democratic-again/7559954
Post by: Neonivek on June 30, 2016, 10:12:26 pm
If you're wondering "why else if not racism?" for Leave votes, this article article gives some ideas and examples:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-01/dal-santo-brexit-was-about-making-politics-democratic-again/7559954
Well it does bring up many other movements which were labled racist even though the major reasons for the event weren't such as *Redacted because like HECK I am going to have people crawl up my throat for not believing in revisionist history*
But I'll put it this way
If the Leavers win: It was a victory for Democrasy and a triumph over tyranny.
If the Stays win: It was a triumph over racism, xenophobia, and ethnocentrism.
That is just how history works :P
Post by: mainiac on June 30, 2016, 10:15:41 pm
If you're wondering "why else if not racism?" for Leave votes, this article article gives some ideas and examples:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-01/dal-santo-brexit-was-about-making-politics-democratic-again/7559954
Okay, let's do a some questions to test this theory:
Did pro-Brexit voters strongly correlate with pro-electoral reform voters?
Since the leave vote passed, has the UKIP campaign introduced any legislation to do a thing about the fucking fishing rights? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYMD_W_r3Fg)
The only VAT policy that UKIP wants to remove is making tampons exempt from the VAT. Which evil law by the EU forces the British government to have a VAT on tampons?
Post by: Neonivek on June 30, 2016, 10:21:50 pm
That and it is the principal of the thing. Sure the UK are being told to do what they are already going to do. But they don't want to be told what to do.
Post by: mainiac on June 30, 2016, 10:26:23 pm
And the VAT thing. You want to lower the VAT? The only mention I can see is removing it for tampons. Which law says you couldn't have done that. Which evil politician. Who is this revolution against?
Post by: TheBiggerFish on June 30, 2016, 11:22:17 pm
Post by: Frumple on June 30, 2016, 11:29:26 pm
Was actually kinda' neat, in a vaguely appalling way, to find out that a huge chunk of the UK euroskeptic movement got its initial impetus straight from the guy's "reporting" -- scare quotes 'cause much of it was apparently grossly exaggerated or outright fabricated, ahaha. Got away with it, too, and spawned what amounted to a whole generation or two of the exact same sort of thing. Learning about that cut out a lot of my initial confusion on why the UK attitude towards the EU was what it was, actually. 20+ years of a dedicated and incredibly wide spread media smear campaign that isn't beholding itself to silly things like facts, truth, or basic reality can do that...
... also kinda' weird to find out one of the UK's major politicians literally spent a good chunk of his pre-politics career as a yellow journalist, of all things, and just about the worst kind of one t'boot. That'd be setting off all kinds of warning bells in my head, personally, but I guess it was okay for a lot of the UK's population.
Post by: palsch on July 01, 2016, 12:10:35 am
The only VAT policy that UKIP wants to remove is making tampons exempt from the VAT. Which evil law by the EU forces the British government to have a VAT on tampons?
This is actually a thing.
The EU sets a floor rate of VAT of 15% on all goods and services except for a list of exemptions. These exemptions were grandfathered in in 1991, so products that have always had a reduced/zero VAT rate can maintain it, but you can't drop it on anything else below 15%.
Note that there are proposals in Brussels to relax this, either by granting greater general flexibility of VAT rates as a whole or by regular revision of the list of VAT exemptions.
Also note that the UK VAT rate is 20% outside exemptions, so there is room to drop it at least 5% on any goods they choose.
Post by: mainiac on July 01, 2016, 12:13:06 am
Post by: Max™ on July 01, 2016, 12:15:20 am
Post by: mainiac on July 01, 2016, 12:16:22 am
"Max(TM) quadrupled, they do exist!"
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 01, 2016, 12:16:54 am
I think that in the long, long run Brexit is actually a pretty terrible idea. An increasingly integrated Europe is a good thing, is it not? Nobody is looking to erase anyone's cultural identity, and this is a huge setback on a global scale. I don't understand why so many people are nationalistic. As an American I wouldn't care if I lived in a United States of the Western Hemisphere.
You'll note that the EU turns a blind eye toward France's ridiculous cultural exception stuff and their suppression of Basque, Breton, and Occitan cultural identity.
Just curious how you believe France suppresses Basque identity. I was in France last year for a couple of weeks. Toulouse has street signs in Basque, still. I heard people speaking Basque. Now, maybe those are pretty weak allowances for culture, but, what other examples do you know of? Seems like a good way to NOT suppress a culture is to let their language flourish on your streets. For reference I was in Spain as well around the same time, and it was certainly Basque-y-er but not so much that a stupid American like me could tell. If anything, I saw less mixing of cultures in Spain and Basque areas than I did in France.
In the last 40 years Spain has definitedly been more tolerant of basque cultural identity than France (if only because the latter is much more centralized). Previous to that not so much, for obvious reasons
Post by: scriver on July 01, 2016, 12:47:39 am
I think that in the long, long run Brexit is actually a pretty terrible idea. An increasingly integrated Europe is a good thing, is it not? Nobody is looking to erase anyone's cultural identity, and this is a huge setback on a global scale. I don't understand why so many people are nationalistic. As an American I wouldn't care if I lived in a United States of the Western Hemisphere.
There is nothing inherently good about a more "integrated" Europe. Whether or not it would be a good thing would depend of the attributes of the union - and the way they seem to be heading today they are not good.
As for repressing cultural identities; The ability for a people to govern themselves, the ability to make your own laws, policies, and shape your state and government, are some of the most direct and important aspects of a culture. The EU are repressing it's smaller members' identities just by existing.
Lastly, regarding your last sentence... The US is one of the most nationalistic countries in the world. "As an American" you should be intimately familiar with why people are nationalists.
Nobody is looking to erase anyone's cultural identity
Well leftists are generally okay with the idea that a nation can have many different cultures that take aspects from each other but aren't homogeneous. So they are fine with ideas like Muslims moving to western and northern European countries.
Some people dont seem to think such coexistence is practical.
The EU is not leftist by any means. It is a very right-wing, neoliberal institution. It has repeatedly forced actual left-inclined countries, such as the Scandinavian ones, to be less leftist.
Post by: Max™ on July 01, 2016, 12:57:26 am
I meant to indicate surprise at existence of something. As in the classic expressionI'm a classic expression AND a great Scot?
"Max(TM) quadrupled, they do exist!"
Man, I'm gonna carry you in my pocket as a self-esteem booster.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 01, 2016, 02:03:57 am
As for repressing cultural identities; The ability for a people to govern themselves, the ability to make your own laws, policies, and shape your state and government, are some of the most direct and important aspects of a culture. The EU are repressing it's smaller members' identities just by existing.Gonna have to disagree with you there. Government is only a small part of culture. Music, art, literature, language, and so on, are all vastly more important parts of a cultural group's identity than self-government.
Post by: palsch on July 01, 2016, 02:27:01 am
Since the leave vote passed, has the UKIP campaign introduced any legislation to do a thing about the fucking fishing rights? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYMD_W_r3Fg)
Figured I'd have a go at this one as well.
UKIP only have one MP and he can't introduce any legislation. Outside of government, bills are proposed through private member bills (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_member%27s_bill#United_Kingdom) (wiki page chosen for use of the word 'shenanigans') and Douglas Carswell doesn't have any to use to my knowledge.
This seems to be UKIPs proposals regarding fisheries (http://www.ukip.org/gutted_ukip_unveils_new_poster_highlighting_fisheries_policy), not exactly legislative language, let alone possible given that UK fisheries are always going to be subject to international agreements. Fish don't exactly respect national waters and scientific stock management (in co-ordination with other nations) is critical.
Note that Farage did sit on the fisheries committee in the European Parliament and didn't bother to attend their meetings (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/farage%E2%80%99s-voting-record-fishing-%E2%80%98makes-mockery%E2%80%99-new-election-poster-20150408), so it is debatable how much he gives a fuck about British fishermen given he won't speak up for them in a body that might actually be able to exercise some power in their favour.
This is a strong argument in favour of EU fisheries management from a UK perspective. (https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/griffin-carpenter/eu-common-fisheries-policy-has-helped-not-harmed-uk-fisheries-0) A lot of the problems fishermen (especially small, independent fishermen) have is down to the British management of our quotas. We essentially privatised them and allowed a few large companies/trawlers to buy up the rights to our stocks. This is why one Dutch boat accounts for 23% of the British quota. Greenpeace is actually suing the UK under EU law (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/oceans/greenpeace-wins-permission-take-uk-government-court-over-fish-quotas-20150424) for mismanaging our quota.
Post by: Sergarr on July 01, 2016, 03:13:01 am
There is nothing inherently good about a more "integrated" Europe.It'll be a more powerful Western institution, and a more powerful Western institution can better achieve the Western progressive policies. Western progressive policies are inherently good, therefore, there is everything inherently good about a more "integrated" Europe. QED.
As for repressing cultural identities; The ability for a people to govern themselves, the ability to make your own laws, policies, and shape your state and government, are some of the most direct and important aspects of a culture. The EU are repressing it's smaller members' identities just by existing.The ability for people to govern themselves is irrelevant in the face of necessity to further the cause of social and technological progress. EU is already providing enough ways for even the smallest states to affect its policies as a whole, so I don't see what are you complaining about.
Lastly, regarding your last sentence... The US is one of the most nationalistic countries in the world. "As an American" you should be intimately familiar with why people are nationalists.American nationalism is different from most other kinds of nationalism, because it is inherently right. American nationalism is a method of keeping the best country in the world, USA, together and set on a course to achieve the better future as fast as possible. Furthermore, it's also superior to smaller kinds of nationalisms - you can see it in USA, where people are first Americans, second - members of whatever state they are, and only third - people of the whatever ordinary nationality they were before they or their family become the Americans.
In general, Europe needs more nationalism like that - the one that would tell people to accept the identity of being European before everything else. I can understand the practical obstacles that prevent such super-identity from emerging - namely, the lack of singular language that could be used by everyone, and the entrenched interests of old sub-European nationalistic institutions - but they need to be overcome in order to further the cause of the West. A weak disjointed Europe cannot do so as effectively as a strong unified Europe.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 01, 2016, 03:28:45 am
American nationalism is different from most other kinds of nationalism, because it is inherently right. American nationalism is a method of keeping the best country in the world, USA, together and set on a course to achieve the better future as fast as possible. Furthermore, it's also superior to smaller kinds of nationalisms - you can see it in USA, where people are first Americans, second - members of whatever state they are, and only third - people of the whatever ordinary nationality they were before they or their family become the Americans.American nationalism is the same as any other nationalism: ignorant of reality and painfully obnoxious.
Post by: Sergarr on July 01, 2016, 03:34:02 am
No it is not. America is a country that has single-handedly turned the course of history, and the greatness of American technological progress is self-evident, given that you're currently using a USA-developed device with USA-developed programs, and send us messages through a USA-developed communication system "Internet".American nationalism is different from most other kinds of nationalism, because it is inherently right. American nationalism is a method of keeping the best country in the world, USA, together and set on a course to achieve the better future as fast as possible. Furthermore, it's also superior to smaller kinds of nationalisms - you can see it in USA, where people are first Americans, second - members of whatever state they are, and only third - people of the whatever ordinary nationality they were before they or their family become the Americans.American nationalism is the same as any other nationalism: ignorant of reality and painfully obnoxious.
To say that it is just the same as any other nationalism is to be ignorant of the very reality you're living in.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 01, 2016, 03:37:11 am
Post by: evilcherry on July 01, 2016, 04:48:26 am
America, as a state, not as an identity.No it is not. America is a country that has single-handedly turned the course of history, and the greatness of American technological progress is self-evident, given that you're currently using a USA-developed device with USA-developed programs, and send us messages through a USA-developed communication system "Internet".American nationalism is different from most other kinds of nationalism, because it is inherently right. American nationalism is a method of keeping the best country in the world, USA, together and set on a course to achieve the better future as fast as possible. Furthermore, it's also superior to smaller kinds of nationalisms - you can see it in USA, where people are first Americans, second - members of whatever state they are, and only third - people of the whatever ordinary nationality they were before they or their family become the Americans.American nationalism is the same as any other nationalism: ignorant of reality and painfully obnoxious.
To say that it is just the same as any other nationalism is to be ignorant of the very reality you're living in.
I have zero problem with cultural genocide.
Post by: Sheb on July 01, 2016, 05:01:20 am
As for VAT and the EU, I'm no expert, but I'm quite surprised Palsch, since the Wiki page of the UK Budget claims that the 2016 Budget include scrapping the Tampon tax. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_budget) Although since they say it's from 5 to 0%.
Edit: Ok, looking into it, it seemed it was floored to 5% by EU law, and then Dave got the Coucil to agree to an exception.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 01, 2016, 05:09:59 am
I have zero problem with cultural genocide.um, you're okay with languages and traditions being wiped out?
...
Anyway, serious questions time. I know I'm about as anti-America as people get, but... you guys seriously tolerate American patriotism? Even the asinine "WE WON BOTH WORLD WARS EVERYONE IS IN OUR DEBT" claptrap? I... am astounded. Never have I seen people (other than Americans) who don't have a problem with the whole FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY and MILITARISM shtick.
Post by: martinuzz on July 01, 2016, 05:23:57 am
According to him, it is Amsterdam. "Not only does 90% of Dutch population speak english, many speak it better than the English themselves".
Now I'm not sure if that's a compliment, coming from an American. I ain't got no clue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/after-brexit-finding-a-new-london-for-the-financial-world-to-call-home.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FStewart%2C%20James%20B.&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/after-brexit-finding-a-new-london-for-the-financial-world-to-call-home.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FStewart%2C%20James%20B.&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=1)
Post by: Sheb on July 01, 2016, 05:29:30 am
Tampons are taxed specifically in the UK? o.O
Nah, they're taxed as part of the VAT. I dunno about the English case, but the fight against the "tampon tax" AFAIK was a very big thing in France, where tampons were taxed at the general VAT rate (19% IIRC) instead of the rate for necessities (6%? I don't remember). Which was pretty infuriating when things like razors and shaving cream where taxed at the necessity rate.
Post by: martinuzz on July 01, 2016, 05:32:34 am
Don't know if they actually moved it to the low VAT or not. Probably yes. Our government fears naked women protesting in Amsterdam ever since the 1960s.
Post by: Starver on July 01, 2016, 05:37:27 am
given that you're currently using a USA-developed device with USA-developed programs, and send us messages through a USA-developed communication system "Internet".Not that it's black and white, but a Welshman developed the NPL Network in England before ARPANET took on his concept of packet-switching; the Web came from CERN, in Europe; and many elements of silicon fabrication and related device development arose or were improved upon outside the US, or else its the Miles M52 vs Bell X1 thing all over again.
But it's all human development. I'm sure we'll forget (further) all the differences when the aliens try to invade. Again.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 01, 2016, 05:39:33 am
Post by: Max™ on July 01, 2016, 05:42:03 am
Anyway, serious questions time. I know I'm about as anti-America as people get, but... you guys seriously tolerate American patriotism? Even the asinine "WE WON BOTH WORLD WARS EVERYONE IS IN OUR DEBT" claptrap? I... am astounded. Never have I seen people (other than Americans) who don't have a problem with the whole FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY and MILITARISM shtick.I tolerate it when it is funny, but I'm a Texan by the grace of Thor's Hammer, so nationalism seems sillier than usual from my perspective.
If you want, you can replace FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY with 'Murica(-nism) and people will get it over here at least.
Post by: martinuzz on July 01, 2016, 05:44:46 am
Is it just me or is protesting a few cents worth of tax kinda sillyNah in case of the tampons it's not. The women actually have a point. It's not their choice that they bleed a few days every month. Low VAT is for basic nescessities, high VAT for luxury goods. In a society where your floor manager does not allow you to go to the bathroom to wash up and change undies a few times a day, a few days each month, tampons are a nescessity and not a luxury.
Post by: Max™ on July 01, 2016, 05:49:40 am
Post by: Sheb on July 01, 2016, 05:50:00 am
Post by: Sergarr on July 01, 2016, 05:51:20 am
Yes, if it's necessary for social progress. There are far too many traditions in the world that are centered around institutionalized oppression of some selected parts of population, like women or homosexuals, and I would have no problems if these were to go away. Languages are more tricky, but I'm of opinion that there are far too many languages as it is, and the world would benefit greatly if there were less languages, since it would mean easier integration of societies.I have zero problem with cultural genocide.um, you're okay with languages and traditions being wiped out?
Anyway, serious questions time. I know I'm about as anti-America as people get, but... you guys seriously tolerate American patriotism? Even the asinine "WE WON BOTH WORLD WARS EVERYONE IS IN OUR DEBT" claptrap? I... am astounded. Never have I seen people (other than Americans) who don't have a problem with the whole FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY and MILITARISM shtick.They did win both world wars. They emerged vastly stronger after both of these conflicts, and that's what actually counts as a real victory. Furthermore, they used results on their victories to tremendously promote the causes of social, economical and technological progress. Everyone is in their debt, because most other countries would've used such victories to launch a world-wide campaign of oppression. We know that, because that's what USSR tried to do after WW2.
I don't know what you're astounded at, honestly. Americans can sometimes be annoying to deal with, yes, but that's a necessary and unavoidable side-effect of the measures that needed to be taken in order to keep a continental-sized country together and set on a course of progress. Look at South America's utter failure of a continent to see how USA could've ended, if not for American patriotism.
Post by: Max™ on July 01, 2016, 05:53:05 am
Post by: Sheb on July 01, 2016, 05:58:36 am
Post by: Max™ on July 01, 2016, 06:09:13 am
Post by: Frumple on July 01, 2016, 06:28:08 am
Is it just me or is protesting a few cents worth of tax kinda sillyJust you, probably. A few cents several dozen times stops being a few cents. Multiplied by however many thousands or millions paying it, and it becomes very much not a few cents. 'Course, it's never exactly that simple... lot depends on what the tax is being used for, who it's impacting, etc., etc. How it's being applied, too... the stuff being talked about above where shaving supplies were considered necessary but tampons not would be an example. One I can't tell how applicable was to the UK (they've had sanitary products working under necessity/zero-rate VAT since at least 2011, ferex. Possibly earlier, but I can't seem to find the 2002 notice online so can't exactly check), but eh.
... that said, it again looks a lot like the UK was shafting their electorate a fair bit all their lonesome on that front, to say nothing about whatever extent they buggered up doing anything about problem points in treating with the EU itself. EU floor for non-necessities is 15% -- UK's government bumped that to 20% for the UK itself a few years back. Don't actually know where the money goes/what it's used for, but that does say that the UK's politicians took it upon themselves to fuck their nation at least a third as much as the EU did if you consider the VAT a proper rodgering. It's a theme with this mess, really. Just about wherever the EU was doing something that could maybe be considered negative in some sense, the UK's politicians were managing to either make it worse to some degree or another or trying really hard to frame it like it was.
... honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was intentional. Lot of it kinda' looks like good ol' US conservative style of institution undermining, tbh -- get control of implementation, make it bad under your own power, and then blame the institution itself for your own fuckups. Government/EU/whatever "doesn't work" (or at least isn't perceived to) because the folks claiming it doesn't work are specifically sabotaging it so it doesn't work :V It's legit pretty insidious how effective a strategy it is, 'cause it definitely does work to turn some portion of public sentiment against the institution in question.
Post by: Cthulhu on July 01, 2016, 06:42:40 am
Yes, if it's necessary for social progress. There are far too many traditions in the world that are centered around institutionalized oppression of some selected parts of population, like women or homosexuals, and I would have no problems if these were to go away. Languages are more tricky, but I'm of opinion that there are far too many languages as it is, and the world would benefit greatly if there were less languages, since it would mean easier integration of societies.I have zero problem with cultural genocide.um, you're okay with languages and traditions being wiped out?Anyway, serious questions time. I know I'm about as anti-America as people get, but... you guys seriously tolerate American patriotism? Even the asinine "WE WON BOTH WORLD WARS EVERYONE IS IN OUR DEBT" claptrap? I... am astounded. Never have I seen people (other than Americans) who don't have a problem with the whole FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY and MILITARISM shtick.They did win both world wars. They emerged vastly stronger after both of these conflicts, and that's what actually counts as a real victory. Furthermore, they used results on their victories to tremendously promote the causes of social, economical and technological progress. Everyone is in their debt, because most other countries would've used such victories to launch a world-wide campaign of oppression. We know that, because that's what USSR tried to do after WW2.
I don't know what you're astounded at, honestly. Americans can sometimes be annoying to deal with, yes, but that's a necessary and unavoidable side-effect of the measures that needed to be taken in order to keep a continental-sized country together and set on a course of progress. Look at South America's utter failure of a continent to see how USA could've ended, if not for American patriotism.
Progress does not exist. (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPGjbi0UsAQsbOj.jpg)
Count me among the groups thinking a strong ethnic/national identity and the vitalism that comes with it is a valuable thing to have. What I don't get is this thing about fewer languages and shit. I'm already a little wary of the idea of "societal integration" but suggesting languages can go away in pursuit of it just reinforces my belief that globalism also means atomization and consumerist non-culture.
Also, South America would be more like America if South Americans were more patriotic? What?
Post by: Frumple on July 01, 2016, 07:00:00 am
Post by: Sergarr on July 01, 2016, 07:02:28 am
Count me among the groups thinking a strong ethnic/national identity and the vitalism that comes with it is a valuable thing to have."Vitalism"? What's that, and how does having a unified civic identity, like Americans do, prevent people from having it?
What I don't get is this thing about fewer languages and shit. I'm already a little wary of the idea of "societal integration" but suggesting languages can go away in pursuit of it just reinforces my belief that globalism also means atomization and consumerist non-culture.I don't see how having people be able to understand each other reinforces atomization; in fact, it seems to me that it would do the exact opposite of that. As to "consumerist non-culture", I have no idea what you're talking about. Modern America, probably the most consumerist society in the world by any reasonable definition of that word, is not lacking in culture - indeed, it seems to me like it's getting more and more cultural with every passing year, thanks to Internet allowing the small sub-cultures to proliferate.
Also, South America would be more like America if South Americans were more patriotic? What?No, not what I meant. I've said that if USA was lacking in American patriotism, it would've ended as a bunch of separate states, a number of which would be brutal and oppressive dictatorships, and overall vastly lacking in societal, economical and technological development. In other words, it would end like South America.
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 01, 2016, 07:09:47 am
What aliens are you referring to?given that you're currently using a USA-developed device with USA-developed programs, and send us messages through a USA-developed communication system "Internet".Not that it's black and white, but a Welshman developed the NPL Network in England before ARPANET took on his concept of packet-switching; the Web came from CERN, in Europe; and many elements of silicon fabrication and related device development arose or were improved upon outside the US, or else its the Miles M52 vs Bell X1 thing all over again.
But it's all human development. I'm sure we'll forget (further) all the differences when the aliens try to invade. Again.
Post by: scriver on July 01, 2016, 07:19:25 am
As for repressing cultural identities; The ability for a people to govern themselves, the ability to make your own laws, policies, and shape your state and government, are some of the most direct and important aspects of a culture. The EU are repressing it's smaller members' identities just by existing.Gonna have to disagree with you there. Government is only a small part of culture. Music, art, literature, language, and so on, are all vastly more important parts of a cultural group's identity than self-government.
A culture is in essence made up out of how people think and act, what they think is important, and how they view the world and those around them. Governments, laws, music, art, literature, etc etc, are expressions of said culture. However. Art pieces are expressions of individuals within the culture (it's the viewing of art by the people which is the actual relevant part). Laws and government are a different kind of expression. They aren't just the consequence of how a culture thinks people should act, but it also in turn decide how the people can act (without punishment). If the laws that govern how a people can act is not in line with how the people think they should act, there is conflict.
For example, Swedish culture has a strong history of government transparency. Every document that enters the governing body is available to the public (apart from the super sekrit stuff). Most countries in the EU do not share our views that this is how government should be. France in particular was very vocal about how journalists were show to view incriminating information about politicians and businesses because when international agreements and deals reached Sweden, the documents automatically became public information. A few years ago the EU then made Sweden change our transparency laws to not include documents from other EU countries so they wouldn't have their shady deals uncovered. And that sucks.
American nationalism is the same as any other nationalism: ignorant of reality and painfully obnoxious.
I found this comment humorous because it is very true of your own national pride and your feelings of superiority towards Americans.
I'm quite fond of US nationalism, because, for all its downsides, it's civic nationalism rather than ethnic nationalism. It provides as strong identity anyone can claim regardless of religion, race or whatev.
As far as I can see this is just a self-indulgent myth. For what I can see it is very obvious that the "american" national identity do not include everyone. I also think American nationalism is much more intwined with racism. They say "Here anyone can be accepted as an American", but then they won't actually treat like you like an American unless you are the right kind.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 01, 2016, 07:23:25 am
Yes, if it's necessary for social progress. There are far too many traditions in the world that are centered around institutionalized oppression of some selected parts of population, like women or homosexuals, and I would have no problems if these were to go away.I... sort of agree. 100% support not practising the oppressive bits, sure, but eeeh. I'm more in favour of preserving (or at least remembering, where practise is untenable) cultures where we can. Language, art, and myths are all valuable things and it's much more interesting to keep them around.
Languages are more tricky, but I'm of opinion that there are far too many languages as it is, and the world would benefit greatly if there were less languages, since it would mean easier integration of societies.I dunno, English is basically lingua franca at this point anyway. Not really any need to push it harder, and my opinion on having diverse languages floating around just for the sake of it is already pretty clear.
They did win both world wars.The Allies and USSR won both wars.
They emerged vastly stronger after both of these conflicts, and that's what actually counts as a real victory.... unless you use a non-standard definition of "win", I guess. US emerged vastly stronger after the Great Depression, which kinda coincides with the wars if we're really generous. Aside from that it's mostly your standard economic development that happens everywhere unless they're getting blitzed.
Considering that the US is now behind countries that had masses of their population slaughtered and infrastructure annihilated, your point falls pretty flat.
Furthermore, they used results on their victories to tremendously promote the causes of social, economical and technological progress. Everyone is in their debt, because most other countries would've used such victories to launch a world-wide campaign of oppression. We know that, because that's what USSR tried to do after WW2.That's a stupid argument. What the USSR wants is not the same as what everyone except the USA wants.
I don't know what you're astounded at, honestly.I'm astounded at people putting up with bullshit.
Americans can sometimes be annoying to deal with, yes,The self-awareness, it beckons
but that's a necessary and unavoidable side-effect of the measures that needed to be taken in order to keep a continental-sized country together and set on a course of progress. Look at South America's utter failure of a continent to see how USA could've ended, if not for American patriotism.I'll bear that in mind next time Russia or Australia or China or India or Indonesia starts having problems and export some patriotism to them
Post by: Cthulhu on July 01, 2016, 07:51:33 am
Count me among the groups thinking a strong ethnic/national identity and the vitalism that comes with it is a valuable thing to have."Vitalism"? What's that, and how does having a unified civic identity, like Americans do, prevent people from having it?
I didn't say it didn't. I don't see how a civic identity is different from a cultural one.
What I don't get is this thing about fewer languages and shit. I'm already a little wary of the idea of "societal integration" but suggesting languages can go away in pursuit of it just reinforces my belief that globalism also means atomization and consumerist non-culture.
Quote
I don't see how having people be able to understand each other reinforces atomization; in fact, it seems to me that it would do the exact opposite of that. As to "consumerist non-culture", I have no idea what you're talking about. Modern America, probably the most consumerist society in the world by any reasonable definition of that word, is not lacking in culture - indeed, it seems to me like it's getting more and more cultural with every passing year, thanks to Internet allowing the small sub-cultures to proliferate.
You're clearly willing to destroy culture in pursuit of it, since you said exactly that.
Also, South America would be more like America if South Americans were more patriotic? What?No, not what I meant. I've said that if USA was lacking in American patriotism, it would've ended as a bunch of separate states, a number of which would be brutal and oppressive dictatorships, and overall vastly lacking in societal, economical and technological development. In other words, it would end like South America.
[/quote]
I'm not sure that's true. It's not like the US has always had a strong pan-American identity, the bicameral legislation is an artifact of state power-jockeying and if you remember at one point half of the states decided to leave. Many people in those states still identify with the south or with their own states.
... that the last people to have living memory of black folks being lynched in the US will be dead in no more than another decade or two disagrees with that first statement, imo. Strongly.
Is that progress or movement?
Post by: Starver on July 01, 2016, 08:30:59 am
What aliens are you referring to?Oh no you don't... You're not catching me out, again, with your mind probes and... other probes!
Post by: palsch on July 01, 2016, 08:38:07 am
... that said, it again looks a lot like the UK was shafting their electorate a fair bit all their lonesome on that front, to say nothing about whatever extent they buggered up doing anything about problem points in treating with the EU itself. EU floor for non-necessities is 15% -- UK's government bumped that to 20% for the UK itself a few years back. Don't actually know where the money goes/what it's used for, but that does say that the UK's politicians took it upon themselves to fuck their nation at least a third as much as the EU did if you consider the VAT a proper rodgering.
VAT in the UK for years was 17.5%. After the 2008 crash it was dropped to 15% temporarily for one year as a stimulus measure (get people and businesses spending money). Then in 2011 the coalition raised it to 20% as part of Osborne's first emergency budget. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10371590) VAT is treated as general taxation and not ring-fenced in the UK, so it goes the same places as income or corporation taxes.
And just as a correction to my earlier post, tampons were under the 5% reduced rate and the February deal that Cameron got from the EU would have made them exempt.
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 01, 2016, 08:39:37 am
You're not my species.What aliens are you referring to?Oh no you don't... You're not catching me out, again, with your mind probes and... other probes!
Post by: Frumple on July 01, 2016, 09:13:06 am
Is that progress or movement?... it's progress. Movement to the positive is progress. If you're going to say less of my fellow countrymen being murdered by mobs primarily because of their skin color isn't positive, then I... probably don't have anything left to say that wouldn't involve vulgarity. Not really the thread for it, anyway.
VAT in the UK for years was 17.5%. After the 2008 crash it was dropped to 15% temporarily for one year as a stimulus measure (get people and businesses spending money). Then in 2011 the coalition raised it to 20% as part of Osborne's first emergency budget. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10371590)How'd that work out? Though I guess screwing your country over by a sixth is better than a third? Again assuming the VAT is/was actually screwing the country over. Not sure I'd agree with that assumption, m'self, but it seems to be the one folks railing about the thing are making.
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2016, 09:52:23 am
Post by: Radio Controlled on July 01, 2016, 10:09:20 am
So Brexit, what do you have in store for us today?
Spoiler alert: nothing good.
Anyways, I could try to do another news round-up tonight if you want. Not now, work break's almost over, but if people are actually reading these/helped by it I wouldn't mind doing it from time to time.
Post by: Starver on July 01, 2016, 10:24:25 am
Spoiler alert: nothing good.Indirect, fallout-related, Osborne has nixed his plans to 'solve' the UK economy by 2020, which everyone was so sure(!) would have come true.
It's was going to be some excuse, of course, but this is a humdinger of one, so why not use it?
No, no. That's quite unfair. It needs to made absolutely clear that Osbourne's continual stream of budgets (traditional annual ones, ones linked to the autumn statement, other emergency ones as required) would have magically paid off by strangling the country to reverse the losses incurred due to the incompetance of the
Post by: Frumple on July 01, 2016, 10:58:07 am
Anyways, I could try to do another news round-up tonight if you want. Not now, work break's almost over, but if people are actually reading these/helped by it I wouldn't mind doing it from time to time.Wouldn't be objected to, methinks. I've been reading over the posts, if only occasionally actually following the links, heh.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on July 01, 2016, 11:06:32 am
That would be okay.Anyways, I could try to do another news round-up tonight if you want. Not now, work break's almost over, but if people are actually reading these/helped by it I wouldn't mind doing it from time to time.Wouldn't be objected to, methinks. I've been reading over the posts, if only occasionally actually following the links, heh.
Post by: palsch on July 01, 2016, 11:10:33 am
How'd that work out? Though I guess screwing your country over by a sixth is better than a third? Again assuming the VAT is/was actually screwing the country over. Not sure I'd agree with that assumption, m'self, but it seems to be the one folks railing about the thing are making.
There have been plenty of tax reforms at the same time, a couple progressive and from the Lib Dem manifesto (eg, £10,000 income tax allowance, increasing over time) and lots less so. Pinning down the impact of VAT changes is hard.
I'm personally not a fan due to the regressive nature of VAT (hits those who spend a higher percentage of their income harder proportionally speaking) and would love to see the EU lower the VAT requirements. I can't imagine leaving would actually lower it in the UK though, and the existence of EU controls only mattered in, well, the one case of tampons.
I might try to summarise the Conservative leadership race later (the Labour challenge looks on hold for the moment) but need an extended break first.
And by break I mean beer.
Post by: mainiac on July 01, 2016, 01:18:58 pm
Post by: BFEL on July 01, 2016, 02:52:49 pm
There's a character in the novel 1984 whos entire job is to shorten and simplify words of the local language. This is done so that the masses who use the new language will have less complex thoughts and thus be more accepting of the dystopian culture forced upon them. Pretty allegorical I'll admit, but the point stands.What I don't get is this thing about fewer languages and shit. I'm already a little wary of the idea of "societal integration" but suggesting languages can go away in pursuit of it just reinforces my belief that globalism also means atomization and consumerist non-culture.I don't see how having people be able to understand each other reinforces atomization; in fact, it seems to me that it would do the exact opposite of that. As to "consumerist non-culture", I have no idea what you're talking about. Modern America, probably the most consumerist society in the world by any reasonable definition of that word, is not lacking in culture - indeed, it seems to me like it's getting more and more cultural with every passing year, thanks to Internet allowing the small sub-cultures to proliferate..
Post by: Sergarr on July 01, 2016, 03:20:56 pm
What point, that the evil societies do evil things, including language manipulation? What does that point have anything to do with the cause of social, economical and technological progress being easier to achieve with unified common language (i.e. English)?There's a character in the novel 1984 whos entire job is to shorten and simplify words of the local language. This is done so that the masses who use the new language will have less complex thoughts and thus be more accepting of the dystopian culture forced upon them. Pretty allegorical I'll admit, but the point stands.What I don't get is this thing about fewer languages and shit. I'm already a little wary of the idea of "societal integration" but suggesting languages can go away in pursuit of it just reinforces my belief that globalism also means atomization and consumerist non-culture.I don't see how having people be able to understand each other reinforces atomization; in fact, it seems to me that it would do the exact opposite of that. As to "consumerist non-culture", I have no idea what you're talking about. Modern America, probably the most consumerist society in the world by any reasonable definition of that word, is not lacking in culture - indeed, it seems to me like it's getting more and more cultural with every passing year, thanks to Internet allowing the small sub-cultures to proliferate..
I'm not saying that everyone must necessarily use the same variant of English language - indeed, diversification of language is a major part of societal progress - but having the same language as a base would vastly increase the speed and intensity of communication between various nations, and simplify their unification into one global society, capable of achieving better things than they could've achieved separately.
Anyway, I've voiced the language thing as my opinion. It may not be actually true. In fact, given the speed of current technological development in AI, machine translation and voice recognition, we may relatively soon (i.e. within 30 years) have the ability to translate spoken language on-the-fly, making language barriers irrelevant.
Post by: mainiac on July 01, 2016, 04:03:09 pm
but having the same language as a base would vastly increase the speed and intensity of communication between various nations, and simplify their unification into one global society, capable of achieving better things than they could've achieved separately.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/lojban.png)
And in reference to what you were saying before.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sonlirain on July 01, 2016, 04:15:00 pm
I'm quite sure even if borders were abolished and a superstate was created in their place people would still keep their culture and language. Poles in the "polish" province would speak polish germans would speak german.
At worst people would become mostly bilingual... but isn't it the case even here and now?
Look at the USA. There are chinese districts, polish districts all put in a different culture and yet somehow existing.
Heck the same thing goes for canada. Part of the country speaks french and i didn't see the destruction of french over there as some sort of priority.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 01, 2016, 04:31:44 pm
Post by: scriver on July 01, 2016, 04:37:25 pm
Post by: Sonlirain on July 01, 2016, 05:11:41 pm
The words used were not "genocide" but "repressing cultural identities". The difference between the two is huge.Not really since both lead (in theory) to a culture disapearing so cultural repressions are essentially long term planned genocide of a culture.
Not it's people but the culture itself obviously.
Of course those were proven in the past to not work because countries like poland and their culture still exist after intense germanization and russification,
Battered for sure but its people still consider themselves as poles rather than Germans and Russians.
Post by: Radio Controlled on July 01, 2016, 06:14:23 pm
Quote
Wouldn't be objected to, methinks. I've been reading over the posts, if only occasionally actually following the links, heh.Kay then. I'll try not to do repeats of what was posted here already (some of the major things have been mentioned I think) and give a balanced narrative, but can't guarantee either. And yeah, didn't expect everybody to read the entirety of the articles, which is why I try to add a few paragraphs that give the general idea (when I'm not too lazy or on mobile or feel cheeky and write up something stupid).
Quote
What exactly is the correct course of action in this hypothetical?In a general, 'what are the requirements for a decent new referendum' sense, or a very detailed 'first X does Y, then depending on the results W or Z follows'?
Quote
If there's anything I've took away from watching this stuff, it's that the only good candidate for a head of government that the UK seems to have right now appears to be Sturgeon. And there's some obvious problems with that option :VI'm rapidly developing a platonic crush just due to the fact she seems to be on of the very few competent players in this whole charade.
So yeah, first up there's the whole 'betrayal' of Boris Johnson by Gove. Aka more political games at the most opportune of times.
Quote
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36677028
Michael Gove: Boris Johnson wasn't up to the jobSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Note the end of the article. I find it interesting that he's basically saying that he's willing to linger with activating article 50, and that he won't immediately invoke it when becoming PM. One the one hand, could be a smart move, making sure they have their shit at least a little in order before moving on. On the other hand, I don't think he'll be generating any goodwill points with his soon to be negotiation partners by keeping them waiting and exacerbating the economical damage stemming from that. The sooner the world knows which relationship the UK and the EU have (provided it's stable) the better for everyone involved, if I understand things correctly.
A more in-depth look into the 'affair': http://reaction.life/boris-done-cuckoo-nest-plot/ (http://How Boris was done in by a “cuckoo in the nest” plot)
But don't despair! It's not just the Tories and Labour that can play ball:
Quote
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukips-only-mp-could-be-sacked-by-monday-says-party-leader-nigel-farage-a7114526.html
Ukip's only MP could be sacked by Monday, says party leader Nigel Farage
When asked if Douglass Carswell would be expelled from Ukip following an ongoing row, Mr Farage said: “That will be up to the NEC to decide”Spoiler (click to show/hide)
On to more important news than party politics, it seems one of the biggest issues is (unsurprisingly) the fact that the UK will want to keep access to the common market of the EU when (if?) it leaves the union, but while getting to curtain free movement of people. But the latter is something that's all but written into the DNA of the EU and seems to be a conditio sine qua non (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36659900).
For example:
Quote
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-farage-idUSKCN0ZG0GS
Farage says can envisage Britain contribution to EU budget post-Brexit: Le FigaroSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Then there's this, which wouldn't be doing Britain any favors:
Quote
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222
EU Trade Commissioner: No trade talks until full BrexitSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36684452I know this on's been posted before, but I think this basically means that some of the more unpopular measures of the last couple years, such as the austerity, might turn out to have been for nothing, or close to that.
Osborne abandons 2020 budget surplus targetSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Luckily, it's not all bad news for the Uk! Even if leaving would hurt, it doesn't have to be the end of the world:
Quote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/29/new-zealand-offers-uk-its-top-trade-negotiators-for-post-brexit/
New Zealand has offered its top trade negotiators to the United Kingdom, relieving the British civil service as it prepares for the strain of seeking new deals with countries across the globe.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Then again, not all of the Commonwealth is feeling so magnanimous:
Quote
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36670075Then again again, this is just one bank.
Singapore bank UOB suspends London property loansSpoiler (click to show/hide)
And more bad business news:
Quote
http://news.sky.com/story/1720169/easyjet-opens-talks-over-post-brexit-hq-move
EasyJet Opens Talks Over Post-Brexit HQ Move
EasyJet's boss has signalled in private meetings this week that moving its legal HQ is "likely" after Brexit, Sky News can reveal.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/29/news/economy/vodafone-uk-brexit/
Brexit: Vodafone says it might leave the U.K.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
There has been a petition that says that "British public opposes a second referendum by almost 2 to 1" (https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/little-support-second-referendum/)
Quote
Less than a week after the public narrowly voted to leave the European Union, many remain supporters have called upon the government to hold a second referendum with stricter conditions. The petition calling for this, which is the most popular ever, has been signed by over four million people.
The latest research from YouGov/Channel 5 shows, however, that most British people (58%) oppose holding a second referendum. This includes not only 91% of Leave voters, but also 29% of Remain voters. 11% don't know.
Even in an extreme situation, such as the break up of the United Kingdom, most people (51%) still oppose holding a second referendum. In the event of Scottish independence, only 30% of people would support holding a second referendum.
By the by, something I forgot to mention earlier but saw someone wondering about: a couple days after the referendum in an interview someone asked former EU president Van Rompuy why the EU didn't have a more active voice during the campaign, to which he said the UK had basically asked them to stay out of it, it's a private affair.
Also, there's a rather interesting article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-reaction-to-brexit-is-the-reason-brexit-happened-20160627) that condemns the cries right now by some that the referendum was wrong and the leave voters were stupid (sorry, 'low information'). Don't agree with all of the points he raises (or at the very least, would like to nuance things) but worth a read/skim at least.
Finally, the funnies:
Boris Johnson's HQ as the EU referendum result comes in.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a6HNXtdvVQ)(Aka one of those 'Downfall (Der Untergang)' Hitler reacts vids, starring our beloved Boris as the mustachiod miracle himself. I laughed, for what it's worth.)
"We’ve gained exclusive access to a leaked plan that was put together by the Vote Leave campaign, the UKIP, and Nigel Farage. It includes detailed solutions for the following political and economic issues expected after the United Kingdom departs the European Union." (http://thebrexitplan.com/)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/students-claim-they-too-depressed-brexit-to-do-exams-gcse-a-levels-vote-referendum-a7111796.html
Dunno if I should laugh with this one, but hey, It's not like I don't understand them. Any excuse is good not to have to study, exams be damned!
"I do sometimes wonder what Justice Secretary Michael Gove feels about his wife's Daily Mail column..." (https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/677024011658919936/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Spoiler: This isn't satire, far as I can tell, it's an actual banner on their site. (click to show/hide)
Pounded by the pound: Brexit inspires its first erotic novel (http://pounded-by-the-pound-brexit-erotic-novel-chuck-tingle)
Finally, this little gem from the man who owns some of (or quite a lot of?) the pro-brexit media:
Quote from: http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/this-terrifying-rupert-murdoch-quote-is-possibly-the-best-reason-to-stay-in-the-eu-yet--WyMaFTE890x
However, an old quote has re-emerged in an Anthony Hilton column for Thursday's Evening Standard, which may give you pause for thought as to how you vote in the EU referendum:Wait, shit, that wasn't funny, but infuriating.
I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'
Post by: Starver on July 01, 2016, 06:44:38 pm
The VAT is regressive but it's used to fund progressive social spending. Seems like a fair bargain to me. The VAT is hardest on the poor but the NHS is most important for the poor.Taxes (almost) all go into one pot and spending takes from that pot without regard of what microcosm of taxation funded it. Although the chancellor is saying "and I shall fund the new pet-health service from the funds obtained by implementing pay-and-display at all official permissive dogging sites", its just a "see, we'll have this much more money to spend, but we estimate we'll have a similar amount from this other initiative" type of thing.
The NHS (noting that it's fairly obvious that its being disingenuously forced to 'overspend' and self-imolate, rather than actually be funded to the level it should be, for decades now) needs funding to help the poor, but the poor don't need to be targetted to get that funding. Now we're (on the way) out of the EU, reduce/remove VAT across a wide swathe of the board and 'match' the funding gap with a revised Income Tax system that also shifts the contribution system further up the bell-curve, perhaps. Exact details to be left to whoever eventually gets to decide these things. Not that I expect Osbourne ("look what the exit from the EU forced me to do!") his antiEU Tory successor ("Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither can Brussels be demolished") or other party's replacement ("Due to two terms of Tory financial mismanagement, my hands are tied") to do any such thing, but I'm happy to posit it as a vague hypothetical.
Post by: Frumple on July 01, 2016, 07:10:18 pm
Post by: Starver on July 01, 2016, 07:21:37 pm
The following URL doesn't need much expanding upon to read the message within, though.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/panama-papers-hmrc-starved-by-austerity-could-not-pursue-tax-evaders-even-if-it-wanted-to-a6971411.html
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 01, 2016, 07:23:18 pm
Huh. Saw some interesting figures somewhere else... wondering if someone better acquainted with the UK could confirm. Apparently they have a debt of ~1.5 trillion, with a 3% deficit (I.e. it'll go up by about 45 billion within the next year)... and an estimated impact of tax evasion pegged around 70b. Is this accurate? Could the UK actually completely erase their current deficit (and then some) if they thoroughly enforced their tax laws?Sounds roughly on par with what I've heard, yeah. Tax evasion's not terribly easy to crack down on though, especially when people are keeping their money overseas.
E: Ninjerd
Post by: mainiac on July 01, 2016, 07:40:37 pm
Now we're (on the way) out of the EU, reduce/remove VAT across a wide swathe of the board and 'match' the funding gap with a revised Income Tax system that also shifts the contribution system further up the bell-curve, perhaps.
That's 13% of government revenues you are talking about replacing. You would need a 43% increase in income tax collections. And you want to make the income tax more progressive while you are at it?
Post by: Max™ on July 01, 2016, 08:05:46 pm
"Not only was he penetrating deep inside my throat... he was also penetrating deep inside... my heart."
Post by: Neonivek on July 01, 2016, 08:21:46 pm
The words used were not "genocide" but "repressing cultural identities". The difference between the two is huge.
Yes, they are both fictitious... at least in the way they are being used. (I mean there ARE "forced integration" programs where you aren't allowed to practice your culture and you need to change your name to something representative of the culture you joined. THAT would be repressing culture)
Because a "culture" isn't a static stagnant thing but rather it grows and evolves continuously over time.
Britain wasn't the same place 50 years ago, yet alone 100 years ago.
This idea that Britain with a China town being any less British then a Britain without is ridiculous.
---
But then again as I said I live in a place where the minority are the majority and we still believe we have a unique cultural identity...
While our neighbors believe there is a war on their culture and need to take legal and governmental measures to preserve it. (I'll leave who they are up to the imagination)
Post by: Starver on July 02, 2016, 04:50:22 am
Of all the people who shouldn't be running our country, I guarantee you that I'm not even top of the list. As I don't (honest), and have neither will or opportunity to do so (I promise you, or my name's notNow we're (on the way) out of the EU, reduce/remove VAT across a wide swathe of the board and 'match' the funding gap with a revised Income Tax system that also shifts the contribution system further up the bell-curve, perhaps.
That's 13% of government revenues you are talking about replacing. You would need a 43% increase in income tax collections. And you want to make the income tax more progressive while you are at it?
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 02, 2016, 06:10:19 am
Post by: Starver on July 02, 2016, 12:52:01 pm
I find it ironic that conservative governments concerned with reducing deficits are also the first to cut income taxes.An argument is that with lower income taxes, people earn more (after tax), and/or businesses can pay more people what they are worth (a fixed wage-bill can be spread thinner, but less top-sliced to no net disadvantage),. This money then gets spent, fuelling the economy, driving up business, skimming more off in purchase-side taxation and probably business rates as well, increasing wealth all round.
The problem is that lower earners are in thrall to the people who pay their wages (higher earners) who may not pass on the advantage and may just cleverly arrange things so that they are creaming off the bit not longer asked for in tax (by fair means or foul) to pay themselves and benefitting from their own lesser tax cream-off, and beggers can't be as much choosers. There are rules (and unionised pressures) against such sharp practices, but there are rules against loads of things which the rich find ways to circumvent.
So, perhaps a form of 'wage multiple' restriction. By some metric (dimensions of the hierarchy concerned) company bosses can't earn more than X times the lowest earner in their company, to encourage more pay down the line to 'allow' more pay at the top. With regulations to prevent tricks of accounting (bonus shares in leiu, enhanced company pension contributions, or somesuch)... And then there's offshore tricks (already employed) to disavow earnings under a jurisdiction's tax laws and take the hit somewhere else where its less punitive (or nog punitive at all), and the argument is that this happens more. But perhaps if proper (international) are not only made (as they are) but also enforced... Well, what a wonderful world it could be.
Pipe dreams, naturally. It's a problem that better and more educated people than me have failed to solve. Even socialist systems still inevitably produce their Napoleons to counter their Snowballs, so that's probably idealist bunk too.
Post by: Sonlirain on July 02, 2016, 02:33:53 pm
So, perhaps a form of 'wage multiple' restriction. By some metric (dimensions of the hierarchy concerned) company bosses can't earn more than X times the lowest earner in their company, to encourage more pay down the line to 'allow' more pay at the top.
That's actually something that was a thing in commie Poland. Not sure how well it was regulated tho.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 02, 2016, 05:10:02 pm
Post by: nenjin on July 02, 2016, 06:40:01 pm
About the only Americans that I think truly retain their connection to their state of birth is Southerners, who are probably the only group in America that might put their state above their country if it came down to it.
Post by: mainiac on July 02, 2016, 06:51:19 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 02, 2016, 06:57:46 pm
Post by: Frumple on July 02, 2016, 07:03:43 pm
Post by: mainiac on July 02, 2016, 07:09:23 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on July 02, 2016, 07:16:34 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 02, 2016, 07:17:23 pm
I am unfamiliar with this definition of fuck.(http://i.imgur.com/y8XQti8.png)
Post by: mainiac on July 02, 2016, 07:25:16 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 02, 2016, 07:25:48 pm
Post by: mainiac on July 02, 2016, 07:31:22 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 02, 2016, 07:32:02 pm
Post by: nenjin on July 02, 2016, 07:33:31 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 02, 2016, 07:34:15 pm
Post by: mainiac on July 02, 2016, 07:42:02 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 02, 2016, 07:47:41 pm
About the only Americans that I think truly retain their connection to their state of birth is Southerners, who are probably the only group in America that might put their state above their country if it came down to it.Not even southerners, just us Texans. I've said before that I was surprised other states didn't take Texas history, like, what the hell would they learn about instead? Idaho? Maryland? West Virginia?
Incidentally, Maryland smells awful, not the same way Chicago does, and it doesn't reek like the paper mill regions of the country, but it's got this scent that just kinda lingers at the back of your throat and makes you wish you could chug battery acid to get rid of it.
Post by: nenjin on July 02, 2016, 07:49:22 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 02, 2016, 07:59:25 pm
To bring it back to the topic at hand.
(http://i.imgur.com/hunn8Hu.png)
I used to live a bit southwest of Prague, and it was a pretty good drive down to Austria to visit family, or out towards Munich to the capital.
Post by: mainiac on July 02, 2016, 08:02:41 pm
Not even southerners, just us Texans. I've said before that I was surprised other states didn't take Texas history, like, what the hell would they learn about instead? Idaho? Maryland? West Virginia?
Maryland military greatest hour: Single handedly stood up to the British army Thermopolye style after they routed the forces of the other 12 colonies thus saving the day in the one battle where the American revolution might have been lost
Texas military greatest hour: One time they rounded up and arrested some drunk mexicans in the middle of a siesta.
Post by: Max™ on July 02, 2016, 08:04:19 pm
Serious question though: do you just get used to the smell? What is it? The tidal flats?
Post by: mainiac on July 02, 2016, 08:08:08 pm
Post by: Frumple on July 02, 2016, 08:22:24 pm
Geographic stenches are like accents, really. Everyone has them, but many will try to deny they're there.
Not sure what this has to do with the UK, though, unless it's even started smelling worse since the referendum :V
Post by: Max™ on July 02, 2016, 08:23:37 pm
Salt water? Fertilizer? What part of maryland were you in? Were you drunk?I don't drink, it was a semi, and we went from west virginia through delaware via Maryland, with a stop to unload on the far side of Baltimore I think?
Post by: mainiac on July 02, 2016, 08:27:15 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 02, 2016, 08:38:42 pm
So back on topic Brexit might have a knock-on effect over here, via showing people how awful an idea protest votes can be. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/how-brexit-convinced-me-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-214006
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 02, 2016, 08:43:05 pm
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 02, 2016, 08:48:41 pm
Makes sense, fun fact, the first time I saw the Atlantic was actually driving down 13 through that little spit of Virgina coming south from Maryland, which I later learned is actually part of an impact crater!So that is why....
So back on topic Brexit might have a knock-on effect over here, via showing people how awful an idea protest votes can be. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/how-brexit-convinced-me-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-214006
Post by: Max™ on July 02, 2016, 08:53:21 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 02, 2016, 08:57:38 pm
Post by: mainiac on July 02, 2016, 08:58:59 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 02, 2016, 09:03:39 pm
What the hell kind of correlation is that? I guess if you think Brexit means raaaaaaacism and Trump is Literally Hitler (TM), but that doesn't bode well for your reasoning in general.I strictly meant that all the magic 8-balls said signs point to bremain and hillary, so people put in protest votes and were later shocked by it.
Trump is by far worse than Brexit will ever be, there are positive things that can come from Brexit, I don't see that shit with a Trump presidency.
Assuming that it's safe to throw out a protest vote because obviously he won't win now has a direct example of that backfiring.
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 02, 2016, 09:08:25 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 02, 2016, 09:20:55 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 02, 2016, 09:22:53 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 02, 2016, 09:25:36 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 02, 2016, 09:35:29 pm
Post by: Baffler on July 02, 2016, 10:48:11 pm
Being Poland truly is suffering.
Post by: Sergarr on July 03, 2016, 01:40:12 am
I don't think we can place Brexit at the feet of protest votersGiven that the margin of victory was about 1.2 million votes, yes we totally can.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 03, 2016, 01:58:52 am
Of course they played a part, but enough to warrant sole blame? I'm not so sure. The polls were close to begin with, and tipped in favour of Leave more than a couple of times IIRC. We might as well blame an uneducated electorate.
Post by: Max™ on July 03, 2016, 02:03:27 am
Educating an electorate includes pointing out that stuff like this can happen.
I don't like the shit sandwich or giant douche either, but voting for rotting abscess as a joke might help shit sandwich win, which would be much worse than giant douche getting in.
Post by: Sheb on July 03, 2016, 04:27:54 am
Baffler: Don't forget that there is something like a million Pole working in the UK. That's over two percent of the Polish population, they have an interest in making sure the UK stay as integrated as possible.
Post by: scrdest on July 03, 2016, 05:08:01 am
Poland stands with the UK, wants them back in EU. (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/685671/EU-referendum-Poland-Angela-Merkel-punishing-Britain-destroy-Brussels-Jaroslaw-Kaczynski) Poland very strongly opposes EU federalism but benefits greatly from the economic cooperation it fosters, so with the UK gone they've pretty much got to choose between being sucked into the "ever closer union" against their wishes and losing easy access to the European market the Polish economy depends on.That's not 'Poland', that's an ex-PM.
Being Poland truly is suffering.
Granted, his party is the ruling party right now (and so people suspect that the President and PM are just figureheads, to the point where there were jokes along the lines of: [XMP]: 'I asked [Presidentguy] to hold my cat for a minute. He signed it!'). But still, its officially unofficial at the moment.
Post by: Starver on July 03, 2016, 05:28:55 am
To bring it back to the topic at hand.Do the same thing with Alaska... ;)
(http://i.imgur.com/hunn8Hu.png)
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 03, 2016, 05:35:08 am
E: Alaska != Australia
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 03, 2016, 05:37:06 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 03, 2016, 07:29:26 pm
First off there was the Labour party. Honest to gods, what the hell happened. Down the grapevine, Labour is so fractured that no one in Labour really knows what’s happening either. The short down is that in the aftermath of the EU referendum, in the outcome of their defeat, Liberal Labour MPs executed their most powerful coup yet against the socialist Union Labour faction. Jeremy Corbyn has not been a stranger to coup attempts, mass resignations, MPs working from without to sabotage him from within or MPs suspended for antisemitism, but the sheer scale of all four happening in such a short span of time is fatal.
Indeed, with everyone in power asking him to resign, David Cameron even begging him exasperatingly to resign with dignity as he did, the sheer fact that Corbyn still remains standing is both a source of criticism and praise. Most amusing is how Momentum wants Labour MPs to respect the will of the people when it comes to Corbyn, whilst vetoing the will of the people when it comes to the referendum. I can't think of many people who would still carry on under such assault.
On a personal note I have always fought the notion that democracy should be about crushing your opponents and achieving victory, but such idealism will not survive long, it was barely born to begin with :P
Corbyn’s stubbornness, his complete refusal to back down is a double edged sword. Uncertainty is the key word here, and with a Leader leading a Party in revolt, Labour is effectively paralyzed until further notice. I’m not even going to go into detail about the antisemitism, Naz Shah saying all Israeli Jews should be deported from Jerusalem to the USA or Ken Livingstone saying Hitler rose to power on a Zionist platform, I do not know where to start, only knowing when to laugh. I imagine most people reading this will not care much about what is happening to Labour – and this is indicative of the issue, the opposition party should be able to mount a considerable opposition to the ruling party in service of her Majesty, but so far all it has done is work ambivalently with the ruling party and eat itself.
This can I think all be traced back to when Corbyn began his purge. Corbyn prided himself on creating an inclusive, dynamic cabinet – that only held people loyal to him and his ideology, and excluded women from all shadow posts of great power. This killed liberal faith in him at a time when it was already faltering, and has meant Corbyn has become fully reliant on his socialist allies in Europe and the Trade Union and student activists of the UK – a dangerous position to be in. I’m not sure if he can come back from this, I don’t think he can, but if Labour are going to cut him at the knees, they better have a replacement Leader capable on deck yesterday.
Then there’s the Conservative party’s infighting, which took a dramatic turn that managed to surprise even me! When asked what I would do were I in one of the big lads shoes, I thought Boris Jonson’s best chance for negotiations with the EU were to have Theresa May lead them. Thing about the negotiations is that I don’t think the results matter all that much as much as how they are marketed to the public, as by their end the public will be too tired to dispute beyond high-energy activists and lobbyists (business as usual). What does however matter incredibly, is at least satisfying everyone powerful enough that they don’t decide it’s better to destroy everyone than admit defeat, the key here is finding a compromise that many hate and can blame on someone ineffectually, whilst many find the compromise better than nothing and grudgingly accept it, meaning stability is ensured and life moves on.
For this reason Theresa May would be highly qualified for the task, she seems to be of stalwart integrity and character (whether she is or not – she seems it, and that’s what matters). To paraphrase what I read in the papers about her recently, she is not very popular amongst her peers because she refuses to gossip and only talks business, Nick Clegg referring to her as the Ice Queen because she is professional to the extreme – thus is most likely, exactly who she seems to be. If politicians are nervous around you, you have strong moral spine. Also noteworthy is that whilst campaigning for Remain, she was honest even when such honesty was disadvantageous to Remain – very rare to have an honest politician that advances as far in politics as she has.
Unfortunately as with Corbyn, that moral spine, planting your feet down and refusing to compromise on it, is once again a source of criticism and praise. That Theresa May campaigned for Remain would help alleviate the concerns of Remain voters, in that someone who argued for them would be conducting the negotiations and would be able to secure protections against their wildest UKIP nightmares.
If Boris Johnson backed her, coupled with her reputation for professionalism, the 52% may still harbour suspicion, but would be alleviated too with a Eurosceptic leader placing his word of good faith in her – and if anything went wrong, Leave could blame May, Remain could blame Johnson, and neither side would be at each other’s throats (on the hoi polloi level).
The two I think, would have been willing to take on this responsibility, reaping the rewards and falls. Well, that is until Theresa May announced she would on no circumstances make a deal with Boris Johnson, notably Boris arranged a meeting with May in which she did not bother turning up, thereafter making it clear to the press, she did not believe it right to negotiate for something she did not believe in (pragmatically and ideologically).
That was before Michael Gove delivered a stunning execution of Boris Johnson, perhaps the greatest surprise of this all. I had believed Theresa May to be the dark horse in this, but I had completely missed in all of this Michael Gove being the Kingmaker – who it now appears will go down in history as the "cunt who arranged it all from the beginning" (that was in the papers, albeit censored, from some unnamed insider of Boris’s team). Michael Gove is an altogether unassuming man, who does not look like a man of great ambition – thus looks are proven deceitful again.
Michael Gove promised his support to Boris Johnson from the start, and in the runup to the Leadership contest Boris felt quite secure in that he had the leadership in the bag, that is until he received a phone call from someone announcing that Gove had gone off and announced his own intention to become leader, completely terminating Boris’s chance of becoming leader and forcing Boris to announce he was no longer running for leadership.
I’m unsure as to what Gove’s reward here was. Ostensibly it is to become Prime Minister himself, but realistically he doesn’t stand a chance – he already betrayed Cameron’s camp, and he just betrayed Boris’s camp, he has isolated himself from his entire party and does not have popular or union support as Corbyn does in the labour party. Thus I suspect he has made a deal with someone, probably 4 months ago, and has already secured his exit path. My favourite quote was from someone describing Gove as a suicide bomber who walked into Boris’s camp wearing his colours, only to reveal at the last moment his ambition – this was not an attack Gove intended to overtly walk away from.
Amidst all this, Theresa May stands to be now the most likely candidate for Prime Minister. I recall earlier a good Belgian inquiring as to why in the race for Tory leadership, I placed in order of likelihood Boris at #1, Osborne at #2 and May at #3. This was because the good Belgian had not heard of May at all. My explanation was: besides her long list of qualifications from working at the BOE, managing of Tory relationships as Chairman of the Tory party, numerous shadow secretary posts and ultimately her rise to position as Home Secretary, Theresa May was considerably less controversial than George Osborne (who tanked his ability to win after his pension cuts scandal, declaring he did not intend to run for Prime Minister) and Boris Johnson (who just lost support of the Tory party after Gove dropped him, meaning if he won, he would be as Corbyn – a Prime Minister with popularity yet no power).
In the event of Osborne and Johnson being cut out of the race, I realistically saw no other candidate who would most likely win than Theresa May. Given her unique ability to be perhaps the only statesman in the UK currently capable of (and indeed, even showing a credible desire to) reconcile Brexit and Bremain, I am firm in the belief that her become Prime Minister is currently the best thing that could happen to the UK in this current year and climate, and that is coming from an ardent Leave supporter, supporting one who could very well obligate us to the European Union. Theresa May would be able to placate the public, but more importantly get MPs on all sides of all aisle in line – both Labour and Conservative, both Leave and Remain. This is of paramount importance at a time when both camps now seem more than willing to destroy themselves if it ensures the other does not win, like crabs in a bucket.
Interestingly amidst all this is that Gove and Osborne plan on going on holiday after the contest ends with their families, as the two were apparently good friends. Snakery aside, it’s good to know that two friends who were so prominent in Leave and Remain can still come together when they must support one another, even at such a time when people believe the vote to have turned children and parents, siblings and siblings, grand elders and grandchildren against one another.
In quite a happy detour, the Juncker faction is about to be mortally decapitated by Merkel, who is stepping in to stop Juncker’s insanity from destroying the European Union. Too late? I don't know, but I my mottos are always you either laugh or you cry, and that you are never too late for damage control.
The EU has been happy to ignore Juncker’s often drunken unprofessionalism, his deep resentment for plebians, his utter disrespect for democracy in which Juncker seems to have tried his best to piss off every European leader who didn’t bow down to him (even getting drunk and slapping Orban in the face ha), who in response to Europeans growing irate at the EU’s continual integration policy, Juncker repeatedly insisted on further and further integration.
Juncker has indeed in response to the UK voting to leave, led plans for punitive measures upon the UK and calls for further integration (most radically in the leaked plan from the Polish source earlier, de jure one state), both of which would spell the end of the European Union. Will Merkel be able to placate Europeans? I do not know. I do believe her presence in negotiations will be of benefit to both the United Kingdom, Germany and of the European Union, even if she does not believe any of the things she says (most notably saying multiculturalism is a failure whilst supporting mass migration, criticizing Juncker for refusing to compromise and seeking further integration whilst she herself will not compromise on open borders and further integration e.t.c.) it will be enough for Europeans to be placated.
Amidst all this mess, there appears to only truly be two winners; eurosceptics and feminism. Eurosceptics across Europe have been calling for their own referendums, emboldened by the victory in the UK – I was gobsmacked to find that the UK was not even the most Eurosceptic country in the world (at the time of referendum) anymore, that Juncker wanted to publicly respond with integration into one state in response was the definition of insanity, doing the same thing every time and expecting a different result. Feminism because as the UK looks set to have Theresa May, the EU is about to be sorted by Merkel, Le Pen is set to take France by storm, the USA will have Clinton - decisions that have already shaken the world, that will decide ultimately the very future of entire civilizations, nations, great powers, superpowers and supranational entities, will be in the hands of women.
Quite so, for even in the UK, our most powerful opposition to Leave is no longer Corbyn, but Sturgeon, and if European leaders continue to pursue anti-British rhetoric, then we shall in the UK most likely not select one who wants to reconcile and compromise like May, but shall instead select the even more surprising dark horse Andrea Leadsom - someone who I ruled out as unlikely to become leader, who is now the frontrunner as a result of Gove's actions. Leadsom comes from a similar background as May, how they differ is in belief - Leadsom is Brexit through and through, and is considerably less concerned with appeasing a Brussels that seems committed to making Britons suffer.
On such a sombre note, it seems quite fitting that in popular discourse we as Britons are so engrossed in the battle of the Somme, one hundred years after Britain's bloodiest day.
Spoiler: Cut down version (click to show/hide)
Post by: Max™ on July 03, 2016, 07:47:35 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 03, 2016, 07:51:54 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 03, 2016, 07:52:33 pm
Naz Shah saying all Israeli Jews should be deported from Jerusalem to the USAFucking what.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 03, 2016, 08:00:03 pm
Expected Serbians and dragonfire, got information and insight instead. Not as much humor as I've come to expect from you LW, but interesting nonetheless.I feel feels, not feeling too humorous these past few days. Been reading up Marcus Aurelius, talking about how in times of Flavius, Socrates, Epictetus, time has made them nothing, and time will make him nothing, and in time we too shall be nothing, the present is what we've got. That or too much banter post victory has burnt some humour fuse and needs resetting
I doubt very much a Merkel-Juncker fight will become serious or lasting.
Quote
“Jean-Claude Juncker is becoming a problem Angela Merkel will soon have to “deal” with, according to sources within the German government.Perhaps, but he remains an immediate obstacle to the survival of both the UK and the EU, so I do not think his political career will be long lived
The President of the European Commission has faced criticism from a number of directions over his conduct following the outcome of Britain’s referendum on EU membership.
A German minister told the Sunday Times that Chancellor Merkel had come to regard Mr Juncker as “part of the problem” with the EU.
The source said: “Juncker has time and again acted against the common interest, and his reaction to the British referendum has been very damaging.”
Mr Juncker’s rhetoric about Northern Ireland and Scottish independence - and especially his meeting with SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon in Brussels - were seen as “unnecessarily provocative,” the newspaper reported.
“This is not a time for institutional bickering,” the source added, “but the pressure for him to resign will only become greater and chancellor Merkel will eventually have to deal with this next year.”
The European Commission President has been a key driver of increased European federalism and some regard his efforts as part of the reason for the reaction against the EU.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-will-soon-have-to-deal-with-european-commission-president-jean-claude-juncker-sources-a7117536.html
Naz Shah saying all Israeli Jews should be deported from Jerusalem to the USAFucking what.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 03, 2016, 08:04:49 pm
Post by: evilcherry on July 03, 2016, 09:36:33 pm
With Thatcherism and Blarism, the PLP gained power and is an almost self-contained unit, not answerable to the GA nor NEC, and even CLPs are largely advisory. Corbyn and Momentum wanted to return Labour back on the days of the GA and NEC controls party policy and whips the PLP under their will.
One may argue that MPs have the backing of the people, and they should be given free rein in determining policies to the nation and their own benefit. This is true - but whether they deserve the Labour label, in the same sense, should be a matter determined by Members of Labour Party, not the other way round.
Also, a new election can provide the mandate to block a Brexit, if who declares so in their manifesto got a majority. Parliament is sovereign.
Post by: Starver on July 03, 2016, 11:04:15 pm
At the risk of falling into a Godwination trap, I'll address this bit, though...
Ken Livingstone saying Hitler rose to power on a Zionist platform,The problem with that is that Zionism is the 'Jewish people' saying "we will make our home here" (in, as it turns out, what at that time had now become Palestine) whilst old 'one ball and toothbrush moustache' was saying "your home is not here, you should all go elsewhere".. Even if Alois Schicklgruber's son had directed them towards the (re)foundation of Israel (and indisputible evidence for that specific desire, as opposed to "anywhere but here", is scarce) his act was still anti-semitic, however pro-semitic you consider the actually zionist movers and shakers. But, by this assumed metric, the Bohemian Corporal and his regime did support zionism (moreso than the British!), but zionists can't themselves be considered tarred with the same historical brush.
But its a whole lot of trouble to get into, over an ill-judged comment, and people do get upset by certain comparisons before even hearing the context (especially if primed by people who want to stir things up; see also the fuss about Salman Rushdie and John "We're more popular than Jesus" Lennon, for starters). I'm now waiting with trepidation to see whether I've triggered people into thinking I support someone I don't, and never even intended to suggest I did.
Post by: Starver on July 03, 2016, 11:28:27 pm
With Thatcherism and Blarism, the PLP gained power and is an almost self-contained unit, not answerable to the GA nor NEC, and even CLPs are largely advisory. Corbyn and Momentum wanted to return Labour back on the days of the GA and NEC controls party policy and whips the PLP under their will.Blair was the answer to Labour's (perceived?) unelectability. And he seems to have worked.
Cameron was the Tory response, a 'Blue Blair' to counter the (perceived) Tory unelectability, but just as Labour lost its Blair attraction, arguably. Either way, it seemed to work.
The cycle isn't over, but it seems obvious to me that (outside of the PLP, probably many of whom were 'inspired' to their position/repositioning by Blair, except for the few surviving figures of the pre-New Labour era, if not even older Old Guard) the labourite populous in general has a significant amount of Anti-Blairite Bounce to their opinions, and not a little hint that the same (in reflection) is in progress vs. the Cameronian position. Not helped by the depopulation, in parliament and visiblle electoral support, of the middle-ground LibDems.
Messy. But I wonder, as with a slo-mo closeup of waterdrop upon a pond, the ripples might spike the centre up again, unexpectedly, drawing from the liquid surplus to the minima circle immediately surrounding the centre of the splash.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: evilcherry on July 04, 2016, 12:42:04 am
But so? Its a problem of principles. Momentum is a two-finger salute against the tribal politics of Blair-Cameron era, when party/personal loyalties and winning seats is all that counts and principles can be brushed aside.With Thatcherism and Blarism, the PLP gained power and is an almost self-contained unit, not answerable to the GA nor NEC, and even CLPs are largely advisory. Corbyn and Momentum wanted to return Labour back on the days of the GA and NEC controls party policy and whips the PLP under their will.Blair was the answer to Labour's (perceived?) unelectability. And he seems to have worked.
Cameron was the Tory response, a 'Blue Blair' to counter the (perceived) Tory unelectability, but just as Labour lost its Blair attraction, arguably. Either way, it seemed to work.
The cycle isn't over, but it seems obvious to me that (outside of the PLP, probably many of whom were 'inspired' to their position/repositioning by Blair, except for the few surviving figures of the pre-New Labour era, if not even older Old Guard) the labourite populous in general has a significant amount of Anti-Blairite Bounce to their opinions, and not a little hint that the same (in reflection) is in progress vs. the Cameronian position. Not helped by the depopulation, in parliament and visiblle electoral support, of the middle-ground LibDems.
Messy. But I wonder, as with a slo-mo closeup of waterdrop upon a pond, the ripples might spike the centre up again, unexpectedly, drawing from the liquid surplus to the minima circle immediately surrounding the centre of the splash.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Neonivek on July 04, 2016, 03:47:52 am
Feminists don't like May, at all
Feminists don't like anyone (mostly a result of complainers being louder then supporters and other factors). Feminism doesn't lie on party lines so generally speaking feminists will judge candidates along their own personal party lines.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/05/why-millennial-feminists-don-t-like-hillary.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/05/why-millennial-feminists-don-t-like-hillary.html)
http://judgybitch.com/2013/12/04/michelle-obama-is-a-feminist-nightmare-youre-goddamn-right-she-is/ (http://judgybitch.com/2013/12/04/michelle-obama-is-a-feminist-nightmare-youre-goddamn-right-she-is/)
http://queernotes.blogspot.ca/2008/03/why-do-some-feminists-hate-barack-obama.html (http://queernotes.blogspot.ca/2008/03/why-do-some-feminists-hate-barack-obama.html)
Oddly enough if they are a woman... then there are a LOT of feminist articles about how terrible they are. (it is odd to me)
Post by: Sheb on July 04, 2016, 04:23:49 am
Regarding Labour: I'm quite amazed at the size of the mess, probably because I had not been paying enough attention to internal Labour politics. I simply don't get what the PLP is hoping to accomplish. Sure Corbyn might cost them the next general election, but this bickering will hardly make things better, and Corbyn did bring a ton of members to the party. With all the prominent Conservative trying very hard not to become Prime Ministers, there was an opportunity for Labour to sounds statesman-like. Instead, we got a bunch of bickering. Is there even someone to take over the party if Corbyn quits?
I find it particularily annoying because whoever is the next Prime Minister will have a huge influence on Britain by renegotating its influence with its entire neighbourhood. You rightly point out that the public won't have the stamina to be still interested in the minutiae of negotiation after a couple years. That's what ane le opposition is important, to keep the government in check. There was a lot of commentary from the left saying in effect "We don't like the EU because it's a neo-liberal nightmare, but exiting now means exiting on the Torie's terms, which is not going to improve". Without Labour to keep the Government in check, the Eurosceptic Left's worst nightmare might come to pass, as they end up in a deal that just keep all the parts of EU membership they don't like.
Thanks god, no one seems to be in a hurry to do anything about leaving, so Labour should have the time to sort itself out at some point. I wonder if we'll see a General Election before article 50 gets triggered. The campaign would be interesting, the Lib Dems and SNP would campaign on Remaining, but what about Labour and the Tories? What about UKIP? It'd be nice to have a debate and a vote on what kind of Brexit people wants.
Speaking of that, I'm quite surprised to see you're backing May. Again, I might be wrong, but to me, taking a slow and steady approach, with a mostly Remain PM will likely end up in what should be your worst nightmare: the Norwegian model of basically still being subject to EU regulation, but without a voice in the system (Actually, it's probably going to be something even closer than the Norwegian model, since the UK is bound to want stuff like ongoing passporting of its financial institutions in the EU). Without the UK in, stuff like the ECB's ongoing effort to have Euro currency swaps move to within the Eurozone rather than the City won't be kept in check. And even Farage is now willing to have the UK contribute to the EU's budget post-Brexit. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-farage-idUSKCN0ZG0GS)
I'm pro-EU, but as a good Leftist I must say that this scenario, the UK still de facto anchored to the EU while not having a voice as the City's lobbyist greatly pleases me. But what's in it for you eurosceptics? Shouldn't you wish for a general breakdown or relation that would lead to a real Brexit? Or do you merely see it as a stepping stone, a way to keep disruption to a minimum while you can then work on slowly unmooring the UK from the EU, one treaty at a time?
Edit: I also find it funny that Corbyn is blamed for the Brexit when the proportion of Labour voters that voted Remain (63%) is the same as the proportion of SNP voters that voted Remain (64%). Yet Sturgeon is a genius and Corbyn is bad, for some reasons.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
DoubleEdit: El Faragio resign as UKIP leader! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/andrea-leadsom-brexit-tory-leadership-campaign-ukip-live/) Is there really no one at all to lead any of the Party? I'm expecting the Green to collapse any second now.
Post by: Neonivek on July 04, 2016, 04:31:08 am
But maybe instead of changing leaders they should just call another election.
Post by: Sheb on July 04, 2016, 04:33:38 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 04, 2016, 04:58:14 am
DoubleEdit: El Faragio resign as UKIP leader! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/andrea-leadsom-brexit-tory-leadership-campaign-ukip-live/)Noooo
Post by: Dorsidwarf on July 04, 2016, 05:10:35 am
Post by: evilcherry on July 04, 2016, 05:11:19 am
How would election under the "leadership" of Cameron for the Tories help? Nah, both parties need to sort themselves out and decide what they're standing for on the issue of post-Brexit negotiations before a GE can be held.Tories now look like they have Thatcher lite, or May on their helm for at least another term. Gove has horribly overplayed his hand - he suddenly found himself without allies, and for worse he don't even have his own momentum to claim popular support.
As for labour, Blarites and Europhile progressives have so little in common that they have looser ties to each other than it is now. Some form of horse trading between Progressive Alliance (which should be PC + Greens + Momentum, perhaps Lib Dems) and Blarite party, mainly to stop tory or UKIP gaining marginal seats, would be better for everyone.
Post by: Sheb on July 04, 2016, 05:38:52 am
Post by: Cthulhu on July 04, 2016, 06:21:24 am
DoubleEdit: El Faragio resign as UKIP leader! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/andrea-leadsom-brexit-tory-leadership-campaign-ukip-live/)
kek
Hey, we won? Great! Alright guys, I'm out. Peace. (http://i.imgur.com/edU5bK7.jpg)
Post by: Erkki on July 04, 2016, 06:42:36 am
Post by: Starver on July 04, 2016, 07:06:13 am
Post by: Frumple on July 04, 2016, 07:16:08 am
Post by: Sheb on July 04, 2016, 07:21:04 am
Post by: Frumple on July 04, 2016, 07:59:39 am
Which'd be pretty interesting. I don't think the world's seen treaty renegotiation done entirely through public consensus.
Post by: Starver on July 04, 2016, 08:21:53 am
Which'd be pretty interesting. I don't think the world's seen treaty renegotiation done entirely through public consensus.Bagsy the lowest personal import duties on Brie, Camembert and Petite Chèvre!
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 04, 2016, 09:13:06 am
RIP NebraskaNebraska had it coming
They invented frozen TV dinners and cliffsnotes
Dastardly Nebraskans
Not a lot (except for perspective) to argue with your mammoth post, LW.
At the risk of falling into a Godwination trap, I'll address this bit, though...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The problem with that is that Zionism is the 'Jewish people' saying "we will make our home here" (in, as it turns out, what at that time had now become Palestine) whilst old 'one ball and toothbrush moustache' was saying "your home is not here, you should all go elsewhere".. Even if Alois Schicklgruber's son had directed them towards the (re)foundation of Israel (and indisputible evidence for that specific desire, as opposed to "anywhere but here", is scarce) his act was still anti-semitic, however pro-semitic you consider the actually zionist movers and shakers. But, by this assumed metric, the Bohemian Corporal and his regime did support zionism (moreso than the British!), but zionists can't themselves be considered tarred with the same historical brush.Also I forgot to mention this
But its a whole lot of trouble to get into, over an ill-judged comment, and people do get upset by certain comparisons before even hearing the context (especially if primed by people who want to stir things up; see also the fuss about Salman Rushdie and John "We're more popular than Jesus" Lennon, for starters). I'm now waiting with trepidation to see whether I've triggered people into thinking I support someone I don't, and never even intended to suggest I did.
Quote
Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth leaves antisemitism event in tears after being accused of 'colluding' with mediaWhen you play identity politics, you lose
Mr Corbyn said accusing Jewish people of media conspiracies was 'just wrong'
Mr Wadsworth told The Independent he did not know Ms Smeeth was Jewish, adding: "I've never been called antisemitic in my life."
Questions Mr Corbyn's leadership were reportedly banned at Thursday’s event, when Mr Corbyn made no direct mention of the unfolding crisis.
He was heavily criticised for appearing to compare the Israeli state and terrorist groups including Isis in the speech.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-jeremy-corbyn-ruth-smeeth-jewish-mp-accused-of-colluding-with-media-a7111061.html
You can't win, you just lose
Feminists are allowed to consider women terrible people too lol, women does not intrinsically mean goodFeminists don't like May, at allFeminists don't like anyone (mostly a result of complainers being louder then supporters and other factors). Feminism doesn't lie on party lines so generally speaking feminists will judge candidates along their own personal party lines.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/05/why-millennial-feminists-don-t-like-hillary.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/05/why-millennial-feminists-don-t-like-hillary.html)
http://judgybitch.com/2013/12/04/michelle-obama-is-a-feminist-nightmare-youre-goddamn-right-she-is/ (http://judgybitch.com/2013/12/04/michelle-obama-is-a-feminist-nightmare-youre-goddamn-right-she-is/)
http://queernotes.blogspot.ca/2008/03/why-do-some-feminists-hate-barack-obama.html (http://queernotes.blogspot.ca/2008/03/why-do-some-feminists-hate-barack-obama.html)
Oddly enough if they are a woman... then there are a LOT of feminist articles about how terrible they are. (it is odd to me)
Hence why the winner is feminism, not feminists (if such a broad term can be generalized for sake of nice looking statements)
Look at it this way, most feminists do not like Thatcher or Queen Victoria for example, but all the same they are an inspiration to all women who want to destroy their enemies everywhere
Regarding Labour: I'm quite amazed at the size of the mess, probably because I had not been paying enough attention to internal Labour politics. I simply don't get what the PLP is hoping to accomplish. Sure Corbyn might cost them the next general election, but this bickering will hardly make things better, and Corbyn did bring a ton of members to the party. With all the prominent Conservative trying very hard not to become Prime Ministers, there was an opportunity for Labour to sounds statesman-like. Instead, we got a bunch of bickering. Is there even someone to take over the party if Corbyn quits?Angela Eagle (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/john-mcdonnell-i-will-not-replace-corbyn-as-labour-leader) perhaps
I find it particularily annoying because whoever is the next Prime Minister will have a huge influence on Britain by renegotating its influence with its entire neighbourhood. You rightly point out that the public won't have the stamina to be still interested in the minutiae of negotiation after a couple years. That's what ane le opposition is important, to keep the government in check. There was a lot of commentary from the left saying in effect "We don't like the EU because it's a neo-liberal nightmare, but exiting now means exiting on the Torie's terms, which is not going to improve". Without Labour to keep the Government in check, the Eurosceptic Left's worst nightmare might come to pass, as they end up in a deal that just keep all the parts of EU membership they don't like.I always find it hilarious that there's a branch of euroscepticism that wants free movement of people and no free market lol
Otherwise, yeah I agree
Thanks god, no one seems to be in a hurry to do anything about leaving, so Labour should have the time to sort itself out at some point. I wonder if we'll see a General Election before article 50 gets triggered. The campaign would be interesting, the Lib Dems and SNP would campaign on Remaining, but what about Labour and the Tories? What about UKIP? It'd be nice to have a debate and a vote on what kind of Brexit people wants.Labour would be campaigning for Remain, Conservatives no longer for Remain, UKIP has largely already served its purpose. I think at this point UKIP can only serve three purposes; maintaining pressure within the European Parliament and the British parliament to secure Leave's victory, and after that is done, do some campaigning in Labour and SNP strongholds, and thereafter maybe hound for decreases in migration and some other stuff in regards to economy if they get leadership which manages to enforce a uniform economic philosophy in UKIP. As it is I don't see them having many long term prospects and I think they're better off disbanding pretty much around half a decade after the UK leaves the EU, as there's little point in continuing to fight long after you've won - your party just begins to degenerate in such an aimless, stressful path.
Libdem are still irrelevant, they will be recovering from Nick Clegg for a long long time. Greens are yet to be relevant. SNP are trying to veto Brexit, so one wonders if campaigning will even happen. Other than that, there's not much else to say
Speaking of that, I'm quite surprised to see you're backing May. Again, I might be wrong, but to me, taking a slow and steady approach, with a mostly Remain PM will likely end up in what should be your worst nightmare: the Norwegian model of basically still being subject to EU regulation, but without a voice in the system (Actually, it's probably going to be something even closer than the Norwegian model, since the UK is bound to want stuff like ongoing passporting of its financial institutions in the EU).The Norwegian model is not my worst nightmare, and I do not find distaste in Norway because they must conform to EU regulation. If Germany wants to export their cars to the UK, they must for example conform to our regulations, and currently they have a say in how we are regulated where other countries have none, in matters that should be up to us - thus removing such influence is a key goal I would like to see realized, and I am sure most European socialists will be altogether quite happy now that the UK is not deciding how their nations are regulated. France is most happy :D
In regards to May in particular, I am guessing that she would at the very minimum give guarantees for existing EU migrants in the UK with the inverse also true whilst sticking to her guns on migration, free markets and deportation, but those are smaller details when it comes to the issue of sovereignty. Whatever compromises are made today can be changed as the situation changes as long as we control our own affairs, which is where May is of most importance. The various Remain factions have made it clear they are more willing to destroy the United Kingdom than leave the European Union, and most interestingly I was watching a Lawyer talk about the prospect of MPs voting with their conscience to veto the result or Sturgeon trying to veto the result no doubt incurring the wrath of the rest of the country - the response is "lol don't care." Given that the Leave camp already didn't care about the global economy's stability, it is safe to say they too would rather destroy everything than return to the EU. May would be able to bridge the gap between these two camps and stop them destroying <everything> in order to win god knows what. Quite fitting the analogy now of Gove being the suicide bomber in Johnson's camp, with Johnson out of the running, there are only two options for Leave now. The first is pick May and try to give something everyone can be pleased with, the Schulz EU faction, the Remain factions and the Leave factions - or continue down Remain's path of democracy as destroying your enemies. I prefer the former to the latter, but prefer the latter to being destroyed, so there's that heh
That and the underlying strategy I think is to slow this down as fast as possible. People getting bored and stability being proven helps the British cause, and I would not think it wise to start the Leaving process at a time where the European Union itself is incapable of acting in a coherent manner. Once the European Union has sorted out its leadership and the UK its own, then.
Without the UK in, stuff like the ECB's ongoing effort to have Euro currency swaps move to within the Eurozone rather than the City won't be kept in check. And even Farage is now willing to have the UK contribute to the EU's budget post-Brexit. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-farage-idUSKCN0ZG0GS)I'm not too concerned about money when it comes to sovereignty, if the EU backs down on mass migration I'm cool beans with them taking some quid for tribute or whatever to their Grecian funerals
I'm pro-EU, but as a good Leftist I must say that this scenario, the UK still de facto anchored to the EU while not having a voice as the City's lobbyist greatly pleases me.The City of London speaks with your leaders' voice, just as readily as it speaks in mine. Money is not stopped by politics, and the EU is notoriously fond of lobbyists with money. If a nuclear war were to go off, London would no doubt still have a voice in your life, for it is a global force just as Hollywood is not based in Hollywood
But what's in it for you eurosceptics? Shouldn't you wish for a general breakdown or relation that would lead to a real Brexit? Or do you merely see it as a stepping stone, a way to keep disruption to a minimum while you can then work on slowly unmooring the UK from the EU, one treaty at a time?Real Brexit is the objective, but the goal is independent Britain
Britain not surviving is a failure of this, and I think compromise has a higher chance of success than trying to politically destroy 48% of the country, or trying to negotiate with Juncker faction
Edit: I also find it funny that Corbyn is blamed for the Brexit when the proportion of Labour voters that voted Remain (63%) is the same as the proportion of SNP voters that voted Remain (64%). Yet Sturgeon is a genius and Corbyn is bad, for some reasons.Corbyn only made scarce appearances in public and that they lost Labour strongholds like Birmingham (it is unthinkable that they would vote Leave, and they nonetheless did) is evidence enough for old Labour to conclude Corbyn does not stand a chance in a general election
Sturgeon would for example get lambasted if she lost Aberdeen, but she succeeded very well, getting the majority of all Scottish counties to vote Remain. The big strategy was for Labour to hold their strongholds and for Scotland to swing the vote in favour of Remain, SNP and Scotlab did their part, for whatever reasons, Corbyn is shouldering the blame for the underperformance in the South
DoubleEdit: El Faragio resign as UKIP leader! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/andrea-leadsom-brexit-tory-leadership-campaign-ukip-live/) Is there really no one at all to lead any of the Party? I'm expecting the Green to collapse any second now.Nigel is done, now he's going to go off to Brussels to eat EU money, and after that, retire for good. Personally my bets are on Steven Woolfe becoming leader of UKIP, cos it's maximum banter when migrant solidarity groups call him a coconut, black on the outside and white on the inside
Racism is ok when you do it for progressive causes lol
The real question is, why did 4% of UKIP voters vote Remain, when the sole purpose of UKIP was to promote leaving the EUDunno, various reasons
In all seriousness as well, one of their prospective MPs did actually request permission to found a pro-EU branch of UKIP, I think in addition to the factionalism within UKIP between libertarians vs conservatives, there was also factionalism in regards to whether UKIP should try to become a party of power or just stick to getting the EU referendum
One may argue that MPs have the backing of the people, and they should be given free rein in determining policies to the nation and their own benefit. This is true - but whether they deserve the Labour label, in the same sense, should be a matter determined by Members of Labour Party, not the other way round.It is true why? Why can Labour MPs vote to remain in the EU if their constituents voted to leave, having free reign to determine policies to the nation and their own benefit (and already major red flags in regards to determining policies which benefit themselves, conflict of interest), yet not decide who should lead the Labour party when indeed, they are the representatives of the Labour party in charge of its welfare?
Also, a new election can provide the mandate to block a Brexit, if who declares so in their manifesto got a majority. Parliament is sovereign.It would be quite appropriate too, using our sovereignty to give away our sovereignty lol, it should've been done like that from the start
Post by: Max™ on July 04, 2016, 11:17:42 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 04, 2016, 12:57:53 pm
It all comes tumbling down...DoubleEdit: El Faragio resign as UKIP leader! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/andrea-leadsom-brexit-tory-leadership-campaign-ukip-live/)Noooo
Post by: sluissa on July 04, 2016, 11:49:08 pm
Just need to round it all out with a royal succession crisis.It all comes tumbling down...DoubleEdit: El Faragio resign as UKIP leader! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/andrea-leadsom-brexit-tory-leadership-campaign-ukip-live/)Noooo
Post by: Vilanat on July 05, 2016, 04:52:59 am
Naz Shah saying all Israeli Jews should be deported from Jerusalem to the USA
I like this idea, and if Israel had conducted a referndum on the subject, had it been a realistic proposal, i bet it could get more than 50% approval. might also be a good opportunity to seperate ourselves from the jewish religious nutcases who would cling to da holy land. not sure Americans will like it though.
But... Nebraska?? can we trade Nebraska for a smallish part of California, pretty please? Our once european genes lost their ability to stand the cold you see, as we turned desert people and need heat to survive, haven't the jewish people suffered enough?! plus, From my rather short experience in the U.S, California is the most likened to Israel, not only in weather, but also in "Culture". the unification of Silicon Valley and Silicon Wadi will generate several good billions (probably tens of billions) to the American economy and hey, we even share common names for certain places! i live by the Carmel mountain, move me to California and i could still live by the Carmel mountain!
Not that it would solve the problems of the middle east though, heck, it even might escalate them since hating the Yahoods was a unitary factor for them. and the Israeli Arabs, should they not be welcomed to our third/fourth/lost-the-count-already exodus, would suddenly find that the Middle East is as pleasant as seen on T.V.
I will mostly feel sorry for the Christian Arabs, though, they would probably face an ethnic cleansing like they faced all over the Middle East.
Post by: Sheb on July 05, 2016, 05:09:56 am
Post by: Sonlirain on July 05, 2016, 05:18:46 am
Naz Shah saying all Israeli Jews should be deported from Jerusalem to the USA
I like this idea, and if Israel had conducted a referndum on the subject, had it been a realistic proposal, i bet it could get more than 50% approval. might also be a good opportunity to seperate ourselves from the jewish religious nutcases who would cling to da holy land. not sure Americans will like it though.
Oh no you don't!
We need you down there taunting the arab world. If all Jews move to the US who knows what them silly moose limbs will claim ownership to next... Al-Andalus might be next and the US already has enough Hispanics.
Post by: Vilanat on July 05, 2016, 06:21:04 am
Can't we deport you guys to Manchester or something? The chaos in the region will make you feel right at home. :D
Chaos we can endure. british weather and accent, no chance.
Post by: Frumple on July 05, 2016, 08:13:12 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 05, 2016, 10:02:42 pm
Hoo. GBP is below 1.3 to the USD. Seems to be sliding downwards, too. Smoothest incline we've seen since the hard spike downwards.
WOW I am kind of thankful one of my friends switched from being paid in pounds to being paid in US dollars.
Post by: RedKing on July 05, 2016, 11:27:55 pm
Amusingly, if you look at historical graphs, Brexit kinda fucked up exchange rates for a whole host of European and Commonwealth currencies. The US dollar got a big spike against the Australian dollar, the Canadian dollar, the Indian rupee, the Euro, etc. About the only major currencies we didn't get a leg up on were the yen and the yuan.Hoo. GBP is below 1.3 to the USD. Seems to be sliding downwards, too. Smoothest incline we've seen since the hard spike downwards.
WOW I am kind of thankful one of my friends switched from being paid in pounds to being paid in US dollars.
So thanks again, you wankers.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 06, 2016, 10:43:23 am
I like this idea, and if Israel had conducted a referndum on the subject, had it been a realistic proposal, i bet it could get more than 50% approval. might also be a good opportunity to seperate ourselves from the jewish religious nutcases who would cling to da holy land. not sure Americans will like it though.Sounds like that'd just exacerbate nuclear tensions in the ME
It'd be kinda funny though to try and solve all world problems by everyone immigrating to freedomland
Oh no you don't!I remember that one Gadaffi speech in the Arab League where he was all "Muslims have never unlawfully invaded or occupied any lands. Except Al-Andalus, we have never"
We need you down there taunting the arab world. If all Jews move to the US who knows what them silly moose limbs will claim ownership to next... Al-Andalus might be next and the US already has enough Hispanics.
So Spain is safe, until Catalonia strikes
u wot m8Can't we deport you guys to Manchester or something? The chaos in the region will make you feel right at home. :DChaos we can endure. british weather and accent, no chance.
In unrelated news, The Young Turk's coverage of Brexit has made me contemplate obliteration. I've been watching them release videos where they explained how the UK could leave the Euro currency, how David Cameron was a vicious warhawk whilst Corbyn had a mandate of millions, how Nigel Farage was a power hungry conservative politician who was set to become Prime Minister before his resignation...
F
M
L
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 07, 2016, 12:32:25 am
In unrelated news, The Young Turk's coverage of Brexit has made me contemplate obliteration. I've been watching them release videos where they explained how the UK could leave the Euro currency, how David Cameron was a vicious warhawk whilst Corbyn had a mandate of millions, how Nigel Farage was a power hungry conservative politician who was set to become Prime Minister before his resignation...I love how TYT have no idea what they're even talking about, it's hilarious.
F
M
L
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 06:32:57 am
Theresa May and Philip Hammond sorting out negotiations would be most agreeable I think to the majority of Remainers and Leavers, cos Hammond and May are both former Remainers and are the first to have doubled down and said the referendum represents a mandate that can't be ignored (instead of saying the referendum must be ignored and overturned) and likewise displayed a spine in front of the public that didn't surmount to either declaring war upon half the UK or the Commission
So bretty good compromise so far
Also the Labour rebels have admitted defeat and said Corbyn has won
LOL
OXO
LOL
They added: "He is losing support of the membership by the day, there is no doubt about that, but they just sign up new members to replace them. He is Teflon in that sense."
Another Labour source admitted that Mr Corbyn has "dug his heels in" and "isn't going anywhere", adding: "It's grim."
EL TEFLON JUAN, IN GRIM DARK FUTURE OF BANTER
Post by: Starver on July 07, 2016, 07:05:29 am
Or maybe they'd want to risk the 'ineffective opposition' lasting until 2020. Don't see it, though. Either Corbyn's long-term people-friendly strategies kick up a gear to increasing aclaim, or the next coup doesn't fail and the dice are up in the air, waiting to roll a new leader that does for the current age what Blair did for the mid-to-late '90s.
(Must check Google Trends over "double down", or a similar resource. It's a phrase I've noticed being used a lot, recently, even though it obviously hasn' t just been invented, unlike Brexit.)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 07:16:52 am
With Corbyn unremoved, that'd be pressure for whoever-it-is-that-wins to spring an election up, probably. Lest they repeat Brown's error in not calling an election when he had a provably better chance of winning (whether or not the 'bigotgate' was the actual tipping point, when it came). Could persuade party/vote splits at the constituency-level, denaturing Labour totally.Would probably irreparably destroy labour, but would also stand as a threat for most Conservative politicians who are already being threatened that if they don't vote for Leadsom they'll lose their seats for not supporting a leave campaigner
So unlikely, now is not normal circumstances
For the better to, destruction of labour is not good for long term political security
Or maybe they'd want to risk the 'ineffective opposition' lasting until 2020. Don't see it, though. Either Corbyn's long-term people-friendly strategies kick up a gear to increasing aclaim, or the next coup doesn't fail and the dice are up in the air, waiting to roll a new leader that does for the current age what Blair did for the mid-to-late '90s.There won't be a next coup for a while, this was pretty much best case scenario for them
80% of their MPs voted to have Corbyn resign, it was on the aftermath of Remain's defeat, Cameron pressuring him to resign, media pressuring him to resign, his party pressuring him to resign - Corbyn was quite clever on this, because by refusing to resign, the Labour party would only be left with one option: Start a leadership contest with a challenger like Angela. However, after they changed the rules to let Labour members vote, Corbyn won the last vote and would undoubtedly win this one as he has not lost the backing of most rank and file members, with Angela not posing a serious threat to him. Thus Labour only stood a chance of unseating him if they avoided a leadership contest, which Corbyn accurate saw, and basically spent the last week going "1v1 me scrubs"
Basically the neoliberal parliamentary faction lost control over their own party
Post by: Sheb on July 07, 2016, 07:20:46 am
Post by: Neonivek on July 07, 2016, 07:29:04 am
Which is hilarious, I wonder how they'll fare come election time. Corbyn can't replace all his MPs by loyalist, so for the foresseable future you'll have two different parties uneasily sharing one name.
They got a LONG time before election time.
In fact this whole "I am retiring" at this point feels like a ploy to put someone who wouldn't have gotten elected into the seat.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 07:35:49 am
Also, there's a rather interesting article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-reaction-to-brexit-is-the-reason-brexit-happened-20160627) that condemns the cries right now by some that the referendum was wrong and the leave voters were stupid (sorry, 'low information'). Don't agree with all of the points he raises (or at the very least, would like to nuance things) but worth a read/skim at least.Rereading this thread, I must say this one stuck out to me. Thank you Bernie bants for making low information mainstream terminology
WE LOW INFORMATION LADS WEW
Which is hilarious, I wonder how they'll fare come election time. Corbyn can't replace all his MPs by loyalist, so for the foresseable future you'll have two different parties uneasily sharing one name.That's not too uncommon, what is is that the minority ideological faction is in charge of the majority ideological faction, but whether the majority ideological faction has a popular mandate is actually unknown until general election, or indeed in areas where neoliberal labour MPs sit atop piles of socialist voters, will the socialist voters be willing to unseat the neoliberals if it threatens labour? Confuzzling mess, the whole thing
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 07, 2016, 07:39:08 am
Which is hilarious, I wonder how they'll fare come election time. Corbyn can't replace all his MPs by loyalist, so for the foresseable future you'll have two different parties uneasily sharing one name.Labour and Labor
Post by: Grim Portent on July 07, 2016, 08:27:04 am
Which is hilarious, I wonder how they'll fare come election time. Corbyn can't replace all his MPs by loyalist, so for the foresseable future you'll have two different parties uneasily sharing one name.Labour and Labor
New Labour and Labour Classic would be my preferred terms.
I'm not surprised Corbyn managed to survive the attempt to remove him, most of the other MPs in the party are about as popular with their own members as a parasitic larva is with a caterpillar.
Post by: Sonlirain on July 07, 2016, 09:33:33 am
Great so Spain is safe from Gadaffi.Oh no you don't!I remember that one Gadaffi speech in the Arab League where he was all "Muslims have never unlawfully invaded or occupied any lands. Except Al-Andalus, we have never"
We need you down there taunting the arab world. If all Jews move to the US who knows what them silly moose limbs will claim ownership to next... Al-Andalus might be next and the US already has enough Hispanics.
So Spain is safe, until Catalonia strikes
WHAT A RELIEF!
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 11:16:16 am
Great so Spain is safe from Gadaffi.Was, now Gadaffi is kill and make album with tupac in Kosovo
WHAT A RELIEF!
Britain wasn't the same place 50 years ago, yet alone 100 years ago.
This idea that Britain with a China town being any less British then a Britain without is ridiculous.
Spoiler: More Britpol stuff than Brexit stuff, but an interesting derail I find (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 01:32:32 pm
Y E S
E E
S S
Post by: Neonivek on July 07, 2016, 01:54:23 pm
Quote
I hope this goes at some length to explaining what is being lost as enrichment is gained
Well... Nothing.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
As for "I am not British anymore" it is USUALLY just a sign that they are dissatisfied as well as the fact that Britain is no longer a "Patriotism" ruled country (like most).
Since your statistics doesn't give a reason.
Edit: Put it in a spoiler... Sorry I am just kind of pissed off a bit xD
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 03:16:04 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Edit: Put it in a spoiler... Sorry I am just kind of pissed off a bit xDYou actually seem rather chill, so no worries
Post by: Neonivek on July 07, 2016, 03:24:09 pm
Quote
It's not sustainable to deny reality m8
The reality IS that it is racism. Both articles you linked outright spell it out.
Now one could say that it failed because they are TOO racist and this is too quick for their culture to adjust. Yet that isn't the main arguments being presented here.
So yeah... I am sticking to "Multiculturalism has failed" seems to be either a racist statement or is an acknowledgement of racism in the system.
>_<
Then again I knew this problem in Britain for a VERY long time... and it isn't going away.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 03:28:52 pm
Pretty big denial right there m8QuoteIt's not sustainable to deny reality m8The reality IS that it is racism. Both articles outright spell it out.
*EDIT
Oi Neo, can you finish your posts before you post them
Very awkward to have to reply to posts you've edited into your posts lol
Then again I knew this problem in Britain for a VERY long time... and it isn't going away.Cos you living quite snug across the Atlantic know Britain more than I?
Post by: Neonivek on July 07, 2016, 03:43:53 pm
"Cos you living quite snug across the Atlantic know Britain more than I?"
It was rather low key for quite sometime, but I actually like me some British people! So you listen and pick up on things people say and their general attitudes.
It was why I was immediately prepared to jump on the Leavers... Because it co-relates.
Post by: Sergarr on July 07, 2016, 04:13:21 pm
Looks like UK is going for closer relationships with Russia. Fitting, considering they've just dumped EU, but quite weird nonetheless.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 04:27:36 pm
"In case you worried your new unelected Tory PM might be progressive, Andrea Leadsom wants you to know she still opposes gay marriage" (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/andrea-leadsom-and-theresa-may-are-two-of-britains-most-prominent-homophobes-and-ones-about-to-a7125131.html)Ahahaha progressives want the Conservatives to be the progressive party
Looks like UK is going for closer relationships with Russia. Fitting, considering they've just dumped EU, but quite weird nonetheless.
Not sure if your serious or doing a parody of anti-immigration.Dead serious it's the current year oioi
"Cos you living quite snug across the Atlantic know Britain more than I?"From who and where? Very important question right there if you're using British expats in Canada in order to judge a whole race of people on an island you don't live on... Oh shit lol, you're the definition of racist
It was rather low key for quite sometime, but I actually like me some British people! So you listen and pick up on things people say and their general attitudes.
It was why I was immediately prepared to jump on the Leavers... Because it co-relates.Nah I think it's more your prejudices made you jump to attack people you don't understand
Britain, Germany, both very tolerant nations, both with strong civic beliefs, yet multiculturalism failed - heck, it failed in Sweden, and no one in the world was more tolerant to freaking everything than Swedes, they still are the most tolerant and it's still failling. Don't attack people you don't understand for being racist, then say that the failure of projects that were thrust on people without consulting them was their fault for being too racist lol when you don't even know them.
If you criticize multiculturalism = racist, if multiculturalism failed = you were too racist, if you think being concerned with mass migration is legitimate = racist, therefore to be ignored, what can you possibly learn from the world with such close mindedness?
Pardon, but you live in Canada - a country with such an enviable position in the world, it is worth killing for. Your country is a population of 35 million people spread over a freaking continent. The population of the UK is 65 million, the population of Germany is 80 million. You could fit Germany and the UK in a single Canadian province like Alberta. Politically you are stable, economically you do well off enough that there is low unemployment, war will never touch your country and you are bordered on two flanks by the greatest expanses of ocean providing wealth and security from the turmoil of the world island. No Canadian can claim to have been Canadian for long, no historical Canadian culture or identity can be claimed that is not civic or even exists to be protected (besides aboriginals who exist in tiny numbers), most importantly Canada has very little preexisting ties with the world, with migrants drawn all over the world. No one migrant group dominates in ethnicity, language, culture or religion, dramatically increasing the incentive to integrate, and dramatically decreasing the likelihood of segregated ghettos forming, forming no ethnic basins for divided people, no Pakistani British, French Maghrebian, German Turk cities within cities, most importantly illegal migration AND migration rates to Canada cannot even compare to what European countries face, all migration goes through your formal vetting and legal procedures because your only land border is with the USA and your ports are not near any foreign populated centres.
Less people, a continent's worth more land, more stability, no security threats, no historical identity, culture, no illegal migration, government controls migration easily, migrants are atomized, few in number, at a rate the Canadian government controls, spread throughout Canada with innate incentives to integrate.
Clearly the issue is that the world is too racist for precious Canadians?
Post by: Neonivek on July 07, 2016, 04:53:21 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Though I do think "I" am the one who needs to back off. I am basing it only on articles, and very questionable people, that kind of don't paint a very good picture. With one being "It failed, but not for the reasons people assume, that being we suck and not the people we are inviting" and another being "It failed because Foreigners are like British Kryptonite, it saps our Britishness."
---
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote
Politically you are stable
Yeah this is one of the things I don't understand about some countries.
I don't mean the ones where there is political turmoil... That is understandable to me.
I mean the countries where their ministry or senate will sometimes, or often, break into outright mass brawl.
To me that is embarrassing and that they should have some dignity and decorum. I can only guess the reason they break into fights is because of a difference in what they perceive they are doing? Like if you believe in your position you should be willing to fight for it?
---
Then again Canada's cultural identity is strong but weak and deeply ingrained in Multiculturalism... and our multiculturalism was forced upon us by the method of our creation... and even then we had the whole "White Canada Forever" phase.
So we haven't had the situation where we had a very strong cultural identity (well maybe Quebec) and had a single culture.
So perhaps I am not being empathetic enough. It is still a tough concept to get around though, since I don't really "get" nationalism (I think that is the correct term)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 05:13:19 pm
Spoiler: WOLOLO derail (click to show/hide)
What Europeans call ghettos, Americans call the national guard
Post by: Neonivek on July 07, 2016, 05:19:01 pm
I mean it by its strict definition. Not the "Run down broken down neighborhood"
Quote
Ah, so you guys are gonna get in our boat, I still think you guys are gonna pull it off a hell of a lot smoother. Either gonna be you or Sweden that becomes 80% migrant first, and I think you two will handle it very differently
Well technically Canada is near 100% Migrant :P
As I said "Country of immigrants"
Quote
That's not a call for you to back out, that's a call for you to post anything that would help explain your viewpoint.
I dunno, I feel like I am the one doing something wrong here. >_< and it isn't nice to kind of say that about people. Then again my temper has subsided so I don't feel so ranty.
---
Actually one of the major reasons why the USA has a larger population then Canada, interestingly enough, is because for most of its history the USA had a more relaxed immigration policy and Canada was the one barring people from coming in.
Canada's current attitudes towards immigrants is actually disappointingly recent.
Quote
Ah, so you guys are gonna get in our boat, I still think you guys are gonna pull it off a hell of a lot smoother
Yeah...
Post by: Starver on July 07, 2016, 05:20:48 pm
Relatively few of the problems are from first, or even second, generation immigrants. Which I think shows that it's not the imported culture but the homegrown tensions (both ways) that turn things awry.
And Brexit isn't going to help, so I'm not even sure of the thread relevence. But as a native and current Brit (haven't done the vanity DNA thing, buf I expect plenty of Britonnic genes, too, perhaps with a suspected smattering of Pict), maybe I can have an opinion on this anyway.
(Too many ninjaing posts coming in... Will read them shortly.)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 05:38:01 pm
Sorry I forget the connotation Ghetto gets.If we're going by the basic definition of areas occupied by minority groups then loads of European capitals are giant ghettos, so the clarification of definitions is important xD
I mean it by its strict definition. Not the "Run down broken down neighborhood"
Well technically Canada is near 100% Migrant :PNah, it's a semantic difference, but your first guys (excluding aboriginals) were settlers, settling in an area with few or no inhabitants. Migrants by definition are not moving to an area with few previous inhabitants, but are moving to a foreign existing country to become a permanent resident
I don't think there's much difference though lol, just seems worth mentioning at a time where even refugee and migrant are becoming synonymous
I dunno, I feel like I am the one doing something wrong here. >_< and it isn't nice to kind of say that about people. Then again my temper has subsided so I don't feel so ranty.You actually seem really polite when angry
I don't know what you found unkind
Actually one of the major reasons why the USA has a larger population then Canada, interestingly enough, is because for most of its history the USA had a more relaxed immigration policy and Canada was the one barring people from coming in.No it's because the USA has the most arable land in the world
Using wikishit
Quote
All the colonies, after they were started, grew mostly by natural growth, with foreign born populations rarely exceeding 10% in isolated instances. The last significant colonies to be settled mainly by immigrants were Pennsylvania in the early 18th century and Georgia and the Borderlands in the late 18th century, as migration (not immigration) continued to provide nearly all the settlers for each new colony or state. This pattern would continue throughout U.S. history. The extent of colonial settlements by 1800 is shown by this map from the University of Texas map collection.Most arable land in the world, most farms in the world, most kids in the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States
Also lmao I love that Mexican Texas was overrun by illegal American migrants who seized control from the state
Canada's current attitudes towards immigrants is actually disappointingly recent.I thought you guys were getting more open, even offering to take Syrians from us?
Post by: Starver on July 07, 2016, 05:55:10 pm
Migrants by definition are not moving to an area with few previous inhabitants, but are moving to a foreign existing country to become a permanent resident
Nope. Nothing in the definition mentions existing inhabitants (e: or indeed countries, foreign or otherwise).
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=definition+migrant&oq=definition+migrant
"Colonists" might suggest no existing (or none that 'count') existing inhabitants, but migrating doesn't even rule out that they've been there before, as sole or co-inhabitants, moved out again, moved back again, impermanently...
E2: Yes, just checked, and "immigrant" is probably the word you want (implies a country to "im-" into, also permanence), or in the opposite context "emigrant" ("em-"ing out of a given country, suggesting towards here). But while the lazy umbrella term covers both, it covers many other circumstances too.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 06:11:10 pm
Nope. Nothing in the definition mentions existing inhabitants.Google searches are tailored to the individual, thus linking to a google search is not conducive to discussion because we may not be seeing the same thing. Do not rely on google to define your world view, or else whoever controls google, controls how you frame everything.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=definition+migrant&oq=definition+migrant
"Colonists" might suggest no existing (or none that 'count') existing inhabitants, but migrating doesn't even rule out that they've been there before, as sole or co-inhabitants, moved out again, moved back again...
OED on settler (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/settler)
A person who settles in an area, typically one with no or few previous inhabitants.
dic.com on settler (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/settler?s=t)
A person who settles in a new country or area.
CED on settler (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/settler)
A person who arrives, especially from another country, in a new place in order to live there and use the land.
MWD on settler (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/settler)
A person who arrives, especially from another country, in a new place in order to live there and use the land.
OED on migrant (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/migrant)
A person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions.
dic.com on migrant (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/migrant)
Also called migrant worker. a person who moves from place to place to get work, especially a farm laborer who harvests crops seasonally.
CED on migrant (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/migrant)
A person that travels to a different country or place, often in order to find work.
MWD on migrant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/migrant)
A person who goes from one place to another especially to find work.
OED on immigrant (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/immigrant)
A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
dic.com on immigrant (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/immigrant?s=t)
A person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.
CED on immigrant (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/immigrant)
A person who has come to a different country in order to live there permanently.
MWD on immigrant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immigrant)
A person who comes to a country to live there.
Post by: Flying Dice on July 07, 2016, 06:52:10 pm
What that meant was that each group (Germans, Poles, Irish, Chinese, &c. &c.) was both fairly isolated and small compared to our total population, and specifically intending to integrate socially and culturally--people came to the U.S. for reasons beyond what I think is behind a lot of the immigration to yuroland. It wasn't all "land of milk and honey" bullshit, but also a genuine opportunity for advancement through self-driven effort and involvement in democratic governance. Immigrant populations generally ghettoized and were discriminated against initially in almost all cases, but likewise tended to have fully integrated into the American cultural and social identity within two or three generations (if that); moreover, the American identity didn't conflict with the cultural identity of your parents.
The latin@ immigration crisis is essentially just an amplification of the same tensions that arose with every new wave of immigration, but it's worse largely because of NAFTA. NAFTA allowed Mexican small-farmers to be driven out of business, which is by and large the primary impetus for immigration, while also helping (alongside other efforts toward globalization) to kill American industrial centers, resulting in an influx of immigrants at the same time that large numbers of working people lost their jobs. Without NAFTA there wouldn't have been a boom of Mexican immigration, and there wouldn't have been nearly as much backlash against immigrants from the rest of Latin America.
That's the principle set of differences between the U.S. and U.K. re: immigration. Our immigrants were spread across a much larger span of time and were a smaller proportion of the population. As you noted, they also explicitly desired to identify with their new home, but without the self-hating weirdness on the side of native-born citizens.
(We'd give Texas and the Texans back if not for all the oil.)
Hence, you have the U.S. as a massive blending of dozens of distinct cultures while still remaining inherently American, largely because the American culture is ideological rather than ethnic. The American nation is one of collective values rather than race.
--
As an aside, that's also why our greatest social problems have stemmed from the divide between black and white Americans back in the first century or so of existence, everything trickling down from there: African slaves weren't willing immigrants and didn't have the opportunity to culturally integrate until well after a distinct African-American culture had formed. The forcible cultural segregation, which lasted past the death of Jim Crow laws, has become self-perpetuating at this point. It's why there's not really a right answer to the racial tensions in the U.S., and why racism in the U.S. is such a different beast when contrasted with the yurogressive perspective on racism.
--
As you noted, Britain doesn't really have any "empty" spaces for immigrants to diffuse into, nor even enough cities, really. That was another factor in immigration on this side of the pond, immigrants generally arrived at one coast and scattered all the way to the other, with plenty of space in between, so you really only saw ghettoization in places like New York and San Fran. With no real room for major population growth and few cities, it's no wonder that people end up stepping off the boat in London and not having anywhere to go. Or that self-hating regressives love it so much that they want the city to just float the fuck away and become Vatican City II: Enrichment Boogaloo in the yurozone. Britons outside London (or England, for that matter) don't really seem to want to integrate immigrants into their communities, while Britons in major immigrant centers want to try to destroy the identity of new immigrants as Britons before it even fully forms.
Y'all's shit be fucked.
Post by: RedKing on July 07, 2016, 06:56:22 pm
Has too many echoes of people who romanticize and lionize the antebellum South...when men were men, women were women, and darkies were expendable farm tools.
Post by: mainiac on July 07, 2016, 06:58:13 pm
Post by: Starver on July 07, 2016, 07:09:12 pm
Google searches are tailored to the individual, thus linking to a google search is not conducive to discussion because we may not be seeing the same thing. Do not rely on google to define your world view, or else whoever controls google, controls how you frame everything.If I had quoted the OED (or dictionary.com or MW) you could have said I was picking and choosing. I was giving you the opportunity to see the whole set, at the risk of your browser being given a bias that mine did not have (or maybe I had a different one).
Spoiler: If you want me to go through the specifics, though (click to show/hide)
But my apologies for trying to be helpful. I shall go back to reading what you say (as always) but resisting the temptation to reply even when I apparently agree with you.
Post by: Urist Reborn on July 07, 2016, 07:13:17 pm
But you think Canadians don't have a culture?...I dunno, I feel like I am the one doing something wrong here. >_< and it isn't nice to kind of say that about people. Then again my temper has subsided so I don't feel so ranty.You actually seem really polite when angry
Sorry, carry on.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 07, 2016, 07:23:22 pm
That's gotta leave generational scars
So LW, the takeaway I get from your discussion of the sads of British multiculturalism is basically, "Britain was much better before I got here." ???Nope lol (well it was getting worse, but I promise I probably wasn't to blame), I talk more about the civic side of things in Europol thread about the impact of mass migration and gentrification on London, but ITT it's not too relevant on this derail, so I suppose it gives the impression of muh good dark age. I cherish Britain, Britons and I genuinely find it a source of amusement that even our most fringe jihadi will proudly call themselves Al-Britani, cos it means even our most extreme elements of society have integrated well. They are dysfunctional, yes, but the dysfunctional society was manifested by those who describe themselves peculiarly.
The takehome would be its kinda shit that this was all done by Politicians who saw multiculturalism, mass migration and diversity as innate goods to be sought with no plan or even objective beyond the policy itself as an inherent good - not even consulting their electorate, or addressing their concerns, acting like villainous snobs holding their electorate in contempt at the obvious truth that migration is good because migration is good. And at the end of the day, that doesn't even matter much anymore. Multiculturalism failed and we moved on, everyone is integrating, but we're still dealing with the permanent consequences - one of which immediately coming to mind is there are now two British identities in Britain, both deserving of their place imo, of which I want to preserve both, seeking them not to replace each other as happened in London. I think over time a lot more of my ideological attention has focused on trying to get reconciling and often conflicting groups in Briton to not destroy each other through existence or action, like why I support Theresa May's effort to reconcile Remain and Leave even if it risks concessions to the European Union. Given how inimical I have also become towards the EU's existence, that should speak for itself lel
Oh yeah, something about controlling immigration, I think I forgot to make that point. Just control mind you, I think migration volume is something you have to decide on a situational basis
But you think Canadians don't have a culture?...OH GOD
Sorry, carry on.
It's true! XD
I'd apologize but I don't want to culturally appropriate Canada
If I had quoted the OED (or dictionary.com or MW) you could have said I was picking and choosing. I was giving you the opportunity to see the whole set, at the risk of your browser being given a bias that mine did not have (or maybe I had a different one).Nah fam wouldn't have said that, no one wins in semantics, it's a cooperative effort to finding out what the hell we all mean ;D
Really I don't buy the latter bit though, basically the same as linking lmgtfy
At worst, the CED suggests a 'country' destination (suggesting prior occupants), but diluted greatly by the ambiguous "or place" (different part of the origin territory? Unclaimed land?) so I don't think you've negated my point to you. If that was your intention.Yeah immigrant seems to be the more accurate term I was looking for, migrant seems to be the more neutral one that just refers to one who does the act of moving from a place to another for work reasons, or as the OED defines it, work or better living conditions
But my apologies for trying to be helpful. I shall go back to reading what you say (as always) but resisting the temptation to reply even when I apparently agree with you.I don't get this m9
Post by: Sonlirain on July 07, 2016, 08:29:21 pm
Look at Poland it's as intolerant as you can get. In fact despite being right next to germany the immigrants give it a wide berth and despite the mass immigration the muslim population there is at 35k and shrinking.
People in general got triggered by the recent terrorist attacks and attitudes towards muslims dropped accordingly.
So far there was no terrorist attacks in Poland (Last one was a bomb exploding in a train station killing 30 people or so... back in 1939) but i have a feeling that if one happens the barely contained hatred will spill and turn into lynch mobs out to get anyone vaguely muslim.
And of course there are tensions between "our" muslims that lived in Poland for generations and the immigrant variety.
Quote from: Wikipedia
There's an ongoing conflict between Polish native Sunni Muslim Lipka Tatars, who have a unique approach towards Islam and have been living in Poland for 600 years, and an increasingly vocal group of mainly foreign-born and foreign-sponsored, but also native-born convert, group of Sunni Muslims who adhere to Wahhabi movement. The conflict divides country's Sunni Muslims and causes bureaucratic confusion, as both sides lay claim to representation of country's Sunni Muslims. The "native born" Sunni Muslims (Lipka Tatars), run Muzułmański Związek Religijny w Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Muslim Religious Union in the Polish Republic), and "foreign born" Sunni Muslims run Liga Muzułmańska w Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Muslim League in the Polish Republic). The latter is mainly based upon foreigners living in the coutry, such as Arabs, Pakistanis, Chechens etc. Liga Muzułmańska is also a branch of a worldwide Muslim Brotherhood organization
So yeah... they just had to start shit because the Lipkas were not hardcore enough for them. I wouldn't be surprised if they consider Lipkas "Kufr" and secretly already marked them all for death.
Thankfully it didn't get violent... yet. Mainly because Poland is becoming more and more Orwellian and starting shit means you go wherever you came from.
Quote
The new law gives the state security service the right to conduct surveillance of foreign citizens for up to three months without prior court approval.
It allows for suspects to be held for 14 days without charges but with court approval, expanding the current period of 48 hours a suspect can be held without charges.
The regulation also makes it easier for foreigners to be deported if considered a threat, and regulates the sale and usage of pay-as-you-go SIM cards, which are now sold freely and anonymously.
Critics say the legislation gives the secret services excessive powers, and see the move as part of the ruling party's efforts to strengthen its grip on key institutions.
Rights group Amnesty International described the bill as dangerous, saying it gives "seemingly unlimited powers" to Poland's intelligence services. (http://www.businessinsider.com/r-poland-approves-closer-surveillance-of-foreigners-ahead-of-nato-summit-pope-visit-2016-6?IR=T)
And of course what other country in the EU would pull off crap like this?
Quote from: Wikipedia
In May, 2016, shortly before the World Youth Day 2016, police in Kraków asked foreigners, mainly among the Muslim community, in the city if they "know any terrorists?"I'm quite sure Poland truly is the gemstone in the crown of anti liberal thinking. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/12029627/Polish-police-tell-British-Sikh-man-what-do-you-expect-after-Paris-attacks-after-nightclub-beating.html)
Post by: Max™ on July 07, 2016, 09:26:11 pm
I mean shit, if you moved over here, LW, and spawned in whatever fashion you people do (it's ok to say that, you can't be racist against Brits!) you might find them being called British-Americans, maybe ElDub-Americans... Bant-Americans, you get the idea.
I do love that you people ran around the world dispensing british culture left and right at the end of a sword or gun, and then complain when other people ask if they can take their culture and come crash on your couch.
Oh, if we had to give back Texas, I'm pretty sure they'd want California and Nevada too... we could probably keep Arizona, I doubt they would want it, but at least a large chunk of Texas is fit for human habitation without spending vast amounts of money, effort, and throwing water at the sand while screaming "GROW!" over and over again.
Post by: Neonivek on July 07, 2016, 09:34:44 pm
Quote
I do love that you people ran around the world dispensing british culture left and right at the end of a sword or gun, and then complain when other people ask if they can take their culture and come crash on your couch.
No it makes perfect sense. The British believes their culture was the absolute best... So much so that they had a sworn duty to not only share it with the world but also morally required to force it upon lesser cultures through any means necessary.
Why would such a culture that believes in that ever want to intermingle with other cultures?
Just look at some of their more segregated colonies where they basically instituted a aristocracy of rich British people, keeping out the natives for years (often even today still having the gap between the two)
If one were facetious or misanthropic we could just say that their issues with multiculturalism is just holdovers from their imperial days. Wanting to keep other cultures at bay while at the same time exploiting them for their own gain.
Post by: Starver on July 07, 2016, 10:09:54 pm
Post by: mainiac on July 07, 2016, 10:34:54 pm
...but now we've got the recipe... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB0ZOu_EZ2M)
He has a point. I was talking with two other white people today about how we could totally open an indian restaurant.
Post by: Flying Dice on July 07, 2016, 10:47:21 pm
Post by: Sheb on July 08, 2016, 03:58:57 am
So yeah, multiculturalism isn't clearly defined, its meaning change from country to country and you should take any statement using it with a layer of interpretation.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2016, 04:54:28 pm
Is "Pakistani-Brit" or "Polish-Brit" a thing?There are Pakistanis, British who are Pakistani by heritage, less so with Poles
Reason is is probably cos citizenship, and Poles become white British if they integrate
I mean shit, if you moved over here, LW, and spawned in whatever fashion you people do (it's ok to say that, you can't be racist against Brits!)Ayyy lmao I'm not English, you just became racist
Go back to Amerikkka with your white people, shrekmate nazis
you might find them being called British-Americans, maybe ElDub-Americans... Bant-Americans, you get the idea.#notallbants
I do love that you people ran around the world dispensing british culture left and right at the end of a sword or gun, and then complain when other people ask if they can take their culture and come crash on your couch.Hahaha, you know shitehoc all about British history then, you can't dispense culture through a bayonet - nah, that's the truly terrifying thing, being conquered before the soldiers arrive. It'd be easier if culture was something you could spread through the sword, that'd mean you could fight it in an organized manner.
Reminds me of that one Nepalese King who I'm gonna paraphrase, EIC wanted their merchants to have access through Nepal to get at the Kashmir goat wool in Tibet, the King was all: That is a reasonable request, but once merchants are here, their goods will follow, then the missionaries will follow, then converts will follow - then bayonets will follow. At which point the EIC started the hashtag #nepalforuk #no2isolation, making jokes about Hindu IndoAryan Kings ruling over Buddhist Nepali, utterly molesting history to make points about the present :P
I'm gonna start with what you think's being complained about, cos you're just repeating current year man's basic bitch bants there - one of the things I've pretty consistently said for years now is that you can't get mad at people who your whites have invited xD
I never got the logic in this, like German politicians inviting millions of immigrants to Germany and then blaming the immigrants, wtf are they on lol
Then there's the exportation of culture throughout the British Empire, I can't go too much in depth on this as it varies according to time period, governance change and country predecessors, but boy is that one I am tempted to start a thread over in future, Bay12 will have a history general if it does not already have one. It is quite funny drawing parallels, as painful as anachronisms are. Canada, Cyprus, Nigeria, India, Malaya and Britain itself, cover the social engineering done and cultural exchange strategies done in these countries, you can pretty much cover all of them that weren't pioneered by ancient Empires. Murrica prolly deserves special mention for taking old strategies and hyping them into overdrive lol
I have no quarrel with the English or Scots or Welsh doing their own thing if they respect ethnic Britons, likewise the reverse is true. As it stands now having two British identities is something to balance, but as its noticed, we are moving on from the dark days where Oxbridge MPs stuck their head in the sand and pretended everything would be ok if we just ignored it. The two British identities are both British and do not occupy the same human ecological niches, so keeping them from replacing the other seems altogether incredibly achievable. Most importantly, an end is being put to Europeanization, especially given that the fookin white males are not gonna get easy access to the UK anymore
Oh, if we had to give back Texas, I'm pretty sure they'd want California and Nevada too... we could probably keep Arizona, I doubt they would want it, but at least a large chunk of Texas is fit for human habitation without spending vast amounts of money, effort, and throwing water at the sand while screaming "GROW!" over and over again.Your problem is not for lack of arable land, your farmers have science (http://texasalmanac.com/topics/agriculture/state-texas-agriculture)
It's probably more that Texas is Texas, meaning you have to be acclimatised to the surface of the sun
Post by: Neonivek on July 08, 2016, 05:00:02 pm
Quote
you can't dispense culture through a bayonet
>_> well then stop trying.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2016, 05:12:55 pm
???Quoteyou can't dispense culture through a bayonet>_> well then stop trying.
I don't own bayonets. For seconds, I'm not minister of culture, media and sports. For thirds, I wouldn't endorse ideas that don't work ;]
Soon Neo, UKIP shall send their bayonet squadrons to Canada, to convert everyone to the Queen
*EDIT
Oh wait, no turns out you can spread culture through a bayonet. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9571522/Soldier-who-led-Afghanistan-bayonet-charge-into-hail-of-bullets-honoured.html)
It's highly situational though
Quote
As two of the soldiers provided fire support, Cpl Jones prepared a hand grenade for the final assault. He raced towards an alley and was about to throw the grenade but said he realised that the buildings were occupied so put the grenade away. But the speed, aggression and audacity of his response caused the insurgents to fall back in disarray.Good Lord, collateral damage avoided through smart thinking and bravery
That's rare
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2016, 05:27:32 pm
Either that or he's drunker
Post by: Max™ on July 08, 2016, 05:30:16 pm
That's why I asked, wasn't sure how it's handled there for sure. Over here you can be an American, or a State-an/ean/er/(ite?), or a parent-ethnicity-American, or a parent-ethnicity, or naturalized parent-ethnicity, or some self-chosen moniker if you wish. Melting pot and all.Is "Pakistani-Brit" or "Polish-Brit" a thing?There are Pakistanis, British who are Pakistani by heritage, less so with Poles
Reason is is probably cos citizenship, and Poles become white British if they integrate
I never said English, I said Britbongs, and I'm more of a tan shade (almost half native american) anyways.I mean shit, if you moved over here, LW, and spawned in whatever fashion you people do (it's ok to say that, you can't be racist against Brits!)Ayyy lmao I'm not English, you just became racist
Go back to Amerikkka with your white people, shrekmate nazis
See above, half my family tree came over here and said "welp, this is ours now" and at some point started fucking the natives after they got tired of killing them.I do love that you people ran around the world dispensing british culture left and right at the end of a sword or gun, and then complain when other people ask if they can take their culture and come crash on your couch.I'm gonna start with what you think's being complained about, cos you're just repeating current year man's basic bitch bants there - one of the things I've pretty consistently said for years now is that you can't get mad at people who your whites have invited xD
Then there's the exportation of culture throughout the British Empire, I can't go too much in depth on this as it varies according to time period, governance change and country predecessors, but boy is that one I am tempted to start a thread over in future, Bay12 will have a history general if it does not already have one. It is quite funny drawing parallels, as painful as anachronisms are. Canada, Cyprus, Nigeria, India, Malaya and Britain itself, cover the social engineering done and cultural exchange strategies done in these countries, you can pretty much cover all of them that weren't pioneered by ancient Empires. Murrica prolly deserves special mention for taking old strategies and hyping them into overdrive lolI was mostly just teasing you but that does actually sound like an interesting thread. I'm a big fan of reading history from multiple sources, can't trust any single source for everything.
I have no quarrel with the English or Scots or Welsh doing their own thing if they respect ethnic Britons, likewise the reverse is true. As it stands now having two British identities is something to balance, but as its noticed, we are moving on from the dark days where Oxbridge MPs stuck their head in the sand and pretended everything would be ok if we just ignored it. The two British identities are both British and do not occupy the same human ecological niches, so keeping them from replacing the other seems altogether incredibly achievable. Most importantly, an end is being put to Europeanization, especially given that the fookin white males are not gonna get easy access to the UK anymoreI learned that one of my family names ties back to the silly early ideas about how some Scots were more "negrified" than others, I was always confused by "black man of the moors" before I learned about that.
I was talking about Las Vegas, the stupidest fucking place in the entire country, yes, dumber than anywhere you might have thought of at first. The damn city was built and sustained by draining the lake nearby into the desert basically, and they truck water in now with the end result of throwing it at the sand and wondering why it still hasn't magically worked.Oh, if we had to give back Texas, I'm pretty sure they'd want California and Nevada too... we could probably keep Arizona, I doubt they would want it, but at least a large chunk of Texas is fit for human habitation without spending vast amounts of money, effort, and throwing water at the sand while screaming "GROW!" over and over again.Your problem is not for lack of arable land, your farmers have science (http://texasalmanac.com/topics/agriculture/state-texas-agriculture)
It's probably more that Texas is Texas, meaning you have to be acclimatised to the surface of the sun
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2016, 05:56:01 pm
That's why I asked, wasn't sure how it's handled there for sure. Over here you can be an American, or a State-an/ean/er/(ite?), or a parent-ethnicity-American, or a parent-ethnicity, or naturalized parent-ethnicity, or some self-chosen moniker if you wish. Melting pot and all.If you melted down everyone into one people why aren't they one people?
I never said English, I said Britbongs, and I'm more of a tan shade (almost half native american) anyways.Mein seides
See above, half my family tree came over here and said "welp, this is ours now" and at some point started fucking the natives after they got tired of killing them.If you want to hold the sins of your ancestors, you hold them, they're not mine
I was mostly just teasing you but that does actually sound like an interesting thread. I'm a big fan of reading history from multiple sources, can't trust any single source for everything.Trust nothing! Nothing! :D
And that's only a half-joke, or half truth. I suppose depending on how optimistic you are lol
I learned that one of my family names ties back to the silly early ideas about how some Scots were more "negrified" than others, I was always confused by "black man of the moors" before I learned about that.Oh what, the pastiest people alive? The freaking June heatwave hospitalized dozens of Scots with sunburn under a shocking 20*C sun
The only stuff I can find in regards to all else are the rasta archives (http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-african-kings-of-scotland-the-black-celtish-clans-1/) who have ideas like Shakespeare not being Shakespeare (http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/amelia-bassano-the-real-shakespare/), Joseph Kony being indestructible (http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-indestructible-kony-the-united-states-and-uganda-suspend-the-search-for-joseph-kony/) and Caesar being black (http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/was-julius-ceasar-white-not-on-your-life-the-african-roots-of-rome-and-the-wrongly-painted-ceasar-by-masach/)
Sounds like exactly the sort of revisionism white people come up with
I was talking about Las Vegas, the stupidest fucking place in the entire country, yes, dumber than anywhere you might have thought of at first. The damn city was built and sustained by draining the lake nearby into the desert basically, and they truck water in now with the end result of throwing it at the sand and wondering why it still hasn't magically worked.Nah, Las Vegas has got nothing on Dubai. It is hilarious talking to emigres from Dubai, who say literally everywhere else on Earth is better. Best description was from some guy who went on a 3 min rant about how Dubai was a stupid city that shouldn't exist and only exists because it was the capital of the Najd tribe, had no rivers, water, little rain, the sand storms destroy cars, it can be 50*C hot and without oil money, everyone would die
Post by: Max™ on July 08, 2016, 06:11:21 pm
They're all Americans, in the end.That's why I asked, wasn't sure how it's handled there for sure. Over here you can be an American, or a State-an/ean/er/(ite?), or a parent-ethnicity-American, or a parent-ethnicity, or naturalized parent-ethnicity, or some self-chosen moniker if you wish. Melting pot and all.If you melted down everyone into one people why aren't they one people?
I'm just saying, the "when they were invited thing" doesn't hold up as well over here, and whether they were your ancestors or not, they were kinsmen of them at some point.See above, half my family tree came over here and said "welp, this is ours now" and at some point started fucking the natives after they got tired of killing them.If you want to hold the sins of your ancestors, you hold them, they're not mine
Yeah, it seemed weird to me given the lack of gingers and such in the family, but dark haired Scots are a thing it seems, and that mixed with the native blood gives me a pitch black hair, a nice tan, and brown freckles despite getting little sun for years. Though I do have like three red hairs in my beard, plus a couple gray ones.I learned that one of my family names ties back to the silly early ideas about how some Scots were more "negrified" than others, I was always confused by "black man of the moors" before I learned about that.Oh what, the pastiest people alive? The freaking June heatwave hospitalized dozens of Scots with sunburn under a shocking 20*C sun
The only stuff I can find in regards to all else are the rasta archives (http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-african-kings-of-scotland-the-black-celtish-clans-1/) who have ideas like Shakespeare not being Shakespeare (http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/amelia-bassano-the-real-shakespare/), Joseph Kony being indestructible (http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-indestructible-kony-the-united-states-and-uganda-suspend-the-search-for-joseph-kony/) and Caesar being black (http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/was-julius-ceasar-white-not-on-your-life-the-african-roots-of-rome-and-the-wrongly-painted-ceasar-by-masach/)
Sounds like exactly the sort of revisionism white people come up with
Well, that's why I said country, Dubai does indeed out-Vegas Vegas for the stupid "let's throw water and money at the desert!" factor.I was talking about Las Vegas, the stupidest fucking place in the entire country, yes, dumber than anywhere you might have thought of at first. The damn city was built and sustained by draining the lake nearby into the desert basically, and they truck water in now with the end result of throwing it at the sand and wondering why it still hasn't magically worked.Nah, Las Vegas has got nothing on Dubai. It is hilarious talking to emigres from Dubai, who say literally everywhere else on Earth is better. Best description was from some guy who went on a 3 min rant about how Dubai was a stupid city that shouldn't exist and only exists because it was the capital of the Najd tribe, had no rivers, water, little rain, the sand storms destroy cars, it can be 50*C hot and without oil money, everyone would die
Post by: RedKing on July 08, 2016, 06:14:10 pm
America has never been a melting pot, it's more like a stew. Still recognizable chunks of ingredients, but with a mostly similar taste (or lack thereof) throughout.That's why I asked, wasn't sure how it's handled there for sure. Over here you can be an American, or a State-an/ean/er/(ite?), or a parent-ethnicity-American, or a parent-ethnicity, or naturalized parent-ethnicity, or some self-chosen moniker if you wish. Melting pot and all.If you melted down everyone into one people why aren't they one people?
Post by: Max™ on July 08, 2016, 06:17:48 pm
Hell, once I got stranded on Martha's Vineyard after an internet hook-up backfired, got a job at an ice cream parlor, with, I kid you not, an irishman, a scotsman, and a russian.
Post by: redwallzyl on July 08, 2016, 06:26:31 pm
Hell, once I got stranded on Martha's Vineyard after an internet hook-up backfired, got a job at an ice cream parlor, with, I kid you not, an irishman, a scotsman, and a russian.
that sounds like the set up for a joke. :P
Post by: Max™ on July 08, 2016, 06:28:20 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2016, 06:33:14 pm
They're all Americans, in the end.That's pretty much just the civic situation here, same thing
I'm just saying, the "when they were invited thing" doesn't hold up as well over here, and whether they were your ancestors or not, they were kinsmen of them at some point.What is the "when they were invited thing"? Whether who were ancestors of who, kinsmen of who at what points? Dunno what you're saying
Yeah, it seemed weird to me given the lack of gingers and such in the family, but dark haired Scots are a thing it seems, and that mixed with the native blood gives me a pitch black hair, a nice tan, and brown freckles despite getting little sun for years. Though I do have like three red hairs in my beard, plus a couple gray ones.Scots are not a race of gingers and people suspect there's like 70-140 million people in the world with red hair, whilst the population of Scotland is 5 million, and the number of ginger Scots in Scotland 500,000
If you're ginger, you've probably got fair number of ancestors from the northern north hemisphere of Yurop, think King Cnut's Empire sans Denmark and England (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24331615)
Well, that's why I said country, Dubai does indeed out-Vegas Vegas for the stupid "let's throw water and money at the desert!" factor.Why do humans do this
Only the ones that have been white and christian and american for generations lack any sort of taste. There's lots of interesting spice in other parts of the country.This is the issue right there, all national cultures go to America and become whites. Amorphous blob of whites. All Christians go there and become amorphous blobs of Christians. Then white Christians become amorphous blob of Americans. And it lacks any sort of taste, because it is blob, melter of dude pot lmao
How do you manage to end up losing culture over generations of refinement? Why are you wholly reliant upon the cultural imports of migrants ???
Hell, once I got stranded on Martha's Vineyard after an internet hook-up backfired, got a job at an ice cream parlor, with, I kid you not, an irishman, a scotsman, and a russian.Needs more diversity
Post by: Max™ on July 08, 2016, 06:42:38 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2016, 06:48:28 pm
You mentioned getting mad when "your whites invited them" in.Nope, not following your point here
If that's what you think I said, reread it
Post by: Max™ on July 08, 2016, 07:04:11 pm
I'm gonna start with what you think's being complained about, cos you're just repeating current year man's basic bitch bants there - one of the things I've pretty consistently said for years now is that you can't get mad at people who your whites have invited xDThis? Weren't many whites over here, and weren't many whites who should have thought they could invite others in the first place.
Half my family basically invaded this country, took it from the other half, killed most of them, and then fucked the rest. That's literally American history in a nutshell once the Britbongers decided to see what the hell the Spaniards were doing over here.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2016, 07:08:53 pm
This? Weren't many whites over here, and weren't many whites who should have thought they could invite others in the first place.Oh, haha, no that was a you plural directed at the Germanics of UK and Yurop, not a you singular directed at you
Half my family basically invaded this country, took it from the other half, killed most of them, and then fucked the rest. That's literally American history in a nutshell once the Britbongers decided to see what the hell the Spaniards were doing over here.
Post by: Max™ on July 08, 2016, 07:11:06 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2016, 07:13:53 pm
Speaking of which, I love me gommies
Quote
He talked to some guy in Yorkshire who didn’t know whether Labour was for or against the EU, and didn’t think that Brexit was literally the end of civilisation as we know it. Corbyn has to go, he is a traitor and heretic.Cheeky gommies! (https://off-guardian.org/2016/06/27/new-labour-emerges-from-hibernation-sooner-than-expected-and-unready/)
Of course, the most sickening part of this contemptible, slimy column is the blatant, extravagant liberal hypocrisy.
If we can venture, briefly, into an alternate universe – let us say that Remain had won. Let us say that instead of choking back panic for the past three days, the Guardian had been serving up crow. Let us say that Nigel Farage was demanding that Parliament ignore the referendum, and writing columns about how Boris Johnson was trying to sabotage the Leave campaign – citing as his evidence e-mails from last December, that were neither sent to, nor written by, Johnson himself. Would the Guardian heed these calls? Would they take them seriously? Never. Never in a million years.
Anyone questioning the integrity of the vote, or the campaigns, would be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist” – as they were during the Scottish Independence referendum. “Bitter leavers” would be mocked, patronised, and encouraged to “move on”.
…but Brexit is apparently different. In this instance, no evidence is too small. No claim too ridiculous. No petition too full of joke names from the Antarctic. Establishment institutions are facing a real existential crisis, and desperate times call for really, really desperate measures.
The plot against Corbyn was always going to come out of hibernation eventually, but circumstance has forced it out too soon. Hopefully, it will not survive the winter.
Quote
This is pretty bad logic, for a number of reasons. Firstly, you can’t at once castigate Corbyn for his “lackluster campaigning”, whilst volunteering that he delivered the majority of his party’s vote (63%), including his young base. Secondly, it is not 75% of people under 25, it is 75% of the roughly 30% of that age group who voted. We have no idea how the other 70% would have voted, and it is statistically very unlikely that the minority turnout just happens to include the entirety of Corbyn’s young base. It is also flawed to suggest that Corbyn’s “left leaning idealists” would vote so massively FOR the EU, when the traditional leftist position has been anti-EU.It is altogether quite peculiar how the alliances amongst everyone in politics has been shifting up so much, crazy
Post by: Max™ on July 08, 2016, 07:17:53 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 08, 2016, 07:23:25 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 08, 2016, 09:04:14 pm
You don't want none, mate.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 08, 2016, 09:23:27 pm
Makes every single post much more dramatic.
Post by: Starver on July 08, 2016, 09:28:28 pm
fite me blad im beebDare I ask what that is in English?
Post by: Neonivek on July 09, 2016, 06:39:52 am
Can we get some bad news to liven up our day?
Post by: scriver on July 09, 2016, 06:42:36 am
They're all Americans, in the end.That's why I asked, wasn't sure how it's handled there for sure. Over here you can be an American, or a State-an/ean/er/(ite?), or a parent-ethnicity-American, or a parent-ethnicity, or naturalized parent-ethnicity, or some self-chosen moniker if you wish. Melting pot and all.If you melted down everyone into one people why aren't they one people?
"Americans" is more of a geographical based term than a people. Personally I think this is a key aspect of why there is so little loyalty and trust between americans. In contrast, I think the strong shared bond between people was one of the main reasons the Swedish/Nordic model socialism of the 1930's to 80 was so succesful.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 09, 2016, 07:02:01 am
Kind of sad the destruction of the UK has died down.Don't worry, the GBP is still plummeting (http://www.investing.com/currencies/gbp-usd-chart), we might get a worldwide depression yet. From which humanity will come out with a new emperor whose visage is at once both shocking and indescribable.
Can we get some bad news to liven up our day?
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 09, 2016, 07:08:40 am
Don't worry, the GBP is still plummeting (http://www.investing.com/currencies/gbp-usd-chart), we might get a worldwide depression yet. From which humanity will come out with a new emperor whose visage is at once both shocking and indescribable.Looks like it's stabilising
Post by: MarcAFK on July 09, 2016, 08:31:32 am
Russel brand for global emperor.Don't worry, the GBP is still plummeting (http://www.investing.com/currencies/gbp-usd-chart), we might get a worldwide depression yet. From which humanity will come out with a new emperor whose visage is at once both shocking and indescribable.Looks like it's stabilising
Post by: Jerick on July 09, 2016, 09:28:38 am
That's probably because it's the weekend, the markets are closed and almost no one is trading. If it were to appear to stabilize on a weekday that would be a good sign. But even if it was to do so it won't change what's happening right now.Don't worry, the GBP is still plummeting (http://www.investing.com/currencies/gbp-usd-chart), we might get a worldwide depression yet. From which humanity will come out with a new emperor whose visage is at once both shocking and indescribable.Looks like it's stabilising
What is happening right now (or rather what will be happening on Monday because our financial system is so insane economic collapse breaks for the weekend) is that a whole mess of economic partnerships and contracts between companies inside the UK and outside the UK are being ended. Such things take a bit of time, effort and negotiation. Not all companies are willing to invest that time and effort just yet But as the GBP falls more and more they will see staying connected as too much of a risk. As more companies cut ties the GBP will fall more.
The British Finance industry as a whole is great reason for doom and gloom. It provides £41bn in taxes a year by itself. (for reference the entire British military budget is £40bn) Britain prior to the Brexit vote was the largest financial country in the world. (Yes the brits beat the Swiss in that regard) In fact Britain is where a large number of sovereign countries keep their current accounts as it makes dealing with European companies, governments and financial institutions far easier. Another reason to pick Britain was that it had a strong reputation as both an economically stable place as well as a politically stable one and in Finance reputation matters more than fact. That reputation is gone now. Most if not all the reasons Britain became a finance giant look to be stripped away with it's European exit. All those companies and countries that have accounts and ties with British institutions will be looking to move away. However as before moving that much money away requires negotiation and takes time. They aren't all going to vanish at once until we're looking at full blown financial collapse.
But I'm worried, I'd go as far to say I'm scared. Banks only hold so much money and it's usually much less than is in the accounts they hold because of how they make money. These big banks and institutions will slowly bleed accounts and clients until it becomes clear that they are going down. At which point we'll probably have a run on the banks, except this time it won't be the banks holding personal accounts and dealing out housing loans it'll be the banks handling the cash for multinational corporations and governments the world over that'll get hit. In short it'll be the banks that bailed out the banks in the housing crisis that will be hit hardest. Harder than they have ever been hit before.
Do I blame the leave voters for this? Honestly just a little, many seemed to ignore the economic implications but then not everyone is that versed in or spends much time thinking of economics. However I feel the lion's share of the blame lies at the feet of the UK government. If some one anyone had a plan things wouldn't be as bad. In fact financial collapse could be mitigated if not stopped outright if the UK government comes out with a clear, concise plan. It's still early, it's still at the point before things are irreversible. It doesn't even need to be a very good plan. It just needs to convince investors that they have some idea of what's coming in the future. But I do not have high hopes right now that they will.
So yeah, buy gold.
Post by: sluissa on July 09, 2016, 10:29:00 am
It's ridiculous that we base so much of the worlds stability on something so inherently unstable.
Post by: Starver on July 09, 2016, 11:46:53 am
Three words: Carol, Mark, Thatcher. :P
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 09, 2016, 11:59:10 am
The world economy is such a fucking house of cards that its unsurprising that something like this happens and honestly, for a lot of people it won't matter, some people might even cheer at the big corps taking a hit over the little guy's vote.#bringbacktheducat
It's ridiculous that we base so much of the worlds stability on something so inherently unstable.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 09, 2016, 12:01:42 pm
Post by: Frumple on July 09, 2016, 08:52:00 pm
For those unwilling to check the link, a post-referendum study on voting patterns figured out that those figures on younger voters that's been publicised to hell and back since the results, where they were around 36% participation, was pretty much utter bullshit. Actually in the sixties, and on par or damn close to it to participation of every non-retired demographic in the country.
Looks like the youngins have plenty of room to complain :V
Post by: Starver on July 09, 2016, 09:25:02 pm
(And why, although here in context of the hypothetical adjustment not being so, is it perpetuated that 52:48 is a 'clear victory' for whichever side? It's not a clear victory. It's a marginal result, for a clearly polarising question that cannot be resolved by merely having a smaller majority vs an opposition nor even any useful coalition 'hybrid' answer to the public's ambivalance. The mirror result would have been just as unsure and (as we saw was originally suggested as a fall-back by the subsequent 'victors') would not have been taken as an irrevocable answer to the question.)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 11, 2016, 10:37:55 am
10/10 all according to keikaku
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 11, 2016, 10:50:47 am
It says 64% of those REGISTERED voted. Nothing on how many weren't registered in the first place.Counterpoint: dude weed lmao
Theresa May to be Prime Minister within the week (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36763208)
Yes! Now begins the winter of content!
Post by: martinuzz on July 11, 2016, 11:02:01 am
Post by: scrdest on July 11, 2016, 11:22:44 am
Since when does winter start with May?English weather vOv
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 11, 2016, 11:23:04 am
Since when does winter start with May?
Spoiler: Since we let it go, can't hold us back anymore (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 11, 2016, 11:36:20 am
Damn. I can't say I'm terribly fond of Theresa.Nah fam, she clearly only gave lip service to the EU cos she thought Cameron would win
Primarily because she seems to think nobody should have privacy AND she seems even more divorced from the real world than most politicians. I still recall her 'Stay in the EU but ignore the human rights they chose' idea that would work about as well as shoving a hedgehog up your arse to cure cancer.
Quote
According to the Daily Express, Farage has been disturbed by a surge in daily threats that have worsened dramatically since the vote for a Brexit.top kekyls and hides
The newspaper claims he gave a police statement about threats made to his family. It is understood those threats were made against his daughters, aged 11 and 16.
Would-be attackers were caught on at least two occasions trying to smuggle knives into EU referendum campaign rallies attended by Farage, the Mirror reports.
Hundreds of messages have also been posted to social media making threats against Farage.
One on Twitter reads: “I will pay for someone to shoot Nigel Farage.”
Another says: “Punch, stab or shoot: Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Go! #PunchStabOrShoot.”
The Daily Express says Farage’s family life has also been under strain, which contributed to his standing down.
https://www.rt.com/uk/350645-assassination-threat-farage-ukip/
Post by: martinuzz on July 11, 2016, 12:13:57 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 11, 2016, 12:20:48 pm
He could apply for asylum in a EU country.And make Germany pay for it lmao
Brexit Poll Shows 80% Of Americans Think Britain Should Leave EU and that they support the departure more than any other country — including the U.K. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiesola/2016/06/22/brexit-poll-shows-80-of-americans-think-britain-should-leave-eu/#522a6b3562b6)
AAAAGHHHH I CAN'T CONTAIN THE FREEDOM, IT'S BREAKING THE LIBERTY FLUX MODULATOR
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 11, 2016, 12:47:34 pm
Quote
The data comes from polls posted through May and June in 123 articles on the website of The Independent,The data comes from online polls
The data comes from online polls
The data comes from online polls
The data comes from online polls
The data comes from online polls
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 11, 2016, 01:08:55 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 11, 2016, 08:12:20 pm
Post by: Starver on July 11, 2016, 08:46:42 pm
Though doesn't feature in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Interest#Quote (despite/because it being around a short time).
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 12, 2016, 04:30:20 am
From what I know of British naming convention the Independent is probably a traditonalist Europhile rag peddling the intentions of Eternal Queen Lizzie and the New World Order.They were fairly awesome, very unbiased and professional news agency, until they were bought by the mastermind behind making online clickbait. Now they're like the Guardian, if the Guardian put no effort into their articles
It's a sad state :[
Quote
Announcing the "digital-only" move, ESI Media said "some redundancies among editorial employees" would be made.Eliminated the people keeping things awesome
Quote
It's easy to forget how groundbreaking the Independent was when it launched. It looked strikingly modern, it came with none of the partisan baggage of 1980s politics and in an era of bitter industrial disputes that blighted rivals such as the Times, it carved out a large readership.It was arguably better than the BBC at times
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35561145
Now, they have been taken on a bold new commercially successful model... Inspired by Buzzfeed.
Now the independent is basic bitch
Post by: Sheb on July 12, 2016, 05:06:45 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 12, 2016, 05:14:42 am
Post by: Sheb on July 12, 2016, 05:18:53 am
Post by: Starver on July 12, 2016, 05:23:21 am
I love how thanks to its courageous vote to not have unelected officials decide its law, Britain will now be led by a woman that wasn't elected for the job.35,453 people voted for her. And some of them might (<- swerving to avoid what might have looked like a pun) have wanted her to become PM and stop caring about her local representational duties, too..
(In certain formal committees that I'm involved in (not political, or at least only political in an amateur power-hungry way) when the delegates of sub-organisational units get elected into the committee structure, the elected chairman(/person) is expected to be neutral and, as compensation, the sub-unit gets to send a replacement delegate to make up their number. It would be nice to know what .../Thatcher/Major/Blair/Brown/Cameron did for their elective constituencies whilst also doing duty as Premier. Well, apparently Cameron complained about his local council's cuts to services, but is it essentially like a movable Washington DC situation, for all intents and purposes?)
Yep. Our system works by voting for a party, not the leader.No we don't, we vote for a candidate, who may or may not represent a party and may or may not be totally in line with that party's stated goals, the party leader's stated goals, both of these and or neither.
Post by: evilcherry on July 12, 2016, 05:35:17 am
The Undemocraticness of EU stems from Council, which is basically a representative from the local government of each state. Having a parliamentary system in which Europarl is sovereign will stop these complaints, but at the same time turns EU into an actual federation.I love how thanks to its courageous vote to not have unelected officials decide its law, Britain will now be led by a woman that wasn't elected for the job.Yep. Our system works by voting for a party, not the leader. It's why I was always confused about the whole 'OMG EU so undemocratic!' complaint. It's another layer on top of the British system. We vote for the party, the party votes for a leader, the leader votes for the whadyacallit (I remember the position, not the name) of the EU.
FPTP skew things horrendously if they can be used to empower another FPTP, which most legislatures uses internally as a voting system, or to elect one representative to another body.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 12, 2016, 06:04:31 am
Ah, Rupert, how I hate you.Ay nah, Rupert didn't do this, and he doesn't have monopoly, most importantly he's bit stuffed when it comes to Putin news, GMG, Barclay Bros and BBC - with him holding onto papers when papers are forecasted to go caput (if he doesn't die of old age before then).
Honestly I'm surprised that no country has gone and attempted to break up his monopoly. I wonder if politicians are too worried about a smear campaign.
Calls to break up Rupert's nonexistent monopoly are a bit outdated, when now it is far more important on who controls social media and search engines
Forget controlling the news, it is far more valuable for politicians to control news people don't believe is news
I love how thanks to its courageous vote to not have unelected officials decide its law, Britain will now be led by a woman that wasn't elected for the job.What are you on about, she was elected to the job. Learn British parliamentary politics m8, you can't become Prime Minister without being an elected MP
On that note, what is more serious is whether the mandate the Tory party was elected on is sufficient for their leadership election, as lots of libdem/surviving labour and UKIP are arguing that May should not in good faith lead negotiations as the mandate was given under Cameron, not May. Quite so, May argued for a new mandate to be given with Brown in 07, but will likely herself argue that the mandate was given through election on the basis of giving the referendum and the referendum itself giving a mandate to carry out the Brexit negotiations.
Essentially Theresa May wants to hold EU negotiations now to minimize instability to the EU and UK, as to hold a general election whilst she is conducting negotiations could lead to situations where the Tory lose their majority and thus their cabinet, or more hilariously, Theresa May could lose her seat, rendering negotiations pointless and having to start all over again
Oh, also UKIP want proportional representation in addition to a general election, that way their millions of votes would translate into MPs
top bants
All in all, Theresa May is gonna hold this stuff together since the only real opposition she has in Parliament are the Libdems, who are the Libdems lol (weak as all hell from Nick Clegg's mistake). This is why I go on about how shit it is when Labour cannot mount an opposition, effectively May can argue the party still has their mandate as a result of the referendum, but de facto the reason is probably more to do with her being the last man standing willing to do the job
I do quite like the fact that May will have to deliver on the referendum negotiations or she'll lose her job though, that's a good motivating sword of Damocles
Post by: Starver on July 12, 2016, 07:30:21 am
Oh, also UKIP want proportional representation in addition to a general election, that way their millions of votes would translate into MPsMy problem with PR is who would be my MP?
top bants
Right now, I know that the Right Honourable Polly Tishen (Mauve Party candidate and successful electee for the constituency of Starverville within the unitary authority of North Central Hamshiresex) is my MP, because I live in that place, whether or not I even voted for her (or even voted!), and my pleasure or displeasure at her ability to deal with my issue of the local dog-mess mountain threatening to spill over into my back garden, or the threat of an HS4 station being built over the top of my grandkids' school (on massive concrete stilts, no less!) translates into my willingness or otherwise to vote for her (not her party) in the next election cycle.
With simple list-based PR, an individual Mauve Party candidate has a position on the party list and likely is either is assured their place, so long as some very low proportion of the public of the whole country contributes enough votes to qualify enough of the list, or an effective reserve candidate will be so low in tne party's own favoured rankings that it would take an unprecedented swing in popularity towards their political faction to get them anywhere, and perhaps change the minds of their party leadership about minor, but off-message, differences in non-core party policies that the public would actually like their (broadly supported) platform to adopt as a nuance in their representation in parliament.
And who do I see about my dog-mess mountain or stilted HS4? Perhaps a minister (or shadow-minister) for the Department Of Righting Those Particular Wrongs? But then they've got to deal with a whole nation's-worth of complaints. My party's 'Gateway' team? But what if I don't have a party, and of course I can't (and shouldn't be able to) prove which way I voted? Maybe each party takes its elected list members and assigns them a subset of the country (whole, or just the bits they feel confident they have enough grassroots in) and creates an unofficial constituency not necessarily contiguous with any competing party, and treat the person assigned as 'local MP' for the region, for those that contributed to the party power-base? But same issue regarding proving a vote, or else the non-democracy of party subscrptions earning access to the representational process, even if this means that smaller parties have to deal with fewer requests, averaging out the workload.
Dual geographic voting (current system, perhaps double-sized zones) and list-based topups (biased to 'rectify' FPTP failings, to approximate 'lost' MPs from distributing non-supermajority votes 'wasted' by coming close-second/third/etc and thin but consistent minority views f
Post by: Grim Portent on July 12, 2016, 08:15:37 am
That way (in theory) you get constituency MPs proposing legislation and overseeing affairs that are important to their constituency, and PR MPs who propose legislation important to their voting block as a whole. That way regional areas get their interests represented in one house, and geographically disparate demographics are represented in the other, but the approval of both is needed to pass legislation.
Post by: sluissa on July 12, 2016, 08:21:39 am
Oh, also UKIP want proportional representation in addition to a general election, that way their millions of votes would translate into MPsMy problem with PR is who would be my MP?
top bants
Right now, I know that the Right Honourable Polly Tishen (Mauve Party candidate and successful electee for the constituency of Starverville within the unitary authority of North Central Hamshiresex) is my MP, because I live in that place, whether or not I even voted for her (or even voted!), and my pleasure or displeasure at her ability to deal with my issue of the local dog-mess mountain threatening to spill over into my back garden, or the threat of an HS4 station being built over the top of my grandkids' school (on massive concrete stilts, no less!) translates into my willingness or otherwise to vote for her (not her party) in the next election cycle.
With simple list-based PR, an individual Mauve Party candidate has a position on the party list and likely is either is assured their place, so long as some very low proportion of the public of the whole country contributes enough votes to qualify enough of the list, or an effective reserve candidate will be so low in tne party's own favoured rankings that it would take an unprecedented swing in popularity towards their political faction to get them anywhere, and perhaps change the minds of their party leadership about minor, but off-message, differences in non-core party policies that the public would actually like their (broadly supported) platform to adopt as a nuance in their representation in parliament.
And who do I see about my dog-mess mountain or stilted HS4? Perhaps a minister (or shadow-minister) for the Department Of Righting Those Particular Wrongs? But then they've got to deal with a whole nation's-worth of complaints. My party's 'Gateway' team? But what if I don't have a party, and of course I can't (and shouldn't be able to) prove which way I voted? Maybe each party takes its elected list members and assigns them a subset of the country (whole, or just the bits they feel confident they have enough grassroots in) and creates an unofficial constituency not necessarily contiguous with any competing party, and treat the person assigned as 'local MP' for the region, for those that contributed to the party power-base? But same issue regarding proving a vote, or else the non-democracy of party subscrptions earning access to the representational process, even if this means that smaller parties have to deal with fewer requests, averaging out the workload.
Dual geographic voting (current system, perhaps double-sized zones) and list-based topups (biased to 'rectify' FPTP failings, to approximate 'lost' MPs from distributing non-supermajority votes 'wasted' by coming close-second/third/etc and thin but consistent minority views f
Do you not have more local governments, like city or county, for those sorts of issues? I mean, this is a legit question, I have very little idea how the UK works underneath the parliament levels (and even then I'm sketchy on the details.) In the US we wouldn't usually consider bothering the federal government with something like a dog mess pile in my back garden. That would fall under the lowest level local government which never even directly interacts with the federal government. Above that is a state government which tends to be the intermediary government between federal and local.
There are things that we can contact our federal representative for, but it's usually in relation to national level decisions and how we feel those decisions would affect us in their area. There's not much they can do to change their local areas outside of maybe just making friendly phone calls or calling in favors.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 12, 2016, 08:25:42 am
At an event at the House of Commons, Mr Kaeser said the UK continued to matter and be a "good place to do business" whether it was inside or outside the EU. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36771595)
Cheeki: 1
Not breeki: 0
Momementum kiddos throwing bricks at MPs they don't like (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36770627)
Absolutely haram
Post by: Starver on July 12, 2016, 08:40:05 am
Oh, also UKIP want proportional representation in addition to a general election, that way their millions of votes would translate into MPsMy problem with PR is who would be my MP?
top bants
Right now, I know that the Right Honourable Polly Tishen (Mauve Party candidate and successful electee for the constituency of Starverville within the unitary authority of North Central Hamshiresex) is my MP, because I live in that place, whether or not I even voted for her (or even voted!), and my pleasure or displeasure at her ability to deal with my issue of the local dog-mess mountain threatening to spill over into my back garden, or the threat of an HS4 station being built over the top of my grandkids' school (on massive concrete stilts, no less!) translates into my willingness or otherwise to vote for her (not her party) in the next election cycle.
With simple list-based PR, an individual Mauve Party candidate has a position on the party list and likely is either is assured their place, so long as some very low proportion of the public of the whole country contributes enough votes to qualify enough of the list, or an effective reserve candidate will be so low in tne party's own favoured rankings that it would take an unprecedented swing in popularity towards their political faction to get them anywhere, and perhaps change the minds of their party leadership about minor, but off-message, differences in non-core party policies that the public would actually like their (broadly supported) platform to adopt as a nuance in their representation in parliament.
And who do I see about my dog-mess mountain or stilted HS4? Perhaps a minister (or shadow-minister) for the Department Of Righting Those Particular Wrongs? But then they've got to deal with a whole nation's-worth of complaints. My party's 'Gateway' team? But what if I don't have a party, and of course I can't (and shouldn't be able to) prove which way I voted? Maybe each party takes its elected list members and assigns them a subset of the country (whole, or just the bits they feel confident they have enough grassroots in) and creates an unofficial constituency not necessarily contiguous with any competing party, and treat the person assigned as 'local MP' for the region, for those that contributed to the party power-base? But same issue regarding proving a vote, or else the non-democracy of party subscrptions earning access to the representational process, even if this means that smaller parties have to deal with fewer requests, averaging out the workload.
Perhaps we need a hybrid dual geographic voting (current system, perhaps double-sized zones) and list-based topups (biased to 'rectify' FPTP failings, to approximate 'lost' MPs from distributing non-supermajority votes 'wasted' by coming close-second/third/etc; and thin but consistent minority views, from across all areas, vs. localised standout parties. Give a choice of approaching localised MPs (whatever party, but your area) or else non-local 'freelancers' of a party that represents your viewpoint most accurately.
But how complicated is that??
(This message started at one side of the Pennines on one train, finished now on the other side of the Pennines on another. Not surprising that four new messages appeared in the meantime. Expected more.)
Post by: Starver on July 12, 2016, 08:49:07 am
My preference for maintaining the local MP thing would be to have one parliamentary house be elected by proportional representation, the other by constituencies (particular voting method to appoint them could vary between a few systems.) Any legislation would need both houses approval to pass, both houses would be able to draft legislation for the perusal and approval/rejection of the houses.My preference would be for one House to be appointed, not elected, in a way that excludes short-term popularism. You know, like the way the House Of Lords sort of worked already. No thanks, regarding direct elections for both. Sortition (for life!) maybe. But then there's no room for both Constituency and PR membership across two Houses unless we also add an extra House.
Not that what I want, or would prefer, is going to be influential.
Adding: As to levels of government, there's councils (town councils, county councils, etc) which perform Local Government things, but 'top guy' as a goto for an area could well be the MP, if you perceive it as a local problem wirh national consequences, or don't have faith in your council (as a whole) or councillors (all those that cover your particular area). Makes work for the MP, but often can be just the MP noting to the respective councillors that the issue has been escalated, for the council-level dealings to be elevated or further ignored, according to perceived triviality or enhancement of observed importance. Probably the same the world over, in equivalent systems.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 12, 2016, 09:06:48 am
Oh, also UKIP want proportional representation in addition to a general election, that way their millions of votes would translate into MPsThey probably want a lot of other things that are never going to happen
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 12, 2016, 09:46:27 am
Is that what you're most interested in or what, I dunno
Post by: MarcAFK on July 12, 2016, 09:48:08 am
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZAn-ABmM9m4/TLdPyb5Wh7I/AAAAAAAAJ6I/cWRbnHczSPE/s1600/Blackadder_Tribute_by_Finchley.jpg)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 12, 2016, 10:16:32 am
Post by: MarcAFK on July 12, 2016, 10:56:30 am
That's just Rowan Atkinson with pencils in his noseAt least he has a plan.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 12, 2016, 11:10:05 am
It's just nose pencils, we've been executing the plan for quite some time nowThat's just Rowan Atkinson with pencils in his noseAt least he has a plan.
Post by: evilcherry on July 12, 2016, 08:54:17 pm
Adding: As to levels of government, there's councils (town councils, county councils, etc) which perform Local Government things, but 'top guy' as a goto for an area could well be the MP, if you perceive it as a local problem wirh national consequences, or don't have faith in your council (as a whole) or councillors (all those that cover your particular area). Makes work for the MP, but often can be just the MP noting to the respective councillors that the issue has been escalated, for the council-level dealings to be elevated or further ignored, according to perceived triviality or enhancement of observed importance. Probably the same the world over, in equivalent systems.That is basically what makes the EU a private club. The European Council is made of governments, not representatives of the electorate.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 12, 2016, 10:23:09 pm
Post by: MarcAFK on July 12, 2016, 10:42:59 pm
Post by: TheDarkStar on July 13, 2016, 01:24:36 am
I want a council that meets in the shadows, knowing each other only by a biblical codename, their face hidden behind cryptic holographic glyphs , meeting in secret they plan the affairs of states they were never elected in, playing the great game with human pawns and money as a mere plaything.
Countries with 1, 4, and 5 exist, but codenames tend to be varied and blurring faces with cryptographic glyphs is odd.
Unless you live in a world where half the people are cyborgs, the illuminati are everywhere, and large corporations vie for world domination, correct? :P
Post by: Starver on July 13, 2016, 04:46:52 am
That is basically what makes the EU a private club. The European Council is made of governments, not representatives of the electorate.Then what are(/were) MEPs?
(e: Yes, not the EU Council, but then that's not a legislative body, perhaps more comparable to Whitehall than parliament or even cabinet.)
Post by: scrdest on July 13, 2016, 05:04:01 am
I want a council that meets in the shadows, knowing each other only by a biblical codename, their face hidden behind cryptic holographic glyphs , meeting in secret they plan the affairs of states they were never elected in, playing the great game with human pawns and money as a mere plaything.Do you want to get aliens? Because that's how you get aliens.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 13, 2016, 08:18:14 am
I want a council that meets in the shadows, knowing each other only by a biblical codename, their face hidden behind cryptic holographic glyphs , meeting in secret they plan the affairs of states they were never elected in, playing the great game with human pawns and money as a mere plaything.If it's called the shadow council, I'd support it for about 10 days before disappearing
Also in other news, Cameron got a standing ovation for his greatest achievement: Resigning (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36778350)
Post by: Sheb on July 13, 2016, 08:38:32 am
That is basically what makes the EU a private club. The European Council is made of governments, not representatives of the electorate.Then what are(/were) MEPs?
(e: Yes, not the EU Council, but then that's not a legislative body, perhaps more comparable to Whitehall than parliament or even cabinet.)
The European Council is a semi-regular meeting of head of states and governments. The Council of the European Union is made of ministers from the member state and acts as the upper chamber of the European legislature.
Post by: Starver on July 13, 2016, 09:37:05 am
All basically elected or electee-appointed, then (suspecting that Her Majesty isn't called upon, and I see upon checking that for us it was the PM for the EC). The voice of the people, although maybe as muffled by governmental compromises as much as the country itself muffles itself in its own top-tier.That is basically what makes the EU a private club. The European Council is made of governments, not representatives of the electorate.Then what are(/were) MEPs?
(e: Yes, not the EU Council, but then that's not a legislative body, perhaps more comparable to Whitehall than parliament or even cabinet.)
The European Council is a semi-regular meeting of head of states and governments. The Council of the European Union is made of ministers from the member state and acts as the upper chamber of the European legislature.
Post by: Starver on July 13, 2016, 03:25:56 pm
Looks like Boris (inexplicably, except as some kind of sop to some kind of people) is now Foreign Secretary... That's the headline, but there's other strangenesses in there (Rudd famously dislikes Boris, ad now is Home Secretary, Hammonds publuc spending reputation is opposed to the progressive noises that May has made, etc) that makes me think there's quite a lot of experimentation being laid out, and perhaps room for failure to permanently weed out the prematurely ambitious and make opportunities for others.
Post by: Frumple on July 13, 2016, 03:52:27 pm
Somehow, someone, somewhere, thought this was a good idea. I'm not sure how, I'm not sure who, and I'm not sure from which alternate reality they're managing to communicate from, but they did.
I can only guess for their next hat trick, the UK's government is going to just sink the islands into the ocean and float themselves off to the Bahamas. It seems like a logical progression at this point.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 13, 2016, 07:24:56 pm
Quote
Fraser Nelson writes in The Spectator:
Giving Boris Johnson the role of Foreign Secretary is probably the smartest single move that Theresa May will make in tonight’s reshuffle. It could well turn out to be one of the most important jobs in the Brexit era – a job of selling Britain to the world. A job that means explaining what George Osborne could not: that the Brexit vote was the act of a self-confident nation keen to make to friends and strike new alliances.
I travelled w @BorisJohnson to China, India, Middle East & US over many years & despite gaffes/inexperience he was brilliant salesman for UK
— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) July 13, 2016 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/13/prime-minister-theresa-may-makes-new-cabinet-appointments---as-b/)
Also quite surprising is that we have a Brexit secretary title, as in a secretary of Brexit
That's... vaguely amazing, in the worst way possible. You take someone that spent a large amount of their pre-political career specifically undermining foreign relations, who spent literally years slandering other countries, and put them at what appears to be the head of the foreign relations branch of your government.Yeah this whole post is slander from buzzfeed, absolutely haram
Somehow, someone, somewhere, thought this was a good idea. I'm not sure how, I'm not sure who, and I'm not sure from which alternate reality they're managing to communicate from, but they did.
In my experience, Boris is an odd one. He entered Londinium politics with low expectations, everyone expected him to be an incredible failure, and 8 years later the majority of London thinks he did a successful job. As Mayor he appointed talented administrators to do stuff, and I mean that quite literally, as a leader he did not interfere with what his underlings were doing as long as it wasn't trouble. The consequence is twofold, Whitehall is now more powerful because the people he appointed did their job very well, and now Khan will have the team he needs to get shit done. Economically, sure London is successful, but business peeps tend to make stuff successful in London for as long as Mayors don't get in their way, to that end Boris was a blessing. On the crime front, crime has gone down overall (but I suspect this has more to do with digital crime becoming more important), with most focus being on how Boris closed down many police stations in order to fund the procurement of 22,000 body cameras (to avoid the 2011 riots, or similar riots happening in the USA due to ambiguity as to police conduct), and 3 water cannons. The water cannons have never been used and generated loads of flak, and quite recently, Theresa May got rid of them (or put them in the cupboard, I dunno they're out of sight somewhere). On the travel front, Boris promised more than he could deliver, but the bikes, end of bendy buses, improvements of the Underground have all been satisfactory. Congestion has not, and is hellish. Then there was the 2012 Olympics, in which Boris got to spread his mug across international media, in which he utterly excelled with his baffling charisma and promotional instincts like a popularity fungus. Most importantly, he turned the otherwise useless Olympic venues (insofar as they were only useful for the Olympics) into a park and housing zone in a manner that did not leave us like Athens. I still maintain that the quickest way to destroy a country is force them to hold the Olympics continuously until everything is destroyed.
Quote
During the Athens Games, one volunteer welcomed visitors to the Olympic Stadium with a loudspeaker announcement that urged them to “Enjoy yourselves. When will we ever see days like these again?”God damn, it is sad to see Greece as such. Greeks had a taste of great days and watched it all crumble
Anyways Boris spent his columnist career criticizing the European Union, which itself undermined foreign relations by utterly dismantling multilateralism. To that end, top lels
Likewise ending the oil deal with Venezuela was altogether moral
10/10 would elect again if that were legal
I can only guess for their next hat trick, the UK's government is going to just sink the islands into the ocean and float themselves off to the Bahamas. It seems like a logical progression at this point.Pft, like hell we're ever going to get weather as good as the Bahamas
You know what the marketing slogan for Bahamas tourism is?
"It's better in the Bahamas."
They're not wrong
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 13, 2016, 07:48:04 pm
Spoiler: double posting because David cameron never liked Larry the cat (click to show/hide)
Post by: smirk on July 13, 2016, 08:03:10 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 13, 2016, 08:32:15 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
DON'T LISTEN TO THEIR LIES, WE'RE NOT SHEEPLE, WE'RE MICE AND MEN
Post by: MarcAFK on July 14, 2016, 12:50:51 am
Post by: Sheb on July 15, 2016, 04:13:13 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 15, 2016, 06:53:34 am
LW what the hell is going on with the Labour election? The number of shenanigan going on seems incredible, and didn't Corbyn refuse to resign?On Tuesday I was rofling because I got an email from someone saying they were supposed to be having summer drinks with the shadow cabinet, but everyone had resigned
Basically the Labour MPs who hopped on from Blair and Brown's days form a neoliberal party faction whose power rests on controlling most of their Parliamentary seats, whilst Corbyn's socialist faction relies on its union and member support trouncing support for the old guard (hilariously enough, "new labour" are the old, "old labour" are the new). In the leadership election that elected Corbyn, the Party members opened the voting to their members thinking they could use the party members to drown out Union influence, as the Unions had caused them to elect Ed Miliband who was unelectable. What this ended up doing though was making the Unions twice as powerful, so now Labour are hoping to use some shenanigenery to disenfranchise loads and loads of union members from voting for Corbyn, unless they hurriedly register as a Labour member and pay £25 (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/14/new-members-may-be-barred-from-voting-in-labour-leadership-contest). Remember, it's democratic to break the law to get more of your voters registered, and it's democratic to change party rules to stop more of your opponents voters getting registered.
Whilst the majority of Britons including Labour party Britons think Corbyn should be replaced (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-jeremy-corbyn-replaced-general-election-angela-eagle-owen-smith-a7136901.html), in the eye of the public and pragmatically, there is no one capable of replacing him. This is probably a result of the 2015 defeat wiping out a lot of their leadership material, so no Douglas Alexander, no Ed Balls, everyone they had in Scotland (all but one)
The surviving leadership then having multiple mass resignations means there's not much people left capable of leading a campaign
Also quite funny is that post election, Corbyn promised to make half his shadow cabinet be run by women
He failed and gave his female colleagues useless honorary posts, some of them just made up (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-women-shadow-cabinet_uk_577bff4de4b073366f0feb14)
Now Angela Eagle's coming for him, but her chances are still slim
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 15, 2016, 07:20:11 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 15, 2016, 07:47:21 am
Labour MPs
neoliberalI... what?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 15, 2016, 07:49:14 am
Post by: Sheb on July 15, 2016, 07:50:16 am
Post by: scriver on July 15, 2016, 08:07:08 am
Have you missed the past 20 years? Laor giving up on socialism all but formally and becoming Washington Consensus-lite was big news back in the day.
Labour MPsneoliberalI... what?
Such is the trajectory of all social democratism, unfortunately.
Ed Balls
Eh he he he
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 15, 2016, 08:14:15 am
I... what?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
To be fair, is there even enough women MPs that haven't resigned to fill 50% of a shadow cabinet?There was in 2015 and there is still now in the current year, the issue was Corbyn wanted people who thought like him, and didn't like that his female MPs were capable of disagreeing with him
Thus they could be allowed no power
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 15, 2016, 08:24:03 am
Have you missed the past 20 years?Yeah I haven't followed British politics for very long
Post by: MarcAFK on July 15, 2016, 09:04:49 am
Even CGPGrey can't figure out what the fuck is going on with Brexit, deploys backup plan of rapid-fire internet gambling. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_I2rfApYk)Holy shit.
Also the stuff LW said is hilarious.
Post by: Max™ on July 15, 2016, 09:09:06 am
Post by: SirQuiamus on July 15, 2016, 11:46:11 am
Post by: Max™ on July 15, 2016, 11:54:08 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 15, 2016, 12:30:00 pm
LW is interesting because I can never quite tell what his political positions are, and taking some of them at face value his enjoyment of Bojo comes across like a cultist in a Lovecraftian setting (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/07/case-nightmare-blond.html#more)... but you give me necrobacon, I can forgive anything.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Max™ on July 15, 2016, 01:45:13 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/TJZwlY8.gif)LW is interesting because I can never quite tell what his political positions are, and taking some of them at face value his enjoyment of Bojo comes across like a cultist in a Lovecraftian setting (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/07/case-nightmare-blond.html#more)... but you give me necrobacon, I can forgive anything.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Baffler on July 15, 2016, 03:18:41 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/TJZwlY8.gif)LW is interesting because I can never quite tell what his political positions are, and taking some of them at face value his enjoyment of Bojo comes across like a cultist in a Lovecraftian setting (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/07/case-nightmare-blond.html#more)... but you give me necrobacon, I can forgive anything.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Truly one for the ages.
Post by: lemon10 on July 15, 2016, 05:22:56 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 15, 2016, 05:32:34 pm
Spoiler: Have an old Merkeli-li shoggoth though (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dorsidwarf on July 15, 2016, 06:08:53 pm
Post by: Max™ on July 15, 2016, 09:53:59 pm
Post by: Strife26 on July 16, 2016, 01:53:20 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 16, 2016, 07:15:52 am
Spoiler: Lovecraftian Bremain salt has gone interdimensional (click to show/hide)
Post by: MarcAFK on July 16, 2016, 11:33:30 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 17, 2016, 05:03:08 am
holy shitLW is interesting because I can never quite tell what his political positions are, and taking some of them at face value his enjoyment of Bojo comes across like a cultist in a Lovecraftian setting (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/07/case-nightmare-blond.html#more)... but you give me necrobacon, I can forgive anything.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
11/7
Post by: mainiac on July 17, 2016, 10:58:20 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 17, 2016, 04:07:31 pm
A second vote on war would have saved athens from SyracuseNicias's terrible misreading of his own people turned his defeat into Athens' catastrophe, they say it cost so much Greece is still bankrupt to this day
Post by: mainiac on July 17, 2016, 04:14:13 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 17, 2016, 04:28:30 pm
Totes is bruh. No empathy means no shits given. Ultimate ambition much easier to attain when you don't care who you step on to get there.Ambition is easily attained through will, success is not much easier to attain when you don't care who you step on to get there. It is as the Emperor of the Shu-Han said, Righteousness and Justice are the twin swords with which he'll cut down his enemies - it's all nice and well in fiction to have power-hungry despots stabbing their way to the top, but they don't tend to stay on top for long.
The ambitious who value loyalty and fairness do tend to have more success and longevity, no?
Mrs May, it seems, needed little persuading. At 9.50am on Thursday, Downing Street aides called Mr Gove, who was in his ministry, to a meeting in the new Prime Minister’s oak-panelled rooms in the House of Commons with 20 minutes’ notice.
It did not last long. “There is not going to be room for you,” Mrs May told Mr Gove. “I have been talking to colleagues and the importance of loyalty is something on people’s minds.”
She did not want him in her new Cabinet because colleagues were warning he could not be trusted. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/16/theresa-mays-day-of-the-long-knives--two-minutesin-no-10and-mich/)
Gove is Gone
Post by: Sheb on July 18, 2016, 03:07:45 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 18, 2016, 03:14:32 am
Post by: martinuzz on July 18, 2016, 04:03:16 am
Quote
However it is not clear how he completed the journey as the Government department said it does not comment on travel plans.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2016, 06:19:36 am
Apparently, BoJo is off to a roaring start as FCO. Apparently his dinner invitation to other EU minister was snubbed because they don't want to discuss Brexit before Article 50 is triggered. And because no one apparently really wanted to have dinner with him. (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/1453804/new-foreign-secretary-boris-johnson-snubbed-by-eu-leaders-as-dinner-plans-cancelled/)
Quote
Brussels meet-up formally scrapped due to Nice attacksu wot
Two diplomats said Ministers felt it was inappropriate to have the dinner after the horrific terror attack in Nice.
He got a dinner date with Federica Migherini, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs instead but his plane had to perform an emergency landing. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/17/boris-johnsons-plane-makes-emergency-landing-on-the-way-to-bruss/)If the plane had gone down, holy shit the conspiracy theories!
Post by: Starver on July 18, 2016, 06:26:41 am
]If the plane had gone down, holy shit the conspiracy theories!It did, and the real conspiracy is covering that up. We now have a clone Boris, from the same lab as they get those clone Farages. (The clone-pool of Farages is wonky, each clone keeps on resigning, and they have to keep replacing him with the next clone, even when he 'survives' his plane-crash. The Boris clone-pool is also wonky, of course, but they pull that off better.)
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 18, 2016, 06:38:42 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2016, 06:48:18 am
]If the plane had gone down, holy shit the conspiracy theories!It did, and the real conspiracy is covering that up. We now have a clone Boris, from the same lab as they get those clone Farages. (The clone-pool of Farages is wonky, each clone keeps on resigning, and they have to keep replacing him with the next clone, even when he 'survives' his plane-crash. The Boris clone-pool is also wonky, of course, but they pull that off better.)
Spoiler: How else do you survive so many unfortunate accidents (click to show/hide)
Post by: Max™ on July 18, 2016, 07:44:15 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 18, 2016, 06:55:30 pm
Spoiler: In case of Paywall, fresh Boris (click to show/hide)
Secondly it's of note that once more the French are friends
Post by: MarcAFK on July 19, 2016, 01:09:40 am
Post by: Sheb on July 19, 2016, 01:19:50 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 19, 2016, 08:10:59 am
Post by: MarcAFK on July 19, 2016, 08:12:20 am
I'm in fucking tears (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XYBIUGJvzs)How did you not see when I posted this? Shame LW.
Edit: the best part was Boris into space, I wish I knew where that was from.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 19, 2016, 08:17:57 am
Boris piloting the UK into space made me lose my spaghetti
Post by: Max™ on July 19, 2016, 08:20:23 am
Post by: MarcAFK on July 19, 2016, 08:25:50 am
I also posted it at some point.Yeah I think I just took credit for your post. I remember I actually posted it elsewhere after seeing it here. Commence the stone throwing.
Post by: Max™ on July 19, 2016, 09:08:10 am
Get's me right here, LW, not here *points at heart*, further down, not here *points at gut*, further down, right here *points at nuts*, that's where. :D
Post by: Leafsnail on July 19, 2016, 10:07:19 am
Post by: martinuzz on July 20, 2016, 06:12:33 am
Post by: Starver on July 20, 2016, 06:28:15 am
May has announced that the UK will forfeit it's role as chairman for the EU in 2017,It's a Presidency that is being given up. Probably one of those 'five unelected EU Presidents that nobody knew who they are".
(I don' t see how we could have retained this rolling role, actually, but it's not going to help us to give it up unless the next due incumbant in the list wants to show gratitude for moving up the queue, perhaps.. But if things go off in a handcart at the wrong time then it could also be seen as an unwanted honour at that time. Now.. where's my time machine?)
Post by: Grim Portent on July 20, 2016, 06:48:06 am
We haven't even started formally leaving, and already our sciences are beginning to feel the effects. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36835566)
My uncle works in a project that monitors the health of the coastal waters around the UK, monitoring microfauna and microflora mostly, with the aim of developing maps that tell shellfish fishermen which areas will have toxic shellfish and which won't (shellfish are filter feeders and pick up toxins from their food that can make them illegal to sell once caught), and he informed me that there's already some issues with Brexit affecting funding for them.
Been hearing similar stuff from the other scientists I know, including a few of my university lecturers who study stuff like climate change and monitor biodiversity, as well as from a smattering of the students I know who got into various scientific positions after graduating.
Post by: martinuzz on July 20, 2016, 06:53:16 am
Presidency in this case means the same as chairman. The EU president's role is to preside over the meetings and keep structure and order to the debate. The function rotates every half year. It's not an elected position because the person fullfilling the role is already elected. The function is given to the prime minister of the country that has the presidency.May has announced that the UK will forfeit it's role as chairman for the EU in 2017,It's a Presidency that is being given up. Probably one of those 'five unelected EU Presidents that nobody knew who they are".
Post by: Starver on July 20, 2016, 07:16:33 am
Presidency in this case means the same as chairman. The EU president's role is to preside over the meetings and keep structure and order to the debate. The function rotates every half year. It's not an elected position because the person fullfilling the role is already elected. The function is given to the prime minister of the country that has the presidency.Yes. The point being that it's one of the infamously advertised 'unelected' positions that apparently we have 'no control over'...
(We definitely don't now. Until, possibly, the next time the cycle comes round and we're still "In" and the PM of the day doesn't feel it politic to politely hand it on again, instead.)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 20, 2016, 07:17:07 am
The issue with Angela Eagle as I see it is that she's basically a much shittier version of the candidates that Corbyn obliterated in the leadership election last year. Owen Smith at least seems to be promising something new so he probably has a better shot.Fair chance he'll still get massacred
"As first motion of Presidency I dissolve the EU, GG scrubs"May has announced that the UK will forfeit it's role as chairman for the EU in 2017,It's a Presidency that is being given up. Probably one of those 'five unelected EU Presidents that nobody knew who they are".
(I don' t see how we could have retained this rolling role, actually, but it's not going to help us to give it up unless the next due incumbant in the list wants to show gratitude for moving up the queue, perhaps.. But if things go off in a handcart at the wrong time then it could also be seen as an unwanted honour at that time. Now.. where's my time machine?)
Post by: martinuzz on July 20, 2016, 07:20:47 am
He can determine however, how much time is alloted to argueing / defending a motion.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 20, 2016, 07:21:26 am
Post by: Sheb on July 20, 2016, 07:22:52 am
Post by: Starver on July 20, 2016, 07:26:22 am
I don't think the president is allowed to motion, because he must remain objective, and just preside the meeting.The Marxist position... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_qBsHuJb40) :P
He can determine however, how much time is alloted to argueing / defending a motion.
Post by: MarcAFK on July 20, 2016, 11:07:28 am
Nigel Farange should expect an angry visit from the Mitchells.
Post by: MarcAFK on July 20, 2016, 11:48:21 am
Post by: Starver on July 20, 2016, 12:01:48 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 20, 2016, 05:40:22 pm
It's all mostly up to Philip Hammond, except London o/c, and I don't know what Philip Hammond's gonna do cos I only just noticed he had ambitions for the Exchequer as he was selected by May
He basically said he's gonna continue more or less in Osborne's direction but he said so in vague platitudes of maximizing productivity and reducing the deficit, I think he's waiting until Brexit before he announces plans
Post by: Sheb on July 21, 2016, 02:35:42 am
We're still paying the EU, so that money's going nowhere yet
It's all mostly up to Philip Hammond, except London o/c, and I don't know what Philip Hammond's gonna do cos I only just noticed he had ambitions for the Exchequer as he was selected by May
He basically said he's gonna continue more or less in Osborne's direction but he said so in vague platitudes of maximizing productivity and reducing the deficit, I think he's waiting until Brexit before he announces plans
So, waiting until 2025 before doing any budgetting? You guys taking a page from the House of Representatives??
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 21, 2016, 12:00:06 pm
So, waiting until 2025 before doing any budgetting? You guys taking a page from the House of Representatives??No, we've already done budgeting. Only reason to do another one is in the event of an emergency budget, which Hammond said there wasn't any need to
Post by: Starver on July 21, 2016, 12:06:32 pm
Shows how much better he is than Osbourne, because we seemed to be getting Osbourne budgets every three weeks...So, waiting until 2025 before doing any budgetting? You guys taking a page from the House of Representatives??No, we've already done budgeting. Only reason to do another one is in the event of an emergency budget, which Hammond said there wasn't any need to
(Dwarf Bookkeeper for Chancellor! Cage traps in the Chunnel! Magma lever in Number 10!)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 21, 2016, 05:36:37 pm
Shows how much better he is than Osbourne, because we seemed to be getting Osbourne budgets every three weeks...I actually think Osborne did a good job when he wasn't causing live resignations and national protest. Saved a lot of money, reduced unemployment to its lowest rate (Brexit confirmed for taking jobs back), though largely because I'm comparing him to Gordon Brown. Only the chancellor of Zimbabwe could've done a worse job than Brown, who had some amazing Midas curse, where all gold he touched turned to shit.
(Dwarf Bookkeeper for Chancellor! Cage traps in the Chunnel! Magma lever in Number 10!)
Post by: Starver on July 22, 2016, 01:17:28 am
(Brexit confirmed for taking jobs back)I saw this on a newspaper (pro-Brexit one, naturally) front page, yesterday. Was going to delve deeper, but not had time. But the wording on the front page was essentially "no sign of worsening in employmemt". Which doesn't indicate improvement, and its not even a month since the vote, so what figures (at best, compiled monthly, then a bit more time needed to massage (or not!) to take into account expected seasonal variations such as the start of the summer holidays surging employment in tourist spots, and then whatever bias the study would prefer to add to that) can the paper even be using?
I have no idea, but I suspect that's on a par with the paper, so we'll call it a draw.
(There's plenty of anecdotal evidence flying around, science and research seeming to be big losers, although I wouldn't dare to suggest that this is an unbiased and quality-controlled sample of information.)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 22, 2016, 08:03:22 am
I saw this on a newspaper (pro-Brexit one, naturally) front page, yesterday. Was going to delve deeper, but not had time. But the wording on the front page was essentially "no sign of worsening in employmemt". Which doesn't indicate improvement, and its not even a month since the vote, so what figures (at best, compiled monthly, then a bit more time needed to massage (or not!) to take into account expected seasonal variations such as the start of the summer holidays surging employment in tourist spots, and then whatever bias the study would prefer to add to that) can the paper even be using?That's a funny way of saying 11 year low (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36844302)
I find it hilarious that Remain would rather have the UK be destroyed than be successful and independent
I have no idea, but I suspect that's on a par with the paper, so we'll call it a draw.In all seriousness, it's too early to call correlations - we haven't even left the EU yet xD
(There's plenty of anecdotal evidence flying around, science and research seeming to be big losers, although I wouldn't dare to suggest that this is an unbiased and quality-controlled sample of information.)
Oh yeah and BBC = Banter Biased Corporashills
I find BI's take on it hilarious:
It is worth noting that even if unemployment jumps to 6.5%, Britain's unemployment rate will be substantially lower than in countries like France and Italy. Eurozone unemployment is currently at roughly 10.1%, something that has led notorious perma-bear Albert Edwards to describe it as a "toxic effluent running through the veins" of the continent. (http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-unemployment-rate-and-pay-statistics-june-2016-7)
UK will save France from toxic Germalinity
Personally I reckon the low unemployment rate is a result of the Eurozone being fucked, the BOE being smart, Osborne maybe did something and the UK is competitive whereas the Eurozone protectionist
Also the BOE wants a Britcoin to compete with Bitcoin (https://www.rt.com/business/352280-england-cb-bitcoins-issue/)
Post by: Starver on July 22, 2016, 09:39:17 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 22, 2016, 09:43:42 am
Post by: Starver on July 22, 2016, 10:02:15 am
You launch into "LOL ROFL, that funny old Beeb is biased, don't listen to them", in disclosing far worse statistics than I ever had mentioned myself. And then you assert, as if I hadn't already said it, that it is too early to tell.
The resulting non-sequitur seems rather cutting. Unless I totally misread you, in turn.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 22, 2016, 10:25:34 am
I say (effectively) "this newspaper I saw says we're doing Ok after exit, but it's a slightly misleading headline and, anyway, its probably too early to say".I wasn't addressing your newspaper because I don't know what it is
You launch into "LOL ROFL, that funny old Beeb is biased, don't listen to them", in disclosing far worse statistics than I ever had mentioned myself. And then you assert, as if I hadn't already said it, that it is too early to tell.Do you understand what jokes are
The resulting non-sequitur seems rather cutting. Unless I totally misread you, in turn.Yes
Post by: Starver on July 22, 2016, 10:48:57 am
I wasn't addressing your newspaper because I don't know what it isThen you should have snipped the quote that had "newspaper" as the sixth word, "paper" as the fourth from last one and was discussing, in general terms, the publication's treatment of the subject all the way through.
I know and understand what jokes are (not the same a laughing at something) but I've clearly missed yours. Maybe you're better on stage.
To make up for it, try this one:
Quote
Q: What's the difference between a duck?Like it? Do tell all your friends. I won't ask for credit, or even royalties... That's how generous I am. Or because I already stole it from somewhere else. One and/or the other.
A: One of its legs is not the same.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 22, 2016, 11:01:21 am
Yeah nah, I'm gonna be honest and just say my eyes glazed over your editing concernsI wasn't addressing your newspaper because I don't know what it isThen you should have snipped the quote that had "newspaper" as the sixth word, "paper" as the fourth from last one and was discussing, in general terms, the publication's treatment of the subject all the way through.
I know and understand what jokes are (not the same a laughing at something) but I've clearly missed yours. Maybe you're better on stage.
To make up for it, try this one:QuoteQ: What's the difference between a duck?Like it? Do tell all your friends. I won't ask for credit, or even royalties... That's how generous I am. Or because I already stole it from somewhere else. One and/or the other.
A: One of its legs is not the same.
Spoiler: no (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 22, 2016, 04:56:47 pm
Of course, they will fail - Corbyn is actually a wizard
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 22, 2016, 05:22:13 pm
In his haste, he did not realize, but the Right Orb was replaced by the Orb of Greentexting. Laor has claimed that power for itself.
Laor will consume all. Your hero cannot save you. Only darkness will remain.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 22, 2016, 06:08:03 pm
Post by: smjjames on July 22, 2016, 06:15:20 pm
Fool! Corbyn controls only the Left Orb of Direction!
In his haste, he did not realize, but the Right Orb was replaced by the Orb of Greentexting. Laor has claimed that power for itself.
Laor will consume all. Your hero cannot save you. Only darkness will remain.
You mean greentexting like this: greentext?
Post by: Frumple on July 22, 2016, 06:18:30 pm
Post by: smjjames on July 22, 2016, 06:20:05 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 22, 2016, 06:23:29 pm
>"you mean 4chan"
Post by: Max™ on July 22, 2016, 11:30:41 pm
>greentext>implying
>"you mean 4chan"
I assume the inquisition is like me having someone randomly tell me not to do that, inspiring an ayyylmao.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 22, 2016, 11:55:02 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 23, 2016, 08:41:16 am
Fool! Corbyn controls only the Left Orb of Direction!
In his haste, he did not realize, but the Right Orb was replaced by the Orb of Greentexting. Laor has claimed that power for itself.
Laor will consume all. Your hero cannot save you. Only darkness will remain.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 23, 2016, 04:18:47 pm
UK growth to still outstrip Germany and France (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/19/imf-slashes-uk-growth-forecasts-after-brexit---but-britain-will/), July 19
On the one hand I'm happy that everything has turned out so well, on the other hand I'm disappointed because I was promised global catastrophic destruction of the world economy and I thought this would finally provide impetus for global reform. Eh, small ambitions, big rewards. Seriously people are greatly underestimating how surprised I am, I expected doom and everything turned out fantastic, even the weather is amazing - and I get to enjoy all this salt. Here's hoping for those who dare to dream
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
On related news to Are Based Nige, UKIP's going to be like, on steroids (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36875860) - BBC confirmed for taken over by Californian valley girls
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
In more Corbyn antics, Labour MP Owen Smith accuses Corbyn of calling his father in order to get his father to give him a stern talking to. (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/22/corbyn-eagle-abuse-labour-mps-cameron-honours-politics-live)Fool! Corbyn controls only the Left Orb of Direction!
In his haste, he did not realize, but the Right Orb was replaced by the Orb of Greentexting. Laor has claimed that power for itself.
Laor will consume all. Your hero cannot save you. Only darkness will remain.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Obviously bullshit lies, because Corbyn is his daddy :^)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Let heavenly daddy Corbyn take you to the eternal sleep
Post by: Starver on July 24, 2016, 02:15:19 am
First thoughts, yesterday: "And so it begins (http://xkcd.com/1656/)..."
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 24, 2016, 09:00:36 am
We make fun of it because it is everyone's favourite target, but everyone in the UK would still defend it existing (maybe not license fees, that's more controversial)
Anyways don't really get what's significant about traffic jams to Brexit conversation
Post by: Starver on July 24, 2016, 10:03:33 am
A little tale: I remember in.. Very early '90s... Could have been part of the Masstrricht Treaty discussions in 1992, but I'd check the date before I made that definite, the UK were specifically opting out of (or continuing to) a border-free arrangement, demanding (as we always have) that passports were still needed to enter the UK. I was on a trip around the alps, and as well as the Channel crossing did France/Italy, Italy/Switzerland and Switzerland/France (also, pre-Euro, had to take French Francs, Lire and Swiss Francs with me, which was fun for budgeting purposes). Some of us crossed some of the borders by mountain passes, but those who drove round by road-borders in the British registered minibus were always stopped for passport checks at each opportunity, whilst local (or even non-local but European) vehicles were let through without note. It was clearly 'unofficial policy' to hyper-enforce the borders to obvious UK Nationals.
Like now, there was no known threat from British travellers. All the problems that anyone, eurosceptic or europhilic, could ascribe to Europe from 'foreigners' (who often aren't even that) in Paris, Brussels, Nice, Munich, etc, there's nothing known (except for briefly the 'traditional' anti-hooligan programme surrounding the European Cup, which is obviously not a current concern) that would require French borders to be made more vigorous w.r.t. UK visitors.
Not saying it is that (there might be specific intelligence, not on public release, being acted upon), but it does look a lot like "today, my department will 'happen' to be overofficious with Les Rosbif..." doesn't need to have been ordered from above (Mitterand, or whoever it is now... I'm slightly forgetful of French leaders' names1) or sanctioned or even tacitly approved.
'Operational concerns' may have been invoked whilst beaurocracy finds a way to de-escalate things after the likely complaints from Whitehall, or perhaps kind mention the costs the French have already incurred in buffing French/UK 'borders' at Calais. But I think it's an obvious put-up job. Without evidence, just historic experience, perhaps tinted with mild paranoia and a heavy dose of Schadenfreude (I'm away from home, myself, but not cross-channel-wise).
(By the way, the licence few is the worst funding method except for all the others! I don't like what successive governments have been doing to the BBC. If there's any controversy, it lies somewhere betwixt my view and yours, I think.)
1 I'm rather waiting for Le Pen and Clinton joining May and Merkel and Ang Sang Syu Kui and the several other (potential) female leaders I might half remember in a world-matriarchy. But Marine aint yet there.
Post by: martinuzz on July 24, 2016, 10:18:33 am
http://www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/oud-politici-vrezen-irrationele-besluiten-van-vrouwelijke-premier~a4338496/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/oud-politici-vrezen-irrationele-besluiten-van-vrouwelijke-premier~a4338496/)
FORMER POLITICIANS FEAR IRRATIONAL DECISIONS BY FEMALE PM
The appointment of a female prime minister in the UK does not evoke solely positive responses. Four former politicians have expressed concerns about possible 'impulsive and irrational decisions a female PM might make.
One of them is Boris Johnson, former mayor of London. He fears a woman might make disastrous, irrevokable decisions based on gut feeling.
"Women make choices based on emotion of the moment. They don't take pause to rationally consider the consequences. It's a risk too great, to leave the nation's interests to such hysteria"
Leaving PM Cameron agrees. "Just think what could happen if the woman suddenly feels she might lose her position and doesn't know what to do. In her panick, she could hold a referendum, with all the consequences we know that would have. A PM should be able to defend impopular policies, and stand firm for those. I doubt a woman is capable of that."
Former UKIP leader Farrage fears that a female PM is not strong enough to handle the stress of a political career.
"Women do have a tendency to run when they have created a mess. A female PM might just quit her job without warning, because she wants her life back. It's scandalous!"
Former PM Tony Blair expects 'embarassing' press conferences, in which May denies catastrophic mistakes 'nearly in tears'.
"If she trusts another world leader, she'll blindly go along with his plans. A woman in charge could costs British military their lives. Do we really want to take that chance?"
Post by: Neonivek on July 24, 2016, 10:25:00 am
Post by: Starver on July 24, 2016, 10:29:32 am
Post by: smjjames on July 24, 2016, 10:30:50 am
Also, I wonder what you guys in Britian think of this: http://www.politico.eu/article/may-to-replace-downing-street-paintings-with-her-quotes/
It'd be equivalent to the President (10 Downing Street being the equivalent of the White House here) replacing all of the paintings in the White House with quotations from their own speech. I think anyway. Which sort of sounds like something Trump might go and do actually, if only out of self-narcissisicsm rather than Theresa May's intentions.
No, it's a satyr. Half-goat follower of the god of alcohol, with prominantly and permanently visible erection.
lol....
Post by: martinuzz on July 24, 2016, 10:33:23 am
That the Dutch version of The Onion, Martinuzz? heh.Reasonably good comparison. "De Speld (The Pin)" is a weekly recurring satirical column in my newspaper.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 25, 2016, 10:45:35 am
Delays because of increased French security checks (and not enough manpower), slowing things down. Looks like a deliberate 'go slow'. As if "you've been lucky to have had relatively free movement, here's a taste of what you'll get".Yeah I still don't see what this has to do with Brexit, jihadis in France is their concern for Frexit
It was clearly 'unofficial policy' to hyper-enforce the borders to obvious UK Nationals.Rofl, actually carrying out border checks is hyper-enforcement
No wonder yuros are in such a poor state :\
1 I'm rather waiting for Le Pen and Clinton joining May and Merkel and Ang Sang Syu Kui and the several other (potential) female leaders I might half remember in a world-matriarchy. But Marine aint yet there.Myanmar isn't really relevant yet
Fingers crossed for ebin Le Pen
Are... they joking? Like... this is satire right?Neo they're all fake quotes
They're saying Boris Johnson is irrational, basing his actions off of emotion, they're saying that Cameron didn't know what to do to beat Miliband and in panic promised a referendum which he didn't plan what would happen if he lost (resigning), they're saying that Farage made a mess of politics by quitting in the eve of Brexit to return to family life, and that Blair committed catastrophic mistakes which cost the lives of British soldiers. It is a double joke, because it ascribes all of these qualities of irrationality, impulsive, sentimental and irresponsible qualities to women (when they were expressed by the men speaking the joke), suggesting them to be misogynists with no self-awareness.
If you want to suck all the fun out of it and examine it straight, Boris called for a measured approach and detailed exactly why he supported Brexit (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/boris-johnson-hails-brexit-victory---full-statement/), the gut feeling seems to be misattributed from Theo Paphitis. Understandably, a Greek may have certain gut instincts in regards to how the EU "enlightens" people's nations.
Cameron promised the EU referendum, but you can find amusing instances if you scrounge on youtube for question time moments where Tory members tried to backpedal and say there was no promise in their manifesto, a lie which UKIP had fun exposing on live tele, and gradually the Tory backbenchers forced Cameron to put the referendum in motion. The rest is now great history. The volkskrant fault David Cameron for not standing to defend the EU upon the defeat of Remain, there's not much he could've done afterwards, politically he was spent and there would've been a parliamentary coup if he tried to keep the UK within the EU on such a defeat. I suspect he actually did plan for the eventuality of his defeat given how quickly the Bank of England, Osborne and Hammond were to act, he just never made his plans public, as part of his campaign strategy was to make voters believe that Brexit was a step in the dark (http://i.imgur.com/FMjzn2L.jpg), and to say he had done his job and planned for his own defeat, would be self-defeating.
Thus is the issue for a Prime Minister who takes sides, conflict of interest :P
Also it goes without saying that Dave didn't hate May, Dave is the reason May is our Prime Minster in the first place, David having appointed her and made everything possible for her accession to leadership in 2020 - It's hilarious seeing the response of May's leadership campaigners seeing victory 4 years early.
With Farage they're saying that his decision to quit was spontaneous, but speaking as one who's followed his bants for a while, he's been campaigning for a Brexit referendum for 17 years, didn't let things like plane crashes stop him (http://i.imgur.com/DyuYA56.jpg), he got the referendum and still kept campaigning - he's now age 52, and as he's not an MP, there's nothing more he can actually do. Being no stranger to death threats, he did however decide he was done when the threats extended to his family. (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/nigel-farage-quit-as-ukip-leader-over-death-threats-against-family-a3288301.html) He didn't support May because she was in the Remain camp, saying instead that Andrea Leadsom (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/687971/nigel-farage-back-andrea-leadsom-leader-prime-minister-cold-theresa-may), one he knows was pro-Brexit even when all polls indicated Remain victory.
Then there's Tony Blair. The only two things volkskrant got wrong were the notion of embarrassing press conferences, for an hour and a half he was composed and confident (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMJVAMD7axg) as usual, whilst normal people remained livid (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/iraq-war-families-seek-crowdfunding-to-sue-tony-blair/). Essentially he took full responsibility and apologized for all the grief caused (he doesn't take the blame) and says he did nothing wrong, he made the right choice by removing Saddam.
[Urge to prosecute intensifies]
It's also worth noting that this man has full control over his accents, inflections and emotions, it's how he got into power in the first place. I suspect he was advised on what to do in order to gain the most sympathy for the public. The other thing they got wrong was the idea that Blair hates women, which is not true, Blair pretends to like everyone.
Pretty weak satire tbh, seems to be based off of news that was made this week, fails to understand what it is satirizing or who it is satirizing. It's most likely satirizing British politicians involved in Brexit, but then I don't know why Blair is involved. If it's satirizing British politicians in general, why doesn't the writer do their research beforehand? I'm not even talking about researching the decades they worked in in which there was rich tapestries of satire spun around them, even a brief look into the recent month would have found more than Larry the cat. Take for example the hilarity in Cameron delivering a speech in which he says Britons don't quit - week later, he quits. There are so many angles to take there, with Cameron not being British by his own standards, with Cameron retreating to the bacon factory in tears, to Cameron having for years been known as the jellyfish - never looking happier in his life than when he announced he was resigning. To that end, it is weak. Then there is the angle itself, they've taken the angle that May is being criticized for being a woman by Boris, Cameron, Farage and Blair. Evidently that's not true, May was by Cameron's design his successor, Blair has not weighed in on May (being busy with everyone trying to convict him for being a war criminal), and both Boris and Farage backed Andrea Leadsom because she was doubtless pro-Brexit (with Leadsom actually getting criticized for being a family woman (http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/andrea-leadsoms-line-about-children-thatcher-did-it-first/) since to her critics it implied the other female candidate was less qualified for not being one), which is not very feminist tbh. So maybe it's a dig at misogynists who idolize Johnson, Cameron, Farage and Blair, but fear May because she's a woman? I've not seen these arguments anywhere. I've seen people who argue you should fear May, but those are people who say you should fear her for her ruthlessness, in that she's going to destroy the politicians you like - which is not a concern for those who favour those four, May is working with the three groups of them. It's also a particularly odd choice in regards to the UK, wherein the leaderships of Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria and Margaret Thatcher were ones in which our enemies were destroyed, May has been described by her peers as tougher than Thatcher and she has until recently been in charge of the MI5, so I don't particularly get the intended implication here. Heck, May's already off to a good start, having gotten Hollande to cooperate. (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/hollande-caves-may-french-press-reacted/) French newspapers are even saying that Hollande was scared of May, because he was shorter than her and he was looking down on him the whole time xD
So maybe it's referring to attitudes in Europe? After all, it is a valuable tool in satire to make fun of your own country, ironically, by making fun of another country (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUSiCEx3e-0). But last I checked Europeans are the planet's most socially liberal people (at least, they are the loudest at signalling their morals), so it's not saying anything about volkskrant's readership. In all likelihood, it was just an opinion piece from someone who isn't interested in the United Kingdom, but who wanted to generate clicks with pandering
Very haram
Post by: Starver on July 25, 2016, 12:02:21 pm
Seems to me more to do with Brexit than concern over British jihadis going over to France. Thus I invoke Occam, at least by my interpretation. But I know you're not even reading my reasoning, as I've given my measured conclusions already, so I'll just leave it there.Delays because of increased French security checks (and not enough manpower), slowing things down. Looks like a deliberate 'go slow'. As if "you've been lucky to have had relatively free movement, here's a taste of what you'll get".Yeah I still don't see what this has to do with Brexit, jihadis in France is their concern for Frexit
(I have read the rest of what you said, both to me and Neo, but am making no comment.)
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 25, 2016, 12:38:54 pm
Seems to me more to do with Brexit than concern over British jihadis going over to France. Thus I invoke Occam, at least by my interpretation. But I know you're not even reading my reasoning, as I've given my measured conclusions already, so I'll just leave it there.I read your conclusion and I found the evidence to be insufficient for persuasion. There wasn't any. The French say they are imposing security checks because jihadis have been killing French people and they don't want suspects to escape. I can see the evidence myself, that what they are saying is true. You're providing a personal account which I can't verify that this is not a result of French security, but is actually the result of the French being vindictive and singling out Britons to cause a massive traffic jam in their own country over politics, and not because there are jihadis on the loose. I can't verify this as true, and it does not seem logical to boot. Your reasoning was read, I found it unconvincing and not worth more than I already commented - how are the French punishing the UK by making sure jihadis don't slip through the tunnel?
An account "without evidence, just historic experience, perhaps tinted with mild paranoia and a heavy dose of Schadenfreude" is not one I'm trusting to be reality over ocular proof
It would be hilarious if against all evidence you were right, in that the Calais was the result of Frenchmen wanting to punish other Frenchmen and holiday goers because the British voted for their own national democracy in a decision that had nothing to do with them - with something as petty as a traffic jam. Maybe they genuinely thought the image of children basting in their cars for miles and miles on as revenge for another country deciding they wanted to run their own affairs was a positive image for France. Perhaps, but I find it unlikely, the French are not that petty nor vindictive, France is more eurosceptic than the UK (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euroscepticism-on-the-rise-across-europe-as-analysis-finds-increasing-opposition-to-the-eu-in-france-a7069766.html) and more french supported Brexit than the British in the UK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/01/french-more-keen-on-brexit-than-british-says-major-poll/), so I wonder. Seems to be the result of a shortage of french border guards (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/23/port-of-dover-seven-hour-delays-border-checks-france) more than anything. To that end I hope the French sort out their affairs, because they seem decent
Post by: Starver on July 25, 2016, 02:17:07 pm
The French say they are imposing security checks because jihadis have been killing French people and they don't want suspects to escape. I can see the evidence myself, that what they are saying is true.What part of 'slowing down British visitors onto French soil' does that even address, as an explanation?
Quote
It would be hilarious if against all evidence you were right, in that the Calais was the result of Frenchmen wanting to punish other Frenchmen and holiday goers because the British voted for their own national democracy in a decision that had nothing to do with themYep, you never read either my posts or listened to/saw the news. Confirmed.
And I don't say that 'the French' are being vindictive, merely that some subsection of French officials may have applied creative officialdom to make things things awkward. (They could also have 'accidentally' let migrants into the Chunnel's French-side compounds to cause chaos like seen before (intentionally or otherwise), but that is more obviously 'their fault' than mere go-slow, undermanning and 'more thoroughness than strictly necessary'.)
And my anecdotal evidence is there to demonstrate motive, opportunity and means exists, and has previously existed, even if it is not something they are actually guilty of, this time and/or 20-odd years ago.
Post by: TempAcc on July 25, 2016, 07:59:34 pm
Post by: Starver on July 25, 2016, 08:57:58 pm
From what I can tell you're arguing that the French aren't doing this because they don't want a chink in their armour, but because they want to annoy the British.Again not 'the French', but someone in the (French) establishment might have easily Sir Humphreyed the situation that way as a kind of pointedly Eurosausage thing. They won't be so much sealing the 'chinks' in their land-border armours, because of both being impractical and impolitic to do so, but if they're trying to prevent suspects from running from France (as LW seems to think I was saying), it's certainly not practical, and British-resident anti-West terror-inclined individuals are probably the best assets to keep in the UK (assuming they have no interest any more in transiting to the Middle East) to pounce here, rather than do anything like Paris/etc on the continent, outside of their personal comfort zones.
If there was an equivalent British 'movement' as militantly opposed to Europe the various subset IRAs were with Great Britain, then there'd be reason. Maybe there is that, just not known to the public. But, apart from that mysterious threat only the traditional summertime tourist-rush across to the continent can be blamed for overwhelming the facilities, and that is a known and predictable spike in demand such that the failure to deal with it is difficult to reconcile as anything other than deliberate mismanagement (alike to the similarly traditional air-traffic controller strikes, except they actually indicate their intent in advance... mind you, better than not doing, and those lot are not going to 'down tools' without any warning at all).
What I found most confusing was that LW had obviously not heard about the A20/etc having traffic jams of 15-20 hours delay, or so, when every news outlet seemed to have pictures of people playing football in the road, steel bands playing their unloaded instruments for those similarly stranded in their proximity, and countless first-hand interviews with people forced to sleep in their stationary vehicles (or snoozing on camp-beds, unpacked onto the shoulder) and who were delivered food and water by locals, emergency services and the more well-stocked neighbouring vehicles who decided to share... You know, the traditional Blitz Spirit In Adversity things that we tend to get...
Quote
Afraid I'll have to steal this from LW.Not actually ever sure what that meant. You obviously speak LW's lingo. I keep get that "lel" is probably a mutation of "LOL", from which a key-shift could produce "kek". OTOH, "Keks" are (under)pants, colloquially, so maybe that's the link. But from context it more sounds somewhat like the ?Swedish? word "sef", that I can't find a handy definition of (between all the acronymical things like the Sankara Eye Foundation), but very loosely translates as a *shrug*, as I learnt it from a group of Scandiwegians I hung about with, back in the '90s...
Kek
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 25, 2016, 09:10:02 pm
Post by: Starver on July 25, 2016, 09:16:17 pm
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/kekSo I was close, in one of my theories. It's post-millenium, so I'll probably forget it again, though, as some newfangled fad. ;)
Post by: Sergarr on July 25, 2016, 09:48:59 pm
Post by: smjjames on July 25, 2016, 10:50:03 pm
Afraid I'll have to steal this from LW.Not actually ever sure what that meant. You obviously speak LW's lingo. I keep get that "lel" is probably a mutation of "LOL", from which a key-shift could produce "kek". OTOH, "Keks" are (under)pants, colloquially, so maybe that's the link. But from context it more sounds somewhat like the ?Swedish? word "sef", that I can't find a handy definition of (between all the acronymical things like the Sankara Eye Foundation), but very loosely translates as a *shrug*, as I learnt it from a group of Scandiwegians I hung about with, back in the '90s...
Kek
[/quote]
Kek is actually 'lol' in World Of Warcraft Hordespeak, from the perspective of the Alliance side.
Also, personally, I use lel as a sarcastic lol.
Post by: MarcAFK on July 26, 2016, 12:06:53 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 26, 2016, 05:01:53 am
What part of 'slowing down British visitors onto French soil' does that even address, as an explanation?The part where there are jihadis killing French people who cannot be allowed onto British soil?
Don't ignore my post and the news in it, then accuse me of it :P Calling LW as one who reads not the news, is calling an alcoholic one who does not drink :]QuoteIt would be hilarious if against all evidence you were right, in that the Calais was the result of Frenchmen wanting to punish other Frenchmen and holiday goers because the British voted for their own national democracy in a decision that had nothing to do with themYep, you never read either my posts or listened to/saw the news. Confirmed.
And I don't say that 'the French' are being vindictive, merely that some subsection of French officials may have applied creative officialdom to make things things awkward.Which is called being vindictive and petty. I know you didn't say it, you only said a few French officials were deliberately basting children because a foreign country voted to control its own affairs, which is vindictive and petty, and flies in the face of all evidence which suggests it was due to jihadis and manpower shortages.
(They could also have 'accidentally' let migrants into the Chunnel's French-side compounds to cause chaos like seen before (intentionally or otherwise), but that is more obviously 'their fault' than mere go-slow, undermanning and 'more thoroughness than strictly necessary'.)Starver please, just post sources. If you have any actual evidence just post it and we can all be "oh huh neat" and move on. Evidence suggests the French sincerely are overstretched. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/23/port-of-dover-seven-hour-delays-border-checks-france)
And my anecdotal evidence is there to demonstrate motive, opportunity and means exists, and has previously existed, even if it is not something they are actually guilty of, this time and/or 20-odd years ago.Your anecdotal evidence is "without evidence, just historic experience, perhaps tinted with mild paranoia and a heavy dose of Schadenfreude", the notion of something possibly existing does not mean it exists, just as it is possible the French guards were acting because they were sleeper cells for Saddam Hussein. This is hardly guesswork on the motivations and machinations of politicians, this is a traffic jam
Again not 'the French', but someone in the (French) establishment might have easily Sir Humphreyed the situation that way as a kind of pointedly Eurosausage thing. They won't be so much sealing the 'chinks' in their land-border armours, because of both being impractical and impolitic to do so, but if they're trying to prevent suspects from running from France (as LW seems to think I was saying), it's certainly not practical, and British-resident anti-West terror-inclined individuals are probably the best assets to keep in the UK (assuming they have no interest any more in transiting to the Middle East) to pounce here, rather than do anything like Paris/etc on the continent, outside of their personal comfort zones.If only you could hear my facepalm now
They're not British jihadis, they've already conducted their attacks in France. Already done it, people died, the French police are looking for those who worked with them and those who are planning attacks, 19 months of high security under repeated assaults and attacks (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/exhausted-police-in-france-stretched-thin-by-constant-security-threats/2016/07/19/d0a62558-4cf9-11e6-bf27-405106836f96_story.html) has left French security forces searching for vipers across their entire country, and altogether tired of it. I'm not saying you said they were under lockdown, I'm saying that, because that is what is happening, if you just looked at the news.
Post by: scriver on July 26, 2016, 05:39:03 am
But from context it more sounds somewhat like the ?Swedish? word "sef", that I can't find a handy definition of (between all the acronymical things like the Sankara Eye Foundation), but very loosely translates as a *shrug*, as I learnt it from a group of Scandiwegians I hung about with, back in the '90s...
Sef? Never heard of it. Was it an acronym?
Post by: Starver on July 26, 2016, 06:39:44 am
For the very last and final time - why are you continually compounding the overloaded security checks that prevent UK-France travel (which you yourself exclude as particular targets of interest by the French police/security forces in the way you describe) with the justified checks that occur during France-UK transit?What part of 'slowing down British visitors onto French soil' does that even address, as an explanation?The part where there are jihadis killing French people who cannot be allowed onto British soil?
I wrote more, but I'm reminded why I think you like being deliberately obtuse.
Post by: martinuzz on July 26, 2016, 08:45:42 am
Post by: Starver on July 26, 2016, 08:58:00 am
the UK government has decided to free up 2.8 million eurosWell, at least it's not dollars. Or renmimbi...
:)
Post by: martinuzz on July 26, 2016, 08:59:59 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 26, 2016, 03:08:24 pm
For the very last and final time - why are you continually compounding the overloaded security checks that prevent UK-France travel (which you yourself exclude as particular targets of interest by the French police/security forces in the way you describe) with the justified checks that occur during France-UK transit?
I wrote more, but I'm reminded why I think you like being deliberately obtuse.
I'm quite surprised that the Dover delays (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36877177)haven't been brought up in this thread, given how long it has been going on. (Considered a non-BBC thread, just for LW, but there's no significant difference in reports and I don't expect legible discussions from that quarter.)"Kent Police said traffic was back at normal levels, after drivers had queued for up to 14 hours because of extra French security checks at the port.
First thoughts, yesterday: "And so it begins (http://xkcd.com/1656/)..."
Police said the weekend's disruption was caused by the large volume of holiday traffic and increased checks at the border following recent terror attacks in France.
The Port of Dover authority said the French border control booths in Dover were "seriously understaffed" on Friday night, when problems began."
You've now accused me of being underread, when you did not read any of the news sources I posted nor even the ones you posted. You're now calling me obtuse, when you're trying to pass off your own bias as fact over what is confirmed fact. You've failed to provide any evidence to substantiate your claims after all this, if your evidence amounts to being smug, perhaps reddit is more to your suiting? There you will be able to find many who believe that this traffic jam was actually the result of a French conspiracy to inconvenience holiday goers.
Post by: Brigands on July 26, 2016, 03:17:06 pm
I just hope they can find the money without taking it away from any institutions using it for important work, such as the BBC. (http://i.imgur.com/p7o95cQ.png)My newspaper said euros not pounds.
Which newspaper was that? ;)
You know if he lives in a country using Euros the newspaper probably gave an approximate in a currency people in the country it's published in know and use rather than some foreign shekels.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 28, 2016, 05:56:22 am
So much more can be achieved with bilateralism than the EU can ever hope to achieve
Post by: IronTomato on July 28, 2016, 07:03:20 am
Penistruer words have never been spoken
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 29, 2016, 05:20:44 am
I like how the hate crimes heatmap is basically just a population heatmap.
Also, 29 in London since 23rd June? Is it just me, or is that not a lot?
Post by: MarcAFK on July 29, 2016, 08:21:14 am
Racism unleashed: True extent of the 'explosion of blatant hate' that followed Brexit vote revealed (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-racism-uk-post-referendum-racism-hate-crime-eu-referendum-racism-unleashed-poland-racist-a7160786.html)Love that the neonazi poster has a lovingly crafted graphic of gay anal sex on it.
I like how the hate crimes heatmap is basically just a population heatmap.
Also, 29 in London since 23rd June? Is it just me, or is that not a lot?
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2016, 08:29:46 am
In response to a significant increase in hate crimes, with 6200 cases reported to police since the referendum in june, the UK government has decided to free up 2.8 million euros to protects mosques from attacks and vandalism, and to protect Polish people who have also seen an increase of hate crimes against them.
But why? The whole Brexit affair was for the right to harass and abuse Muslims AND the Polish and get them to leave.
The many leavers told me!
Man... >_< I hate when I am sarcastic and yet I don't know what parts of what I say are parody and what are serious.
---
The fact of the matter is... they are going to have to deal with the fact that a big otis of the vote was kind of fueled by hate relations.
But I get the impression that most Leavers are just distancing themselves and going "Nope! not related" which is appropriate too. Afterall they aren't responsible for all the crazies who latched onto them, even if... the campaign... invited them a little... and one of the chief members of the Leave campaign is *redacted*.
This whole situation be messed up yo.
---
Anyhow it will fix itself. I highly doubt this is all just the surface tension of what is an increasingly more racist country.
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2016, 06:33:59 am
Is it true that following Brexit that "Right Wing" has become an insult?
Post by: Starver on July 30, 2016, 06:54:51 am
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2016, 06:57:11 am
I'm sure that that's been an insult of some kind or other from one or other grouping to another grouping for a long time... As has Left Wing and every other directional. Context?
Don't want to say, my sources are silly... and embarrassing.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 30, 2016, 06:57:28 am
Post by: Starver on July 30, 2016, 04:51:51 pm
Every single political orientation is used as an insult. Right wing, left wing, tory, labour, green, lib dem, liberal, libertarian, conservative, socialist...I can't believe you forgot about us Moderates again, you insensitive Centrist pigdog!
Post by: Max™ on July 30, 2016, 06:30:43 pm
Wait, I messed something up.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 30, 2016, 07:55:50 pm
Post by: RedKing on July 30, 2016, 11:55:29 pm
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 31, 2016, 01:24:58 am
Same way the prevalence of SHARIA LAW ZONE is vastly inflated so the right can push their agenda
It's agendas all the way down
Post by: Neonivek on July 31, 2016, 01:35:09 am
The United States... is actually one of the good countries.
Post by: Max™ on July 31, 2016, 11:59:32 am
I get the impression that the actual population of racists is vastly inflated so the left can push their agendaThat's just what someone with an agenda for hiding the truth about the world turtle would say...
Same way the prevalence of SHARIA LAW ZONE is vastly inflated so the right can push their agenda
It's agendas all the way down
Post by: TheDarkStar on July 31, 2016, 10:54:27 pm
I get the impression that the actual population of racists is vastly inflated so the left can push their agenda
Same way the prevalence of SHARIA LAW ZONE is vastly inflated so the right can push their agenda
It's agendas all the way down
The number of really really racist people is fairly small, yes. However, there are places where you get institutional racism or where the effects of racism still shape how people interact - I spent a while in the American South recently and it was quite eye-opening.
Post by: Orange Wizard on July 31, 2016, 11:11:17 pm
there are places where you get institutional racismWhat, like, Zimbabwe? I'm talking about Britain.
Post by: Starver on August 01, 2016, 03:03:45 am
As TDS mentioned the American South, immediately after, means that Zimbabwe (with many problems, the 'reverse racism' of white farmers being evicted and replaced) is a small leap.there are places where you get institutional racismWhat, like, Zimbabwe? I'm talking about Britain.
I understand that Institutional Racism was directly coined with respect to events in Birmingham, Alabama, rather than anywhere near Birmingham, UK. But it was 'popularised' over here with the whole Stephen Lawrence case in London.
Arguably, an amount of the 'racism' (here, if not elsewhere) is as much 'classism', but with a baseline of fewer minorities being at the privileged end and obvious appearance being far easier to 'profile' from afar (c.f. quips about Bond, in his souped-up Aston Martin, being stopped continually by the traffic police if Idris Elba were in the role). I can't really speak for the full gamut of UK experiences, and certainly not first-hand, so take this as a shaky attempt to be objective.
(Apart from my friend who is racist, but not institutionally so, the closest thing to bias/assumption I came across was when I was mugged, a while ago, by some eastern-European-or-beyond-sounding guys, from their accents (not that I'm an expert). It was too dark to note their appearance much, and I daresay they were 'dusky' but I really couldn't have said whether they were classifiably caucasian or any of the other typical Caucasian ethnicities. That said, because I was passing an area with a high 'asian'1 density2, I did first get asked by the officers if they were asians. Not the first question, but disconcertingly quickly, in a statement-taking that didn't lead me, but left me feeling that they were trying to fill in a fixed questionaire of doubtlessly useful questions but constraining me somewhat in the actual narrative I was trying to give, stopping and starting my unfolding of events. But then maybe I ramble too much... c.f. this aside and its footnotes.)
1 In UK terms, where 'asian' tends to mean people from India/Pakistan (and has tended to cover those from Middle East or even spain through lazy racism), rather than China/Japan that we in the UK have traditionally lumped together in a different ethnic description/slur, mostly.
2 It's a bit of a melting point around here, though. There's a mosque next to a church, I know where there's a Sikh temple, there's (probable) Romanians, (possible) Turks, (definite) African/Afro-Carribeans, etc. I don't feel like a monority, but then I hear far too many 'foreign' faces talking in the broad local accent (I'm a bit of an incomer myself... I was born and brought up nearly 20 miles away, which gives me a detectibly different dialect.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 01, 2016, 03:07:20 am
Post by: Starver on August 01, 2016, 03:32:46 am
What the balls is reverse racism?Sorry, meant 'reversed racism'. But, as explained, an arguably self-destructive backlash driven by hate and by-passing any form of transition into a more equitable future. Easily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Zimbabwe) discovered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people_in_Zimbabwe#Violence_against_whites) if you hadn't already known about it.
(Also wondering if that's all you took away with you, from what I wrote. Yes, I know it rambled, but still...)
Post by: scriver on August 01, 2016, 03:49:06 am
It is sad that I know as far as racism is concerned...
The United States... is actually one of the good countries.
Oh yeah, definitely. *Kills another black own for reaching for his wallet*
Post by: Neonivek on August 01, 2016, 04:45:38 am
It is sad that I know as far as racism is concerned...
The United States... is actually one of the good countries.
Oh yeah, definitely. *Kills another black own for reaching for his wallet*
I stick by my statement.
The United States is just more noticeable and a LOT more well known then say... Mexico.
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 01, 2016, 04:48:08 am
(Also wondering if that's all you took away with you, from what I wrote. Yes, I know it rambled, but still...)Nah, it all seemed pretty reasonable and I didn't have anything to add.
Oh yeah, definitely. *Kills another black own for reaching for his wallet*The really sad thing is that he's not wrong. Place is lightyears ahead of Saudi Arabia or Qatar or something, where anyone who's not a native Arab lives in pseudo-slavery
Post by: Frumple on August 01, 2016, 06:06:09 am
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 01, 2016, 06:26:32 am
Post by: RedKing on August 01, 2016, 01:00:51 pm
When a minority is a really tiny population, they're seen as quaint and a curiosity instead of threatening. There's almost a paternalistic protectiveness towards them. Hence, when an Icelandic farmer hired a Ghanian farmhand back in the 70's, stories were mostly about how he was adjusting to the cold and how he was afraid of snowdrifts. Not "OMG black guy moved in, hide your daughters and valuables".
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 01, 2016, 06:05:51 pm
Human psychology is weird.
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 02, 2016, 06:25:38 am
Also lol, nothing much is happening in Brexit news
The skies still rain, economy is fine, Eurozone stagnating, Owen Smith still pretending he can defeat Corbyn, Theresa May doing Theresa stuff, only thing of note really is that Nigel Farage has attacked UKIPs executive committee as being of the lowest grade of people he's ever met, being total incompetents. The executive committee said that UKIP would not be autocratic (effectively the only part of UKIP not micromanaged by Farage was micromanaged by Carswell, or else was just not worth noticing) as it was under Nigel. The current most likely successor to UKIP, Steven Woolfe, has been barred from leadership due to a technical error, meaning their most likely successor has been barred from standing unless he takes legal action xD
Not even UKIP can escape the political class finagling that has plagued Labour and Tories
Keep in mind Steven Woolfe is UKIP's spokesman for migration policy, so he's the most UKIPpy public figure there is short of the big two, and both of the big two show no interest in taking lead of the party
So yeah that's all there's been in the news really, just enjoying the rain and American elections where our news is sorta-samey everyday
Also cov that saracen copypasta is dank
Post by: Starver on August 02, 2016, 08:02:13 am
Also lol, nothing much is happening in Brexit newsNothing but the Honours List, more than half a million workers to be 'sent home' (presumably to be recipricated), the Lords looking to intervene, we have a replacement European Commissioner looking at terrorism, economy stalling, pensions being hit hard, construction industry pausing for thought... Same old same old, I suppose, but that's just from the front pages...
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 02, 2016, 09:23:46 am
Nothing but the Honours ListNot Brexit news, or particularly news for that matter but it's important to some
More than half a million workers to be 'sent home' (presumably to be recipricated)Sauce pls
This goes against the stated goal of Theresa May, in which she said current Eurolabourers will be allowed to stay if the same is guaranteed for Britons, and that they will be mass deported if the same respect is not given. National leaders have been very respectful so I don't see that happening
The Lords looking to interveneTheresa May will destroy them (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-tells-lords-get-behind-brexit-after-threat-to-derail-article-50-plans-a7166271.html)
we have a replacement European Commissioner looking at terrorismEuropean Commissioners looking at terrorism is like European Commissions looking at paint dry
It's more of a symbolic gesture really, that even though we're leaving the EU we still don't like watching Europeans get beheaded and will lend our security help
economy stallingSurging world growth makes a mockery of Brexit panic (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/01/surging-world-growth-makes-a-mockery-of-brexit-panic/)
thsi is y uros gotta end austerity fam
pensions being hit hardEU demands Britain pays pensions of 1,730 Eurocrats in wake of Brexit vote (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/eu-demands-britain-pays-pensions-of-1730-eurocrats-in-wake-of-br/)
Playing sad violins rite now
construction industry pausing for thought...Construction companies thinking is nothing new, everyone is thinking all the time
Same old same old, I suppose, but that's just from the front pages...Pretty much, nothing actually dank
Post by: SirQuiamus on August 02, 2016, 09:37:23 am
Lookin' bullish, eh m8? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-manufacturing-falls-even-faster-than-thought-in-wake-of-vote-a7165911.html)
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 02, 2016, 10:27:02 am
Lookin like a chart for antsLookin' bullish, eh m8? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-manufacturing-falls-even-faster-than-thought-in-wake-of-vote-a7165911.html)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Also lol @ one of the two Independent's source being the Independent
From your article:
Quote
Many City of London economists are also expecting a return to recession, or two quarters of negative GDP growth.Be careful whenever you see someone saying "many economists, widely expected" e.t.c, cos it means they didn't get their own source for it lol
The Bank of England is widely expected to cut interest rates from 0.5 per cent to 0.25 per cent on Thursday to support the economy.
Despite the overall weakness of the latest manufacturing survey, Markit/CIPS said the level of incoming new export orders rose for the second successive month in July aided by the recent depreciation of the sterling exchange rate. The pound has fallen around 10 per cent on a trade-weighted basis since the referendum vote.
Anyways in the above quote, mo exports, and manufacturing has been in constant decline for quite some time cos China steel stronk and the UK is an advanced economy. Anyways China is pissed cos the EU is doing "unjustifiable protectionism", (http://www.japantoday.com/category/business/view/china-slams-higher-european-steel-tariffs-as-unjustified) the Chinese should know by now that to get access to muh market, they have to become subject to Brussels 1st
Spoiler: Rofl at the comments (click to show/hide)
Now this is where they've fallen to, trying to cast eternal doom b8
I'm so proud of where they've come
Anyways fam the economy is growing faster than expected, note we're not just talking a single sector of Britconomy like the Indie:
Quote
The UK’s economy advanced 0.6 percent on quarter in the three months to June of 2016, higher than a 0.4 percent expansion in the previous period and better than market expectations of 0.4 percent. Industrial production rebounded and posted the biggest gain since 1999, boosted by mining, quarrying and manufacturing while services growth slowed and construction shrank for the second quarter, preliminary estimates showed.
Industrial production jumped 2.1 percent, rebounding from a 0.2 percent drop in the previous period and contributing 0.3 percentage points to growth: manufacturing surged 1.8 percent (-0.2 percent in the previous period); energy supply went up 4.7 percent (0.7 percent in the previous period); water and waste management rose 2.6 percent (2.4 percent in the previous period) and mining and quarrying increased 1.4 percent (-2.2 percent in the previous period).
Growth in the services industries slowed to 0.5 percent from 0.6 percent in the previous quarter, contributing 0.37 percentage points to growth. Growth in the business services and finance industries eased to 0.5 percent from 0.7 percent and was the main reason behind the reduction in services growth between the 2 quarters.
Construction output fell 0.4 percent, following a 0.3 percent decline in the previous period.
On a yearly basis, the economy advanced 2.2 percent, better than market expectations of 2 percent and the best performance in a year.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth
Meanwhile in yurop
Quote
Eurozone GDP growth halves as French economy stalls (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36922367)Can you believe yuropoors don't even have sovereignty I MEAN COME ON IT'S 2016
Anyways Covenant would be able to better explain to you why our manufacturing has been a shit for some time, but at any rate have this old beeb article from the run up to brexit bonanza referendum:
Quote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36149185We got a longer problem with manufacturing. Do we try to keep competing on the world market for FREEDOM and MAXIMUM FREE TRADE (which has worked out very well for our economy - just not for manufacturing, where it has basically ripped it apart) or do we subsidize manufacturing in the UK with taxpayer shekels in order to keep unprofitable companies afloat.
Poor productivity, weak exports and falling industrial production and construction figures are more than a short term reaction to the vote on 23rd June.
They reveal significant challenges rebalancing the UK economy away from services and household consumption towards manufacturing, as well as the UK's exposure to global economic headwinds such as slower growth in China.
The Office for National Statistics said it had no evidence for or against the slowdown being linked to the EU referendum on 23 June.
Also lol
Quote
The Bank of England warned earlier this month that uncertainty due to the vote could hurt growth in the first half of this year, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has downgraded its forecast for the UK economy over fears of disruption if Britain votes to leave the EU.Note, the BBC actually names their sources so you can verify what they say
Chancellor George Osborne told the BBC the fact that Britain was still growing was "good news", but added "there are warnings today that the threat of leaving the EU is weighing on our economy".
"Investments and building are being delayed, and another group of international experts, the OECD, confirms British families would be worse off if we leave the EU".
But economists suggested fears over the impact of Britain's exit from the EU was only partly to blame for the slowdown.
Pantheon Macroeconomics chief UK economist Saumuel Tombs said the UK's economy had been steadily losing pace since 2014, and the boost to the economy from higher household spending and rapid employment growth "had run its course".
"Concerns about Brexit likely played a role in the first quarter slowdown and they probably will take a greater toll on GDP growth in the second quarter. But the downward trend in GDP growth since 2014 suggests that the EU referendum cannot be blamed for all of the economy's ills," he added.
But Capital Economics UK economist Ruth Miller said she expected the slowdown to be temporary.
"Many of the factors likely to be to blame for the first quarter's weakness should prove short-lived. We would not be surprised if growth were to subsequently accelerate in the second half of the year, putting the economy back on track," she added.
Good job beebles
Tl;dr, growing better than Germoney and France, but there is zero room for complacency, luckily May is competent af (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/19/imf-slashes-uk-growth-forecasts-after-brexit---but-britain-will/)
Post by: Starver on August 02, 2016, 12:19:05 pm
...closing shots by a PM everyone voted against (FCVO 'everyone', slightly less accurately than that 'overwhelming' result for Brexit) to seemingly reward his Remain crew, was the way the paper tried to sell it. I don't think it's actually like that, but it was the anti-Remain press that linked it with Brexit.Nothing but the Honours ListNot Brexit news, or particularly news for that matter but it's important to some
And I'm not going to go down each point. Suffice to say that a majority of papers on the newsstand (representing both pro and anti camps) had Europeesque stories by any reasonable metric. (Making no assertions about the reasonableness of the stories themselves, of course...If I want a laugh, a glance at the Express usually cheers me up, but another surely will if I'm let down on that score.)
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 02, 2016, 12:27:34 pm
...closing shots by a PM everyone voted against (FCVO 'everyone', slightly less accurately than that 'overwhelming' result for Brexit) to seemingly reward his Remain crew, was the way the paper tried to sell it. I don't think it's actually like that, but it was the anti-Remain press that linked it with Brexit.I suppose it's all down to subjective judgement on what's interesting then innit
And I'm not going to go down each point. Suffice to say that a majority of papers on the newsstand (representing both pro and anti camps) had Europeesque stories by any reasonable metric. (Making no assertions about the reasonableness of the stories themselves, of course...If I want a laugh, a glance at the Express usually cheers me up, but another surely will if I'm let down on that score.)
Personally I just don't care about Cameron much anymore, though now I am at least somewhat empathetic to the plight of someone who was truly surrounded by friends who had flowers in one hand and daggers in the other lol
I mean this is the guy who gave his wife's hairdresser honours, I'm not too bothered seeing him go. Plus the list is mostly a bunch of Remain campaigners who fought with Cameron to keep the EU in the world, so I'm not too bothered if they want to try walking around as Sirs and Dames, they need something to cheer themselves up before they contemplate suicide too much. If they do not at all deserve their place on the list they'll just get blocked by our gov. Not basing this off of any notion of exceptional integrity, nah, the current gov has no loyalty to the previous one.
I looked up whether they had decided to block anyone and sure enough, blocked, his list, all of the shite ones anyways. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-farewell-honours-list-blocked-by-whitehall-over-ethical-suitability-of-some-a7150476.html)
I'd probably be more concerned about someone sneaking in honours, but Cameron's lost. He can't get anyone in anywhere, and is done for. I wish him good health and all, may he avoid bacon jokes in peace, this is the last we hear of him.
(Unless he becomes governor of the EU or some dastardly shit).
Post by: Orange Wizard on August 02, 2016, 03:13:42 pm
Also lol @ one of the two Independent's source being the IndependentStrong independent newspaper don't need no validation
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 02, 2016, 03:31:49 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2016, 04:04:09 pm
Post by: Max™ on August 02, 2016, 08:06:44 pm
>Burst Raep
>Snap Raep
>Brexit <--
________ |
Post by: TheBiggerFish on August 02, 2016, 08:33:34 pm
Post by: Max™ on August 02, 2016, 08:57:23 pm
I don't even what?Chryssalid's are terrible. (http://orig13.deviantart.net/2385/f/2008/109/d/4/pick_up_that_soap_by_ironshrinemaiden.jpg)
Post by: smjjames on August 02, 2016, 09:08:32 pm
I don't even what?Chryssalid's are terrible. (http://orig13.deviantart.net/2385/f/2008/109/d/4/pick_up_that_soap_by_ironshrinemaiden.jpg)
Could you seriously have an 'alien artifact' turn out to be a bar of soap or something otherwise mundane in Xcom?
Post by: itisnotlogical on August 02, 2016, 09:16:01 pm
Not sure if it was in the original X-COM, but in Xenonauts certainly you can choose between four attacks with rifles: snap, single, burst and aimed
Oldcom had snap shot, aimed shot and I think burst was probably the third one. There was never a reason to use anything other than snap shot because the aiming bonus was minimal and it took the least TUs.
Post by: Max™ on August 02, 2016, 09:25:50 pm
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on August 02, 2016, 09:28:23 pm
One of the things you could get off of the bigger UFOs (Battleships and supply ships, iirc) was basically an alien TV.I don't even what?Chryssalid's are terrible. (http://orig13.deviantart.net/2385/f/2008/109/d/4/pick_up_that_soap_by_ironshrinemaiden.jpg)
Could you seriously have an 'alien artifact' turn out to be a bar of soap or something otherwise mundane in Xcom?
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 04, 2016, 03:25:13 pm
Spoiler: I CAN'T HANDLE THE SMUG (click to show/hide)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 04, 2016, 03:27:33 pm
Post by: Starver on August 04, 2016, 04:20:05 pm
Post by: Max™ on August 04, 2016, 05:03:37 pm
One day, when banter has finally finished its exponential growth and consumed all matter and energy in the universe, our descendants will look back on us and just sort of sigh in resignation.It's true, the Downstreamers reached back to trigger a new period of infinite inflation so smug banter would never run out.
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 04, 2016, 06:36:40 pm
SMUG HAS GONE TOO FAROne day, when banter has finally finished its exponential growth and consumed all matter and energy in the universe, our descendants will look back on us and just sort of sigh in resignation.It's true, the Downstreamers reached back to trigger a new period of infinite inflation so smug banter would never run out.
Post by: Radio Controlled on September 09, 2016, 02:12:16 pm
Anyways, some news (or 'news', ymmv). Remember I didn't include the full news posts, just the first paragraph and maybe additional lines I thought were important. Also, as usual, I'm a biased bean, fair warning.
Quote from: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37291830
EU nationals living in UK 'cannot be identified'Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/australia-says-there-will-not-be-a-brexit-trade-deal-with-uk-for-years-a7229366.html
(Alternative source from bbc: Australia trade minister: No deal until Brexit (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37294427))
Australia says there will not be a Brexit trade deal with UK for yearsSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote from: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/08/guy-verhofstadt-diehard-european-to-lead-brexit-talks-for-european-parliament
'Diehard European' to lead Brexit talks for European parliamentAlternative source, again bbc:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37307203
Brexit talks role for Belgian EU veteran Guy VerhofstadtSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote from: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37315544
Senior civil servants warn over Brexit resources fundingSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote from: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37274279
Recession fears 'fade' as UK's service sector growsSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Finally, not news but an analysis of the leave voters:
It’s NOT the economy, stupid: Brexit as a story of personal values (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/personal-values-brexit-vote/)
Post by: Starver on September 09, 2016, 04:26:48 pm
Nobody is getting what they want. So, politics as usual.
1 We all know 16 Brexiters to 17 Bremainers would not have silenced the Leave camp...
2 And yet apparently it was an "overwhelmingly large vote for Leave". False even before adding in the absentees.
Post by: Starver on September 09, 2016, 05:00:23 pm
Thus quite bitter, yes. Again, politics as usual.
Post by: Neonivek on September 09, 2016, 05:15:59 pm
No more bitter than if the positions had been reversed. (As some had anticipated. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-petition-second-eu-referendum-latest-news-vote-leave-a7104076.html))
Thus quite bitter, yes. Again, politics as usual.
I find it kind of funny how he is proclaiming that the Remainers are sore losers :P
When the entire reason the petition was created was to pre-emptively "in his own words" sore-loser for Leavers.
Double Standards are thick in Brexit. Well unless they left out where he specifically stated why wanting a second referendum if Remain won is fair democracy while wanting it in a leave majority is being a sore loser without it just being "well I support one, but not the other".
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 11, 2016, 08:59:45 am
Post by: Sheb on September 11, 2016, 10:12:47 am
Though while we are talking about British politics and things tenuously related to Brexit, I'm surprised I haven't seen some dank bantz from you about Emily Thornberry (http://archive.is/pj2ys), LW.
Quote
But the Labour MP Paul Flynn came to Ms Thornberry's defence and tweeted: "Possibility of nuclear war is a issue of vital importance that should not be trivialised by Murnaghan's cheap smart-aleck pub-quiz question."
He later added: "Murnaghan repeats cheap trick to grab a headline for himself and his failing show by diverting attention from issue of mega-importance."
Did you guys clone trump?
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on September 11, 2016, 10:26:43 am
So that would be a no.Did you guys clone trump?
Given that the woman he was interviewing is crying sexism to deflect away from her own lack of knowledge and basic competence in her job, perhaps a better question would be if we cloned Hillary ;)
Post by: Sheb on September 11, 2016, 02:43:13 pm
Did she use sexism though? I read the article and didnt see a single quote with the s-word.
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 12, 2016, 07:07:59 am
Though while we are talking about British politics and things tenuously related to Brexit, I'm surprised I haven't seen some dank bantz from you about Emily Thornberry (http://archive.is/pj2ys), LW.
Quote
'Serious stuff'I thought this was news, this uselessness is pretty standard for the shadow cabinet
Ms Thornberry was asked if she had taken part in any Brexit talks with her would-be counterparts in Germany and France, and then if she knew the name of the French foreign minister.
"Don't start pub quizzing me, Dermot," she said.
"Don't start pub quizzing me."
It's what happens when your leader selects candidates based off of marxism and not merit
Also in today's globalized world, everything that happens is a result of brexit
All these dank memes are the harbinger of the new world banter
Post by: Max™ on September 12, 2016, 12:21:38 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 13, 2016, 04:36:46 pm
...that was surreal, I was reading "Thornberry" and had to check twice to make sure I wasn't in the cartoons/western animation thread by mistake, smashing!British people exist in real life, they are not just 2d waifus
Also
Nigel Thornberry
Nigel Farage
I've never seen the two in the same room. Are they the same person?
Post by: ChairmanPoo on September 13, 2016, 05:36:50 pm
Post by: Starver on September 13, 2016, 05:47:15 pm
*shrug* I've never seen Angela Merkel and you on the same room either...I think that's to do with the the stalking, and the subsequent court order. After all, it'd be quite embarassing if the German Chancellor had to be arrested for harassment. Again.
Post by: Max™ on September 13, 2016, 05:49:33 pm
This is absolutely true btw, I remember LW calling me while hiding under the bed when she broke in the second time, despite being terrified and hushed, those accents are still sexy.*shrug* I've never seen Angela Merkel and you on the same room either...I think that's to do with the the stalking, and the subsequent court order. After all, it'd be quite embarassing if the German Chancellor had to be arrested for harassment. Again.
...SMASHING!...that was surreal, I was reading "Thornberry" and had to check twice to make sure I wasn't in the cartoons/western animation thread by mistake, smashing!British people exist in real life, they are not just 2d waifus
Also
Nigel Thornberry
Nigel Farage
I've never seen the two in the same room. Are they the same person?
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 13, 2016, 06:10:29 pm
*shrug* I've never seen Angela Merkel and you on the same room either...Dr. Merkel and Shitpost Hyde
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 16, 2016, 05:28:57 pm
Bye bye are based Nige, Diane James new leader of UKIP
Reminder the previous favourite for leader failed his bid for leadership because he forgot to register until the deadline
rip
Quote
To applause at the UKIP conference, she said: "Yes to a 100% European Union exit. Can I be any clearer? Yes to a sovereign independent UK. Yes to a UK free to make trade deals with whoever and whenever we want and yes to an immigration policy that allows entry regardless of origin to those with the skills and the expertise and the social values that this country wants."I dunno who she is but in today's fractured political house, I wonder how many seats she'll capture
Quote
She accused Mrs May of stealing some of UKIP's policies - such as grammar school expansion - adding: "Mrs May: from one grammar school girl to another, stop the faff, stop the fudge and the farce, get on with it - invoke Article 50 and give UKIP the best Christmas present we could ever have."I think May believes in what she wants done, cos she's not a prep student, has consistently been conservative even when she was unknown or when such views were disadvantageous; she could've very well killed brexit upon securing accession to leadership
What a dank leader
Quote
George Osborne has warned Theresa May that he will be the champion of “the liberal mainstream majority”THE SNAKE REVEALS ITS COLOURS
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/16/george-osborne-centrist-pro-european-rival-to-theresa-may
Funny thing is I actually like a lot of what Osborne's done, it's just hard to acknowledge that seeing him rather brazenly pretending to be everything he's not
It's like beer milipede, it just doesn't sit right. Men should seem as they are, not become valueless fluid, seeking to reach into the cracks of whoever is willing, as a path to great power and prestige
Oh yeah, Donald Tusk has been talking with May and says May told him Brexit will probably be starting 2017
Donald Tusk seems like he's not a useless bit of Junck, so that's good
In Labour news:
Is it over? Are the Labour MPs finally going to accept they have been totally, completely, 100% warscore defeated by Corbyn? (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/16/corbyn-makes-conditional-peace-offer-to-hostile-labour-mps)
Quote
imagine my surprise and consternation when I received a call from a journalist seeking my reaction to being named in a published list of Labour MPs who were being accused by Corbyn of “abusing” him and his supporters.
nope labour MPs still salty (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/16/jeremy-corbyn-no-leader-labour-mps-accused-abusing)
In EU news, French and German leaders coming together to try and sort out the fucking mess the EU commission made (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37388159)
Quote
Remember Greece last year, with its euro woes. Back then, Germany's powerful Chancellor was able to coax, or bully, other EU leaders to toe her line, giving the impression at least of a united EU.mein sides
But Mrs Merkel's credibility was damaged by the migrant crisis and her grip is weakened. Many EU leaders blame her for the hundreds of thousands of refugees who flooded across their borders. Groups of countries have begun to openly defy her.
Post by: TheDarkStar on September 16, 2016, 05:49:45 pm
Post by: Starver on September 16, 2016, 05:50:10 pm
Oh yeah, Donald Tusk has been talking with May and says May told him Brexit will probably be starting 2017Van Rumpuoy thinks no earlier than October/November. (French elections in Spring, German elections in autumn; both thus need to be fought and resolved before anyone knows what positions anyone is going to be arguing from...)
Leaving the ~38% impatient and the ~35% also on tenterhooks.
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 16, 2016, 06:40:32 pm
Leaving the ~38% impatient and the ~35% also on tenterhooks.What do you mean
also tl;dr
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Starver on September 16, 2016, 07:23:03 pm
The Leavers want to Leave, the Remainers don't, silly. (Assuming that all vote-Leave people are Leavers and so also with Remain, but I'll stick with the result.)Leaving the ~38% impatient and the ~35% also on tenterhooks.What do you mean
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 16, 2016, 07:29:50 pm
The Leavers want to Leave, the Remainers don't, silly. (Assuming that all vote-Leave people are Leavers and so also with Remain, but I'll stick with the result.)Yeah but the levels of passion died a long time ago, this is the resting period post-Olympic GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD and the heat of the falling summer sun
I think we'll have to wait til 2017 when everyone's recouped their strength before glorious battle commences again. Most importantly, when an actual date for brexit is confirmed
Then it's round 2
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 16, 2016, 07:39:14 pm
Then it's round 2"To ensure the democratic will of the people is respected, Brexit cannot occur until majorities of all nations within the United Kingdom vote in support of leaving the EU."
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 16, 2016, 07:48:29 pm
Then it's round 2"To ensure the democratic will of the people is respected, Brexit cannot occur until majorities of all nations within the United Kingdom vote in support of leaving the EU."
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 21, 2016, 07:29:25 pm
And then it struck me, she can do anything
Labour party are dying
The Osbornites, Govians and Bojos are neutralised
No one is invading
Economy is good
We've not sunk into the ocean yet
UKIP aren't on the warmarch
Libdems aren't doing anything
SNP are dealing with ready brex rebels
No obligations to anyone
Dis gon be gud if she wins a mandate 2020, the political stability would be as entrenched as rice and molasses mortar in porous brick
Let's see if this will be time of prosperity or time of propane
In brexit news:
Quote
in a briefing on public opinion at King's College London, Prof Curtice said there was “not much evidence of buyer’s remorse” over the vote.Regrexit disinfo BTFO (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/voters-showing-no-signs-of-buyers-remorse-over-brexit-top-pollst/)
“The Remainers are still convinced they were right and the Leavers still think they were right. Very few minds have been changed,” he said.
Nor is there much appetite for another vote, with no more than a third of people backing a second EU referendum according to a string of polls.
Oxford Uni comes as #1 best Uni in the world (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37419263)
[Deep concern]
Quote
The west’s leading economic thinktank has backtracked on its warning that the UK would suffer instant damage from a Brexit vote and has thrown its weight behind plans by Theresa May to provide fresh post-referendum support to growth in November’s autumn statement.ayyy lmao I knew it the experts say whatever the rulers want them to say (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/21/oecd-does-a-u-turn-over-brexit-warning-as-it-revises-growth-forecast-for-britain)
expert claims BTFO
Post by: Sheb on September 22, 2016, 02:16:27 am
Post by: MDFification on September 22, 2016, 12:10:08 pm
The Leavers want to Leave, the Remainers don't, silly. (Assuming that all vote-Leave people are Leavers and so also with Remain, but I'll stick with the result.)Yeah but the levels of passion died a long time ago, this is the resting period post-Olympic GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD and the heat of the falling summer sun
I think we'll have to wait til 2017 when everyone's recouped their strength before glorious battle commences again. Most importantly, when an actual date for brexit is confirmed
Then it's round 2
Enough of the batty old people will have died by then that leave will probably lose round 2.
Post by: RedKing on September 22, 2016, 12:13:28 pm
Yeah, it seems that May's plan to not actually exist from the EU has been great at mitigating Brexit damage. :DFreudian typo? ;D
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 22, 2016, 12:26:11 pm
Enough of the batty old people will have died by then that leave will probably lose round 2.Negatory, twice as many people oppose secorendum than support it
Batty old people win again
WWIII 2020 make it happenYeah, it seems that May's plan to not actually exist from the EU has been great at mitigating Brexit damage. :DFreudian typo? ;D
*EDIT
Stunning allegations arise that the Leave campaign was ran by Remain shills (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37439890)
Even with controlled opposition, it was not enough to stop the bants
Post by: Flying Dice on September 22, 2016, 10:01:29 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 22, 2016, 10:13:38 pm
tumblr walks into a brexit bar and sees article 50 hitting up some tequila shots. tumblr asks article 50 why xe is so sad. article 50 says: no one will trigger me
Post by: Starver on September 22, 2016, 10:23:03 pm
Brexit vote round II will be over whether you should dig the Isles out of the continental plate, strap your nuclear arsenal to the bottom, and go full Orion Project into orbit and out to a Lagrange point.I'd be tempted to vote for that.
(Although, more realistically, it really ought to be a tortured spacewhale...)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on September 22, 2016, 10:24:13 pm
inb4 the TARDIS actually shows up...Brexit vote round II will be over whether you should dig the Isles out of the continental plate, strap your nuclear arsenal to the bottom, and go full Orion Project into orbit and out to a Lagrange point.I'd be tempted to vote for that.
(Although, more realistically, it really ought to be a tortured spacewhale...)
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 22, 2016, 10:31:34 pm
Post by: Starver on September 22, 2016, 11:12:33 pm
We need trident to snare ourselves a giant space whale for our top sekrit projectIt's actually the one instance (of a very few!) when it is actually the tears of children that are needed. (As opposed to an optional extra.)
Post by: MorleyDev on September 24, 2016, 08:24:12 am
***
The best way, in fact maybe only real way, for the UK to succeed is for it to act as a finance, science and technology hub of the world. We need an innovation economy. It's the main thing we can compete on globally and when you get down to it, it's the only thing that really matters and will impact and benefit not just ourselves, but all future generations.
There are two main ways to accomplish this, either the establishment of a lower working 'slave class' which supports the 'intellectual elite', or a system encouraging the development of and ascension to the innovative/creator roles for people of all backgrounds.
The former could come in the form of either physical coercion, or an imposed class system. Physical coercion in a resource rich environment will fail, history shows this. The imposition of a class system via segregation from youth and with different tracks of education is simply not as efficient as it gives a smaller resource pool to draw from for innovation, knowledge and advancement. This environment is a good description on Britain circa the industrial revolution, but is not sufficient for the modern world. Needless to say, it may of been necessary then, but it has allowed us to pave the way to something better.
The latter system, encouraging the development of and ascension to the innovative/creator role in people of all backgrounds, is not only the more ethical and moral position, but also the one which stands to bring the longest term benefits to not only Britain but the entire human race. It is the only choice in the small, interconnected world which always has been and always will be growing smaller and more interconnected as technology continues to advance.
To do this we need a high quality school system with free (or cheap, I'll allow for cheap) access to education, churning out large numbers of educated experts and innovators capable of entering and bolstering those industries. Affordable healthcare helps keep those numbers high too, as then people do not need to sabotage their future for their health. Public (as in government) ownership and oversight is required for these things, as corporate interests are too often and too easily immediate profit oriented, and so at odds with that long-term goal.
As old industries inevitably are made irrelevant and die in the rapidly evolving market of the world, we need a strong welfare system able to support and retrain people to work the new industries. This system can also simultaneously be used to catch people who fall through the cracks of schooling, training them to enter the service industries.
The death of large scale manufacturing in the UK, the mining and steelworks industries, was an inevitable reality of being a relatively small first world country in modern times. Our welfare system has failed to support the people of those industries, leaving them abandoned and disenfranchised by the advancements that should of brought only benefits to their lives. The systems of support that the government have so recklessly cut in the name of austerity must be revitalised.
Long gone are the days where a person can work the same basic job cradle to grave. We must embrace the ever-changing nature of the modern world, and accept the reality that no matter what job you are doing now, some part of it will be irrelevant in ten years. And you may be that part. At some point it is near guaranteed you will be. Flexibility of the workforce is a necessity, and we need a strong welfare system and a strong and open education system to enable that flexibility.
Immigration is required to bring in low-level workers to plug the gaps we are not producing unskilled workers in enough volume to fill. And then their children will be able to enter the British system and achieve the above, bringing further resources and pools of talent into this country.
Universities must cooperate on international projects with other university's around the world. Such cooperation benefits the development of local and global industry, and if we already have the basis down, which we do, guarantees more new industries and opportunities in this country. Our world-class universities and industries will further attract existing talent and prospective talent from abroad, ever growing the UK resource pool.
In keeping with the themes of both scientific innovation and future generations, a key field of UK research must be in alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. This creates whole new industries whilst working to protect the environment for our children and children's children. Another win-win scenario where ethics and practicality line up.
As the possible benefactors and markets of technology and science are not just limited to the country it takes place in, but the entire world, Britain must support and elevate other countries where it can, working to minimise the hostility that hampers progress, and encouraging the development of new economies, markets, and sources of talent in areas that are lacking in such things. These are both new markets for our technologies and sciences, and new sources of advancements. This is accomplished locally through the welfare, education and healthcare systems, and globally through supporting international charity endeavours.
The setting and development of these foundations can be supported by taxation of both high earners and businesses, as those taxes act as an investment from high earners. By investing in the development of resources, they help guarantee future growth. The kinds of businesses that would not benefit from this system are the kind of exploitative monstrosities which in the long run only hinder progress, and so would not be welcome.
Additionally, by attracting, developing and maintaining talent for the innovation economy, by developing the science and engineering infrastructure for these specialised areas, we ensure those businesses benefit from setting up in this country above others.
Encouraging the development of new businesses from both local and international talent ensures the UK remains a globally important centre. A place that not only benefits from the world, but benefits the world we all share.
***
Other things I want: Stem cell research, genetically modified foods to solve problems of food shortages, co-operation with international bodies on space research. At the end of the day and current rates of population growth, the planet is risking being overpopulated by the 2050s. We need to prepare for this by finding ways to produce food and energy more efficiently, and ultimately aim to be getting the hell off this planet.
Also scrap trident, it's just money being pissed away so blind old bulls can feel like big men.
Post by: Neonivek on September 24, 2016, 08:29:32 am
Post by: MorleyDev on September 24, 2016, 09:20:59 am
Jeremy Corbyn wins the labour leadership election by 61.8%, an even larger margin than he get elected in the 1st place.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 24, 2016, 09:24:04 am
Post by: MorleyDev on September 24, 2016, 10:40:04 am
The whole kerfuffle with Corbyn has been pretty hilarious, since from the looks of it the reason Labour allowed member votes on leader selection like they did was them trying to reduce the influence of unions in an attempt to give MPs more power over who their leader is. And that bit them in the arse something fierce, because it became very clear very quickly a large chunk of the Labour members have been pretty unhappy with their current policy of "basically being a slightly less obviously maniacal version of the Conservative party under a different banner".
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 24, 2016, 09:11:07 pm
With the Orbs of Direction under his control, no force of mortal men may stand against him. Soon the world entire shall fall beneath the shadows of Corbyn.QFT (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159095.msg7103629#msg7103629)
I like to imagine his speech ended with "But beware of the right wing policies. Prejudice, fear, greed; the dark side of politics are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a debate. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Tony Blair."Even better: Beware of the neoliberals (https://off-guardian.org/2015/09/21/red-neoliberals-how-corbyns-victory-unmasked-britains-guardian/)
Right wing will stab left wing in the face
Neoliberal will stab left wing in the back
Here's his full speech btw (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-win-labour-leader-victory-read-speech-full-a7327496.html)
He talks about the new Tory government, and how it's Cameron's government but with a "hard right edge." Which to me confirms that Theresa May's right wing government is actually right wing, Osbornites btfo again
Sounds like a fucking retarded manifesto, that were it to be implemented by state intervention, would cause me to run for Prime Minister under the mandate of "I will nuclear bomb this country into oblivion so that we may escape this grimdark current year through the sweet release of the future we chose," - and I would win, with the NUKIT party winning 100% of Parliament's seats.Spoiler: snip (click to show/hide)
Being a financial, scientific and technological hub of the world is certainly in London's future, and I don't like the phrase "innovation economy" - planning in any measure an economies' growth without expecting high levels of innovation is like discussing fertilizer compounds and seed mixes for a field you never intend to water. All efforts will be wasted, and merely result in piles of useless shit everywhere. I put a full stop at the end there so that paragraph sounds serious, so just pretend there are :P everywhere to lighten the tone
The first system of a lower working slave class supporting the intellectual elite is fucking horrendous, the intellectual elite have done an absolutely shit job of handling their political power and have grown contemptuous of working class Britons - taking away their remaining agency just to further empower the intellectual elite sounds like the neoliberal wank of Oxbridge aristocrats cocksure in their intellectual superiority that they truly know what's better for the world better than worldly people know themselves.
This idea does not even deserve to be put to paper, it is just an overt realization of what the EU's critics fought so stringently against. The humble Nige was once asked by a young un how to get into politics, how to get work experience to get into Parliament asap. Are based Nige told them - don't, get a real job first, get real life experience - then try for politics. Your chances are lower but you'll actually have a far better understanding of what you're doing, you'll actually know what problems people face. That's the issue with a dedicated class of political bureaucrats who are born in elite prep schools, raised in elite global Universities and through their connections end up as the new political elite - one, it becomes incredibly easy to consolidate control over future rulers, and two - future rulers are fundamentally disconnected with reality, having only existed in it as Siddhartha Gauthama surrounded by pleasure, wealth and prestige.
But you are not suggesting that, you are just suggesting that our two options are the one you suggest or slavery - which to me is a lot like suggesting our only options for foreign policy are dissolving the nation or joining the United States, or our NHS policy are eugenic death squads or privatization. Unless you really have that level of a deficit in imagination, it's just not in any way improving your argument case - you must surely be more imaginative than that.
Your more realistic proposal of an intellectual elite founded on the basis of a high quality school system allowing for global social mobility of elites across the world is our current system. It works, there's not much to say about that. That said your impression of the UK is at places wrong, or incredibly wrong, or just outdated - and to use a word that has since become meaningless, ignorant.
My tl;dr before the boring bit commences is this:
- 1. You are running off of incorrect information and thus have set up to accomplish goals that in reality are milestones of failure.
- 2. Your understanding of innovation is that it is something generated by an intellectual elite commanding from above down to workers, when innovations is made by workers and in an ideal world, protected by politicians. Note well - politicians, not the intellectual elite that make up our politicians.
- 3. This is ultimately just a proposal for the neoliberalism that has been failing the United Kingdom.
Spoiler: Allow me to elaborate (click to show/hide)
But the UK already has slaves... it is actually kind of a social issue for them. (their words, not mine)I swear down Neo if you don't stop slagging my country without a single bit of sources of "their words" I'm gonna start spreading shit about how Canada funds ISIS and wants to be annexed by Donald Trump :P
t. their words
Anyways I'm assuming you were referring to the human trafficking Theresa May was cracking down on before she became Prime Minister
Top Leader that Theresa May (http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/modernslavery.html)
Now the thing about human trafficking is that it's international, there's estimated 20.9million people victims of trafficking (https://polarisproject.org/facts) around the world, no exceptions (http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ntnl-ctn-pln-cmbt/index-eng.aspx)
Crush the slaver scum, something everyone can get behind no?
Post by: Neonivek on September 25, 2016, 01:07:21 am
Naw the whole UK has slaves thing was a joke about wage slaves, that often foreigners took (at least that is the best I could understand it. It might be more nuanced or even more dire then simple wage slaves...).
And this joke was told... by the UK :P.. From a Television show... made in the UK (that... I forgot the name of O_o)
It is the glory of actually watching British television. Which I know is insane (Because OHH BOY are a lot of British shows just plain awful! If I see another Bratty blonde...)
I haven't heard the Canadian joke where we say we fund ISIS. I have seen the one where our GST was created as a way to make us pay more taxes instead of fixing up the country AND that ALL finance ministers are secretly daemonic imps!
Post by: Flying Dice on September 25, 2016, 01:27:15 am
Quote
A beginning is a very delicate time. Know then that it is the year 2091. The Known Universe is ruled by the Halal Emperor Saddam IV, my father. In this time, the most precious substance in the universe is the syrup Maple. The syrup extends life. The syrup expands consciousness. The syrup is vital to space travel. The Musk Guild and its cosmonauts, who the spice has mutated over 40 years, use the orange syrup gas, which gives them the ability to load Skype. That is, travel to any part of the system without moving.
Oh, yes. I forgot to tell you — the syrup exists in only one country in the entire system. A desolate, wet land with vast tundra. Hidden away within the ice of this tundra are a people known as the Québécois, who have long held a prophecy that a man would come, a messiah who would lead them to true freedom. The country is Canada, also known as America's Hat.
Post by: RedKing on September 25, 2016, 02:30:01 am
Also, so the gist of what I'm reading is that Labour is actually a respectable damn party again?
Post by: Neonivek on September 25, 2016, 02:32:22 am
Bromwell High :P
I do not suggest watching it... Or... Do I? because when I think about it, it has strangely become more relevant (what with only a single student in the school actually originating from England and only three teachers)
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 25, 2016, 05:59:27 am
I also think T. May is actually making a good start - I was particularly heartened to see this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egbdx40-zr8) from her (though ironically, I suppose her saying that could be accused to be just 'virtue signalling' until she actually does something about it. In context though, I think it makes more sense to take it as her setting out her stall somewhat). Though if that's an 'epic speech', Churchill is probably spinning in his grave.I have trouble finding things to criticise May for. Just the other day I was reading in the guardian this little gem from Yvvette Cooper: "May believes in justice, but not in social justice."
That's the greatest endorsement of a Tory I've seen from Labour in my life (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eh9gLRFfe8)
PFT! Naw the whole UK has slaves thing was a joke about wage slaves, that often foreigners took (at least that is the best I could understand it. It might be more nuanced or even more dire then simple wage slaves...).capitalist bourgeoisie D:<
into the bog
It is the glory of actually watching British television. Which I know is insane (Because OHH BOY are a lot of British shows just plain awful! If I see another Bratty blonde...)If the show was born in the West Midlands, retreat immediately
I haven't heard the Canadian joke where we say we fund ISIS. I have seen the one where our GST was created as a way to make us pay more taxes instead of fixing up the country AND that ALL finance ministers are secretly daemonic imps!One of your immigration agencies was called ISIS, and so you had these funny posters Canada set up around the world saying "Want to immigrate to Canada? Contact ISIS." Canucks rebranded that shit ASAP into the Create Institute (http://www.thecreateinstitute.org/international-student-services.html)
The syrup must flow. Slowly.Not quite, they're still pretty damaged by the carnage Milipede wreaked upon Labour, and the leadership purges that removed most of their most experienced MPs from the shadow cabinet, and the unpopularity of comrade crusher Corbyn's policies amongst everyone who isn't communist
Also, so the gist of what I'm reading is that Labour is actually a respectable damn party again?
The hope was once Corbyn demonstrated to the MPs who resigned that they have no chance of defeating him, they would come back to work for the Labour party. But the MPs who left believe that as long as Corbyn is leader, the Labour party is unelectable and are salty about it (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-jeremy-corbyn-win-members-resign-election-latest-a7327516.html).
The Mirror has this list of MPs who resigned from Labour due to Corby
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
PLUS: Hilary Benn, sacked
AND: Baroness Smith and Lord Bassam (Lords shadow leader and chief whip) have stopped attending shadow cabinet meetings.
And polls just in, more Labour voters support Theresa May than Corbyn. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-election-vote-poll-yougov-prime-minister-a7157561.html) In short, Corbyn has suicide bombed labour in order to destroy liberals, which makes for dank memes but doesn't make for a genuine opposition party to the Tories. I still find it respectable because they're fighting for what they believe in, the issue is they're fighting themselves and neither faction is capable of uniting the other without a good deal of jolly cooperation (neither want jolly cooperation)
Post by: Starver on September 25, 2016, 06:47:42 am
A shame, in a way - I'm all for the Labour party moving away from the Blairite hive of scum and villainy it's become, and it actually moving back to the Left would be fantastic, but Corbyn just isn't the man for the job. We need someone who'll turn Labour back into the party of the working class, rather than selling out the working class in favour of the cause du jour, or in favour of an immigrant population who'll vote for you - or at least, who'll vote for you for the first five years or so, then they'll realise you're absolutely mental and switch to the Tories (as seems to have been noted in places like Birmingham in the last two big votes we've had).Corbyn's (re)confirmation opens the way to some mid-left figure to become the acceptable successor to Corbyn, definitely not Blairite, and by becoming a key part of the Shadow Cabinet (and not spontaneously resigning from it in what turns out to be an ill-timed fit of pique) gets to be regarded as a 'good egg', if not entirely a 'good comrade', in the fight against the real enemy, the
This person may not be even elected, yet, as I can't think of any obvious names, but if they can gain the confidence of the membership ('not so bad') the PLP ('not so Trotskyist') and Corbyn ('not too far from my vision') then the reigns of power can get passed over unforced, and without the destructive atmosphete of a coup-or-attempted-coup like we just had.
Or it goes a different way. Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
Post by: MorleyDev on September 25, 2016, 08:27:27 am
Also I'm not used to that writing style (was trying for 'political speech style'), though if that's the standards to even be halfheartedly called a manifesto it makes me worry about the state of political manifestos. If I was going to write an actual political manifesto I'd be pulling in citations, comparing current laws and policies and proposed changes, going into way more detail because length wouldn't be a concern and I'd be writing it over a much larger period of time.
I'm also aware a lot of it is what we currently have, I'd just like to see re-commitment to and doubling down on those parts. With all this talk of "hard" vs "soft" brexit, that kind of re-commitment would be useful.
Basically, my main political concern at the moment is it look like there are a subset of people desperately trying to take Britain back to the days when the 'day in the life of the average worker' was "Go to the factory, spend a whole day tightening bolts on a conveyor belt, hate it, get paid, then go out and get pissed and into a fist fight to blow of steam and return to work on Monday ready to do it all over again", which is actually how I've heard elderly relatives describe life 'back in the day' (and not in a negative light, either!). I don't think that going in that direction is good for the country, economy, or planet.
All Corbyn's winning the race does is ensure that really, the Tories don't have to worry about the opposition for a while longer - at least until they cock up catastrophically, or until the Corbynistas grow up and get jobs and lose interest in politics and old-school Labour manage to finally get rid of Red Jez.
Actually a lot of the pro-Corbyn people I know are employed workers. Lots of office worker types, programmers, business project managers, graphical designers, script writers for industrial education packages. A few people who run their own businesses too, mostly tech businesses trying to push the city I live in as a cheaper alternative to London, with easy access to travel via a nearby airport, a world class university and an existing tech industry to draw talent from. They are the circles I also work in, being also a fully employed software developer. Plus it would appear a good chunk of the 300,000 growth in Labour membership were people who left during the Tony Blair era. So ya know, not the 'know nothing students with nothing better to do' the media seems to paint them as.
I do find it odd that the man just who won yet another election despite having the entire mainstream media biased against him is apparently still "unelectable". Can you imagine how "unelectable" he'd be if the media wasn't determined to convince the public "he's unelectable so don't bother"?
************************
Which brings me to my response to LW's first point, that "being a science, finance and tech hub is London's future", it's not just London's future. I don't live in London. I've never worked in London. Yet as a software developer I definitely work in "technology". There are tech companies and offices dotted around the country, it's the way most cities are having to go. We need to encourage new and existing businesses to consider places outside of London, which providing strong transport links does (Heathrow and Gatwick are not the only airports in the UK). It's working in computer software, there are plenty of cities with thriving communities of developers that are distinctly not London.
Now admittedly I do have some long standing biases against villages that make me not really think about them much. They've always seemed like places the young want to escape and the old wait to die in. So I do tend to have a city-centric view, though I like to think not London-centric.
The 'slave class' thing was more just me trying to bring up and dismiss the idea of practices which reinforce the class system. Wasn't sure if I should even include that little paragraph. Basically, I'm not a fan of restoring grammar schools, to me the better solution would be a system that focuses on identifying the different types of learning that benefit different students better, and encouraging their development in the same subjects by using more tailored education methodologies, whilst also giving students more choice over their education path (Maths, English and basic Sciences are required skills. But a focus on more spreadsheet focused ICT, web design focused, or Computing? Whether to engage with more academically algorithmic mathematics of applied engineering?).
"Science, Technology and Finance" is a poor choice of wording on my part, I'm just stuck for what to call it. Office work? Business work? Well that one just sounds stupid since all work is business work by definition. Not-mass-production-where-you-sit-on-a-production-line work? Skilled work? Help me out here. Basically, the large scale manufacturing of the past is dead. Our new industries are the offshoots of more bespoke and specialised discoveries. It's very much the state of things. But we're at the tail end of that migration away from a large scale generic manufacturing industry, to more bespoke and rapidly changing specialised industries. Am I making sense here? I'm not sure what the name of what I'm thinking is. It's not just STEM I'm referring too, unless things like "Graphical Design", "Product management" or "Bespoke Manufatoring" fall under STEM now? The TE I guess is kinda them?
A flaw in this I admit is that it effectively creates a racial caste system that changes generation on generation, at least whilst those jobs still exist to be filled. Some jobs always will for the foreseeable future, we need cleaners and taxi drivers. But even they're changing (Self-driving cars aren't too far away, suddenly taxi driving becomes a whole different job). I guess there the heavy immigration reliance is more something that should close itself off naturally as things advance.
But when I refer to "creator/innovator roles" I'm again failing to express myself and for that I apologise. I'm talking about those who work in the above industries I mentioned, not just those doing the "innovative stuff" but those who work for them. Programmers, graphic designs, product managers, researchers, engineers, quality assurance staff, accountants, sales people, doctors, receptionists, people who work in the specialised manufacturing industries (cars and jet engines seem to be the main ones we still hold onto)...Can you think of better terminology to describe that broadness?
Our education system is also world quality, like I said I think we need to double down on it. Sounds lime we more or less agree here actually. You went into more detail than my very wooly little post, which I like. Like I said, I'm not used to that kind of writing and wasn't sure exactly where to draw the "detail/hyperbole line". I'm not describing changes I want to happen hear so much as what I'd kinda see as a goal to work to.
I like the NHS, I don't want it privatised. Like you said, can't get better than free. I want it to say as such.
"Our social services are mentally ill and couldn't save a life", I know people who've gone through it and benefited. We need to strengthen it, like I said. Is there a way to draw from private business for extra funding without making it entirely the responsibility of for-own-profits industries? Maybe, it'd be a balancing act though. It needs retooling and having a greater focus on retraining, not throwing away with the bath water. I want a political party that recognises it as fundamentally a good thing, and focusing on how to make it better and not break it down.
"fall through the cracks", At the end of the day, if you can't get into those above "office job type things" (seriously, good name for that? Anyone?) you'll probably wind up being a cleaner, taxi driver, or otherwise in low skilled labour. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not a stable industry anymore, advancement happens too fast. Welfare needs to support that. And at the end, I suspect the system most likely won't produce enough people to fill those roles. Hence the need to 'prop the numbers' via immigration. Which in a lot of ways is the current system, and I don't object to it. I think it needs doubling down on.
It's not something new, but it is something that is more rapid nowadays. And it's something that's much less restricted to 'specialised industries' than it used to be. Yeah, medicine advanced every year, but did construction? Transferable skills, like you said.
Yeah, we do good investment into research. Keep doing that. Like I said, I'm not describing changes I want to happen so much as trying to put down the things and directions I value.
Well we need to elevate the UK too. Basically, I don't object to foreign intervention to encourage stability, and I don't think we are perfect either. Historically we've been bad at encouraging stability. Supporting those whose countries are in crisis or whose human rights are threatened is in our best interest as well as the right thing to do, so we should remain in the international organisations that seek to do that.
It looks to me like the main benefactors of deregulated industries and a large unskilled work force are bulk manufacturers, which I'm putting forward as industries we should be moving away from in favour of more bespoke, specialised industries which need the more skilled labour and provide more benefits via trickle down technology.
Whilst I don't believe in the trickle economy down I do believe in trickle down technology and science. If our research means we can improve farming output or reduce the threats to people posed by water shortages, or just develop smaller, faster and cheaper processors for computers, then that benefits the world.
1,2,3: 1: I know, we should keep doing it please. 2. Yeah this is not exactly banned under the EU, just regulated. I'm fine with regulation and studies to check it's healthy for people, but do think it's a good thing to look into. 3. I know, again we should keep doing it.
Trident: Yeah, I know. It's just really hard not to think of Trident as a 200 billion pound penis pump nowadays. Like, if someone can provide a post-cold war situation that was successfully deescalated and our ownership of nuclear weaponry played a significant enough part in that deescalation to justify that expenditure I may reconsider that point of view. But at the moment it's looking more and more like Bear Patrol (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBMwPcRbVE).
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 25, 2016, 06:16:35 pm
Mr Cameron begged Mrs May to “come off the fence” ahead of the referendum but her refusals led to her being described as “an enemy agent” by allies of the former prime minister.
Mrs May eventually backed Mr Cameron’s Remain campaign, but made only one notable intervention during the almost six-month long campaign.
This led to Downing Street nicknaming her as “submarine May” because of her habit of disappearing when Mr Cameron asked for help, it is alleged."
I'm not sure if there's much left Submarine May can do to raise my opinion of her even higher than it is
Quote
It is claimed that after Mrs May and Mr Hammond said they could not support the plans, Mr Cameron said: “If it wasn’t for my lily-livered cabinet colleagues.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/24/theresa-may-accused-of-leaving-david-cameron-to-fight-alone-duri/)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Cheeetar on September 25, 2016, 06:24:32 pm
At the end of the day, if you can't get into those above "office job type things" (seriously, good name for that? Anyone?) you'll probably wind up being a cleaner, taxi driver, or otherwise in low skilled labour.
The distinction I'm most used to is 'white collar' for office-type jobs, and 'blue collar' for non office-type jobs.
Post by: Flying Dice on September 25, 2016, 06:36:59 pm
Post by: Frumple on September 25, 2016, 06:56:16 pm
"Science, Technology and Finance" is a poor choice of wording on my part, I'm just stuck for what to call it. Office work? Business work? Well that one just sounds stupid since all work is business work by definition. Not-mass-production-where-you-sit-on-a-production-line work? Skilled work? Help me out here.Service industry, service economy. Is what it's called, last I paid attention. It's a pretty broad thing, (very) roughly "everything that's not manufacturing or resource extraction", but it's what's been used fairly broadly to describe the results of a transition from an industrial economy to post-industrial one.
Post by: Max™ on September 25, 2016, 07:38:47 pm
Also, MorleyDev: you have many "should of" instead of "should have" type errors in that speech, my eye-twitching shows up on seismometers at this point, scaring the shit out of people watching the Ozark fault.
Post by: Flying Dice on September 25, 2016, 08:34:12 pm
I mean, that still fits in the blue collar/white collar paradigm, only difference is that workers are mostly interacting with customers and information rather than tools and machines.
Uh, as in labor-saving-devices tools. Plenty of the human sort every day.
Post by: Sheb on September 26, 2016, 01:56:25 am
Post by: MorleyDev on September 26, 2016, 02:41:43 am
Also, MorleyDev: you have many "should of" instead of "should have" type errors in that speech, my eye-twitching shows up on seismometers at this point, scaring the shit out of people watching the Ozark fault.
I did a CTRL+F and found one use of "should of"? So "one" is "many" now? :)
But yeah, it's a hard habit to break. "Should of only brought benefit", "Should have only brought benefit".
Post by: Max™ on September 26, 2016, 03:39:41 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 26, 2016, 04:05:25 am
Wasn't page 3 the racy one?:^)
Blue-collar = working class; white-collar = office drone; gold-collar = executive scumbag who will die in the revolution.A slave with a golden collar is still a slave
Post by: ChairmanPoo on September 26, 2016, 05:26:34 am
Post by: Flying Dice on September 26, 2016, 09:29:41 am
"You have nothing to lose but your offshore bank accounts!" :PBlue-collar = working class; white-collar = office drone; gold-collar = executive scumbag who will die in the revolution.A slave with a golden collar is still a slave
Post by: Max™ on September 26, 2016, 01:54:59 pm
There's a speech by Malcom X about this..."I say to you my brothers, do not let them take our cheap porNOGraPHY, bring back the scantily clad insert models in... what's that you say? The speech was supposed to be about wage slavery? ...shit."
Post by: Starver on September 27, 2016, 04:40:50 pm
Oh, and "can we have a big trade deal with you, please?"...
Post by: Loud Whispers on September 28, 2016, 06:04:33 am
So, it appears Boris Johnson wants to help Turkey (the country specifically mentioned as being a threat to Britain if it joined the EU) to... join the EU.No source, inferences not statements
Oh, and "can we have a big trade deal with you, please?"...
Commit to your statements with the fury of a thousand fishing vessels, it's only Bojo
Quote
But yesterday, during his first official visit to Turkey, Mr Johnson said that Britain will "help Turkey in any way" now that it is leaving the EU. He also declined to apologise for previously writing a limerick about the "love that flowers" between the Turkish President and a goat.Johnson Caliphate rises brothers
Mr Johnson, whose great-grandfather Ali Kemal was briefly a Turkish minister shortly after World War I, also referred to his personal ties to Turkey. "Some of you may know this is the land of my fathers, this very (foreign) ministry is the place where my relatives used to work, (including) my great uncle Zeki Kuneralp."
Anyways I'm glad he serves his nation's interests above his own political career, Turkey is one of our important trade partners, sources of foreign ministers, and we are allies, any way we can help Turkey without damaging ourselves is an easy choice to make
Quote
Çelik said Turkey respected the British decision to leave the bloc but criticised the “anti-Turkish rhetoric” that emerged during the campaign.“We have to close this ugly parenthesis and look to the future,” he said.Refugee stuff, good to help the refugees out there because it's the only humanitarian strategy that works, and naturally if the EU tries destroy us then the EU gets all the refugees we cared for
Çelik also joked abouthe and Johnson having Ottoman ancestry. “We are both Ottomans. I had told him that it was important to pay visits to countries in which you have friends. He kept his promise. It means a great deal to us. The UK has always supported our EU membership bid,” he said.
Earlier on Monday at the start of his two-day visit, Johnson visited a refugee camp in Nizip, Gaziantep province, near Turkey’s border with Syria, and met exiled members of the Syrian opposition.
The trip is the highest level visit to Turkey by a British minister since the failed coup on 15 July, in which a rogue military faction tried to overthrow the Turkish government. The government claims the abortive coup was masterminded by an US-based Muslim cleric, Fethullah Gülen.
Johnson said the UK would cooperate with the Turkish authorities to get to the bottom of any Gülenist links in the UK. He said “Gülenism and the way that they act and the way they behave is very foreign to us. We are trying to learn as much as we can from our Turkish friends exactly what this organisations is, how it behaves, how it dictates an agenda.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/27/boris-johnson-turkey-recep-tayyip-erdogan-lewd-poem-mevlut-cavusoglu-kurds
Interesting that Boris met members of exiled opposition in Syria and pledged support against Gulenists, suggesting the Turkic-British cooperation is more than one of convenience
Also in britpol news
There's oil in them Falklands (http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/2016/09/studies-indicate-low-breakeven-price-for-offshore-falklands-darwin-project.html)
Spoiler: prepare for round II (click to show/hide)
Quote
Since taking office in December, Macri has sought to strengthen his country’s ties with Britain and end the confrontational approach of the previous administration.Wait, they got rid of Kirchner? They want to work with us? Hot damnation, how can 2016 get any better?
In a letter largely welcomed in Argentina, May wrote: “It is my sincere hope that, where we have differences, these can be acknowledged in an atmosphere of mutual respect and with the intention to act in a way that benefits all those concerned.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/10/may-calls-on-argentina-to-lift-falklands-oil-exploration-restrictions
There may even come a time where I am needing not a single Argentina meme
Post by: Starver on September 28, 2016, 08:12:19 am
No source, inferences not statementsParse error. There might be a word missing.after the comma.
For the source, seemed like every major UK news outlet and you clearly found your own (you quoted it, if not linked to what you quoted from) as I knew you/everyone would.
Inference can be inferred.
Yes, it was a bald statement. Was I editorialising? Left out the poem stuff as apparently considered irrelevent to the discussion. Doesn't matter that it's Bojo, even, so apologies for adding that detail.
Quote
Commit to your statements with the fury of a thousand fishing vessels, it's only BojoThat sounds like a Cod War reference, but not entirely sure why it is. Sorry.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 01, 2016, 11:46:07 pm
For the source, seemed like every major UK news outlet and you clearly found your own (you quoted it, if not linked to what you quoted from) as I knew you/everyone would.This is lazy a/f fam
Inference can be inferred.But this is weak
Yes, it was a bald statement. Was I editorialising? Left out the poem stuff as apparently considered irrelevent to the discussion. Doesn't matter that it's Bojo, even, so apologies for adding that detail.If we all give up on quality posting then we'll all just start parroting propaganda without verification
Too often I see people post something about some complex situation about something on the other side of the planet and then everyone starts voicing their opinion on it without having even first checked whether it existed or was factually true
That sounds like a Cod War reference, but not entirely sure why it is. Sorry.It's not a cod war reference, I just like the fury of a thousand fishing vessels
In other news
Theresa May to make EU law fuck off (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/01/brexit-begins-theresa-may-takes-axe-to-eu-laws/)
10/10 best PM
*EDIT
Quote
Theresa May could almost quadruple her majority if she calls an early election, analysis by Britain’s leading pollster suggests today as influential Tories go public with calls for a snap vote.-Pollsters predicted a contested election of 2015, possibly even hung parliament, with labour leading the polls
The Prime Minister’s majority in the House of Commons would soar from 12 to 44 on current polling, according to analysis by Prof John Curtice, president of the British Polling Council. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/01/exclusive-tories-call-for-early-general-election-as-polls-show-t/)
-Pollsters predicted an easy Remain victory comfortably in the lead
-Pollsters now predicting Theresa May would have a landslide victory
WATCH OUT MAY, THEY'RE COMIN FOR YE
Post by: Neonivek on October 02, 2016, 12:48:28 am
I honestly wonder how it will personally do things differently.
My personal bias?: The UK will do nothing differently
Post by: Sheb on October 02, 2016, 01:31:31 am
Post by: Starver on October 02, 2016, 04:02:47 am
If we all give up on quality posting then we'll all just start parroting propaganda without verification...
Anyway, hooray! Now Brexit apparently means that all those European laws that nobody (sic) liked are going to be enshrined into UK law! Just what everybody wanted, wait what..?
Post by: Neonivek on October 02, 2016, 04:07:55 am
If we all give up on quality posting then we'll all just start parroting propaganda without verification...
Anyway, hooray! Now Brexit apparently means that all those European laws that nobody (sic) liked are going to be enshrined into UK law! Just what everybody wanted, wait what..?
It is almost like there was some sort of scapegoating going on :P
Post by: scriver on October 02, 2016, 04:45:28 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 02, 2016, 06:32:53 am
Where does this "pollster predicted Bremain" meme come from? All the polls average showed both camps neck-to-neck in the days before the elections, but it seems the Brexit crowd had to rewrite the past to make it seem more like a victory or something.Sheb, you were one of the people who were in the Brexit threads from the start, so I know you're lying when you say you genuinely believe the polls predicted Brexit, and even neck and neck
Quote
Of 168 polls carried out since the EU referendum wording was decided last September, fewer than a third (55 in all) predicted a leave vote.Why do you lie to me? I thought we were safe lol (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/how-eu-referendum-pollsters-wrong-opinion-predict-close)
Polls did give a sense of the swing to leave in the first weeks of June, but edged back to favour remain in the final days before the vote. The actual result on the night came in at 51.9% leave, 48.1% remain. Just 16 of 168 individual polls predicted a 52:48 split in favour of leave. Just two of six polls released the day before the referendum – those carried out by TNS and Opinium – gave leave the edge.
Bookmakers also got the EU referendum wrong. Odds last week put remain around 1-4, implying an 80% probability of a victory for the pro-EU camp.
Ayyy lmao, and to talk of historical revisionism, you clearly forgot how Remain tried to say all of Brexit voters didn't actually want Brexit and were Regrexit voters
Quote
Such stories have quickly become viral hits among online readers. In the spirit of Brexit, these attitudes even have their own media-friendly nickname: Bregret or Regrexit. They seem to confirm many anguished "remain" voters' belief that the Brexit campaign was based on lies and fear-mongering. It provides hope that perhaps a second referendum would not only set Britain back on track but also be the morally justifiable thing to do.Why use lies as a crutch for weakness? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/27/bregret-dont-bet-on-it/)
Unfortunately for those people, the data we have on Bregretters is not convincing.
Although there is no shortage of "leave" voters expressing regret to journalists, more than 17 million Britons voted to leave the E.U. A few dozen — heck, even a few thousand — regretful "leave" voters are not statistically significant: The difference between the "remain" and "leave" camps was more than 1 million. At best, what we have right now are individual anecdotes. What we'd need to get an accurate picture of Bregret is really representative data from polling companies.
We should soon have that. A number of polling companies are working on post-vote surveys that ask "leave" voters how they feel about the result. At the time of writing, it appears that only one company, Survation, has published anything like this. In a post-referendum poll conducted Thursday and Friday, Survation asked "leave" voters whether they regretted their vote. About 7.1 percent came out as Bregretters. That number isn't totally insignificant, but it isn't a game-changer: 4.4 percent of "remain" voters also said they wished they had changed their vote.
Of course, there will be plenty of hand-wringing about whether such a poll could really be accurate. Britain's pollsters have been notoriously inaccurate over the past few years, and only a few had correctly guessed the scale of Thursday's "leave" vote before the referendum.
In brexit news:This is why posting sources is important lmao, repeating disinfo until you genuinely believe it helps turn your cause into a morally hollow shellQuotein a briefing on public opinion at King's College London, Prof Curtice said there was “not much evidence of buyer’s remorse” over the vote.Regrexit disinfo BTFO (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/voters-showing-no-signs-of-buyers-remorse-over-brexit-top-pollst/)
“The Remainers are still convinced they were right and the Leavers still think they were right. Very few minds have been changed,” he said.
Nor is there much appetite for another vote, with no more than a third of people backing a second EU referendum according to a string of polls.
Also on one last one, one does not need to make victories seem like victories, victories are :D
That was all explained in the article, of course, but why let the facts get in the way of some good snark?Yeah who wants our laws being in the hands of our MPs, what a horror
EDIT: Literally seconds after I post that last paragraph, May punks me and sets a deadline for declaring Article 50 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/02/theresa-may-brexit-boris-johnson-david-davis-liam-fox-live/). What a bitch.D-DAY 180
HYPE
Quote
Mrs May said Parliament will be kept informed, adding: "This is not about keeping silent for two years, but it's about making sure that we are able to negotiate, that we don't set out all the cards in our negotiation because, as anybody will know who's been involved in these things, if you do that up front, or if you give a running commentary, you don't get the right deal."MAXIMUM HYPE
DEPLOY NIMBLE SUBMARINE
Liberal source saying much the same (http://www.standard.co.uk/Front/brexit-theresa-may-announces-date-for-triggering-article-50-to-leave-european-union-a3359086.html)
Post by: Gigaz on October 02, 2016, 07:58:56 am
Post by: Sheb on October 02, 2016, 08:06:04 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 05, 2016, 04:49:41 pm
While I'll freely admit I though Brexit wouldn't happened, that polls clearly didn't show a flat remain victory. Just look at the Economist's poll tracker. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum) Hell, the economist even had articles about how some kind of "shy europhile" effect might give remain victory despite what the polls said.Sheb you're having a giggle
55 is smaller than 113
Good for Theresa May. When Brexit fails she can blame the Parliament.If Brexit fails then Theresa May is pretty much dead, she has no deep etonite connections like the others (if you follow British politics, you get these situations that are equally infuriating and amusing where political ""rivals"" went to school together and have been friends for decades. You just don't know who's controlled opposition, but I must admit one moment that will live forever in my memory is when Ed Miliband attacked Boris Johnson for being an etonite and Boris went on about how they went to the same school together, much to the anguish of Ed). May was a state and grammar school girl, which means she's on her own, only her band of Merry May's Men would take bullets for her - outside her core of zealous backbenchers (rather analogous to Corbyn's red guard), the first dangerous mistake she makes will be her last. Corbyn for example upon losing the EU ref got blamed by his entire party for not doing anything, with inevitable accusations that he was a traitor. This mirrors May being dubbed submarine May torpedoing the EU ref on the conservative side from within; both leaders are leaders who were born outside of the established career paths of politicians, and so lack the ties that current politicians built from childhood to guarantee superiority over their rivals.
Theresa May to accuse politicians of sneering at Brexit voters
Prime minister will use conference speech to lambast elites and set out a ‘new centre ground’ in which the Tories step in to protect working people (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/04/theresa-may-brexit-conservative-party-conference-speech-tories-centre-ground)
Moistness levels 99.9082%
Quote
Theresa May will accuse politicians of sneering at the millions of ordinary people who backed Brexit, as she urges her party to seize a “new centre ground” and intervene more aggressively for the sake of working-class families.
In a withering attack at the Conservative conference on Wednesday, the prime minister will say: “Just listen to the way a lot of politicians and commentators talk about the public. They find their patriotism distasteful, their concerns about immigration parochial, their views about crime illiberal, their attachment to their job security inconvenient. They find the fact that more than 17 million people voted to leave the European Union simply bewildering.”
Moistness levels 99.9319%
Quote
Speaking after sterling sunk to a 31-year-low, causing stock markets to soar, May will argue that the time has come to “reject the ideological templates provided by the socialist left and the libertarian right” and instead embrace a new centre ground.
“Let’s have no more of Labour’s absurd belief that they have a monopoly on compassion. Let’s put an end to their sanctimonious pretence of moral superiority. Let’s make clear that they have given up the right to call themselves the party of the NHS, the party of the workers, the party of public servants.”
The speech comes as the head of May’s policy board in Downing Street warned of “anti-capitalist riots” if the government does not urgently reform the economic system – including with a more muscular state.
Moistness levels 99.9551%
Quote
"If you're one of those people who lost their job, who stayed in work but on reduced hours, took a pay cut as household bills rocketed, or - and I know a lot of people don't like to admit this - someone who finds themselves out of work or on lower wages because of low-skilled immigration, life simply doesn't seem fair.We're reaching levels of moist that shouldn't even be possible (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37556019)
"It feels like your dreams have been sacrificed in the service of others."
Promising to build a "united Britain rooted in a centre ground", she said her government would protect jobs and "repair" free markets when they did not work properly.
Setting out a "responsible capitalism" agenda, she said the government would "go after" businesses that regarded paying tax as "an optional extra", challenge those which recruited "cheap foreign labour" at the expense of British workers and, in a reference to the collapse of retailer BHS, condemn those who "take out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust".
Previous Tory leaders have sought to reduce state intervention, but Mrs May said her government would take action to identify injustice, find solutions and drive change.
Salt levels dangerously 0%, and winter is coming
Our roads will die
Post by: Starver on October 05, 2016, 04:59:14 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 05, 2016, 05:15:20 pm
Dear god, an actual centrist in this day and age. A shame that they wouldn't survive a minute here in Trumpland.We really lucked out, it seems the exact right conditions managed to destroy every politician except the centrist dark horse
(I've barely begun to understand 'saltiness', is this 'moistness' the opposite? Whatever that is?)When I first knew of 'salty,' I knew it as the companion of 'crispy.' One who is 'crispy' is doing something really well, sharp and with good results, and one who is salty is one who is of much honour in a salt of the earth kind of way, people who are salt of the earth being people of intrinsic good nature. Also we gave it to anyone whose name or surname is a fish. In current days salty means someone who is mad a/f, or someone who expends much salty tears, but I still hold onto its old meaning to me. Moistness is a normal word that gets used in Britlands because it's the best word that people hate. Moistness sounds uncomfortable, it denotes uncomfortable dampness, but it also denotes utmost excitement (lewd). Thus things are both moist when they are disgusting/suck, and moist when they are on a next level of greatness, they are two moistnesses in one
I also logically think 100% moistness excludes any salt, because if it was anything other than pure moist, it could not physically be 100% moist. Pure liquids are pure liquids, and brexit is brexit
They've little to do with the online usage, and I doubt much people would feel satisfaction at being moist
Post by: Starver on October 05, 2016, 05:53:38 pm
Anyway, never mind. I'm sure that in this context it's sick, man. Or bad, you dig? That is, it's the cat's meow, you live wire. Or boss, cat. Or a meringue?
1 For one of several reasons. One reason, though, seems to be (at least at the moment) something actually desired by some, or at least desirable because of the desires that causer it.
Post by: Max™ on October 05, 2016, 09:24:54 pm
...
Spoiler: Hah, I'm kidding! (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 07, 2016, 04:12:39 pm
Well, salt can be moist, physically.That would be saline wouldn't it, or saltmoist
Also in recent news, the lack of the Wizard of Directions' capabilities to obliterate Theresa May (smug news outlets have been delivering variations of delusions from smug corbyn supporters. In the battle of smug, there are no winners), Tzeentch has waned and now the Blood God shall consider challenging Theresa May for the souls of mankind. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06/tony-blair-hints-at-return-to-politics-over-fears-britain-is-bec/) That would be quite the battle to witness.
Post by: Starver on October 07, 2016, 04:29:26 pm
Briney water up to (or even including) any still liquid supersaturation would be saline. Moist salt is a clumpy mass of crystals that won't pour well. But that's just my 2p, thus not worth continuing with that analogy.Well, salt can be moist, physically.That would be saline wouldn't it, or saltmoist
Post by: Radio Controlled on October 11, 2016, 09:30:39 am
There is an ongoing debate/struggle about what role parliament should play (and of course, what kind of brexit should be pursued):
Quote from: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/08/mps-demand-vote-hard-brexit-single-market
MPs demand vote on hard Brexit plans for UK to leave single marketAlternative source: Labour demands parliamentary vote on Theresa May's 'hard Brexit' negotiation plan (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/second-referendum-labour-vote-eu-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-keir-starmer-hard-a7352431.html)
Cross-party alliance says it should be consulted over future trade decisions, saying referendum was on EU membership; not single market.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote from: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37606228
MPs will not get to vote on how Brexit negotiations are handled but could still be asked to approve the "final" deal, a government source has said.
Several senior politicians, including ex-Labour leader Ed Miliband, have demanded Parliament gives its verdict on the UK's departure from the EU.
But Brexit Secretary David Davis told MPs there was a difference between "accountability and micro-management".[...]
Here's an overview from The Economist on the state of things I found interesting. A bit lengthy though, fair warning. (http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21708264-theresa-may-fires-starting-gun-what-looks-likely-be-hard-brexit-taking-britain-out?)
And while it might have been a rather minor thing all in all, the proposal of making companies declare how much of their staff is foreign seems to have been shelved: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/09/plan-to-force-firms-to-reveal-foreign-staff-numbers-abandoned
Finally, something unexpected:
Quote from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/08/homophobic-attacks-double-after-brexit-vote?
Homophobic attacks in UK rose 147% in three months after Brexit vote
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2016, 10:39:16 am
Post by: Starver on October 11, 2016, 10:52:07 am
Plus, telling the Lords that they can't potentially veto Brexit because of democracy and then telling the Commons they can't potentially veto Brexit because of democracy sounds a little contrived to me...
Post by: Starver on October 11, 2016, 11:13:08 am
The MPs will know what their constiuents thought and thus ensure that what May flagships is what we collectively want from it...
Post by: scriver on October 11, 2016, 11:46:58 am
Not really seeing how thats unexpected.
Just because they wanted away from the French doesn't make them homophobic. Not every Frenchman is gay. Stop being such an American.
United Trump Of America?
If the Brits wanted that then they would've just stayed in the EU.
Post by: Radio Controlled on October 11, 2016, 12:25:04 pm
Quote
Not really seeing how thats unexpected.Because I can see the link between the referendum result and attacks on foreigners, looking at what a portion of the Leave campaign was about. But attacks on LGBT people? How does that even link to brexit, apart maybe from shitheads in general feeling empowered or a generally more hostile environment?
Quote
Homophobic attacks? What's the link with Brexit?No idea, but the increase seems rather large to be due to random chance. That's why I find it rather out of the blue.
Quote
Makes sense to me. MPs are elected to serve us and represent us. We, the public, have already voted on the issue directly and come to a decision. MPs then vetoing it seems to completely go against what is supposed to be the reason they exist in the first place.
I think this isn't even about voting on brexit happening or not, and more about what kind of new deal should be pursued. After all, the referendum didn't ask anything about what new relationship the UK should pursue should leave win, even though the exact details would have a large effect on the economy and other areas. Right now, it seems May is saying she'll use the mandate gotten from the ref to pursue the type of brexit she wants without involving parliament.
[rant]Incidentally, another reason why I think this ref was shit: compacting highly complex matter into a binary question. Among other reasons, mind (the fact that the campaigns could promise or claim anything and hardly be accountable being another. How are the people to make an honest, informed choice when it's not even clear what the options entail exactly?)[/rant]
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2016, 01:19:36 pm
I don't want to Godwin this, but the best-known example began with an N, and rhymes with Yahtzee.
Look at the right-wing nationalists in Russia, in Hungary, in Poland.
And from what I've seen, most of the Brexit anti-Europe sentiment stems from the Right, not the Left.
Post by: Neonivek on October 11, 2016, 03:13:14 pm
It is almost like people who hate foreigners for not being like them... hate LGBT people for the same reasons :P
Post by: scriver on October 11, 2016, 03:21:37 pm
The traditional socialist left has always been anti-EU. As I've said before, a good way to measure how much a social democrat or supposedly "left" political faction has been subverted by neoliberalism is to look at their stance/s on the EU. (On a slightly related note, I'd wager a lot on that the upswing in rightwing nationalism has of cause in the steady slide towards neoliberalism that the "left" has undergone during the last 30-40 years.)
Also, and this is important: the EU and Europe is not interchangeable concepts. Don't treat them as such.
Post by: nenjin on October 11, 2016, 03:26:06 pm
Generally though, and I can't claim to know a lot of Europeans, but I suspect some in support of the EU would resent being labeled part of the right wing because of it.
Post by: Neonivek on October 11, 2016, 03:34:01 pm
It's sometimes hard to tell the European right and left apart on the EU issue because they're both arguing for nationalistic solution, or stand in opposition to EU realities but for different reasons.
Generally though, and I can't claim to know a lot of Europeans, but I suspect some in support of the EU would resent being labeled part of the right wing because of it.
They would be used to it because they are part of the polarized politics that puts everything left or right.
Don't want Churches burnt to the ground? Right
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2016, 04:18:58 pm
The nationalist right is anti-EU, yes. The pro-EU side is also rightwing - liberals are, has been, and will still be rightwing tomorrow.Yes, socialists can hate the EU too (for being part of the global corporate oligarchy), but they seem a lot less inclined to be all "fuck this, we out bitches" in the way that the Brexit movement was.
The traditional socialist left has always been anti-EU. As I've said before, a good way to measure how much a social democrat or supposedly "left" political faction has been subverted by neoliberalism is to look at their stance/s on the EU. (On a slightly related note, I'd wager a lot on that the upswing in rightwing nationalism has of cause in the steady slide towards neoliberalism that the "left" has undergone during the last 30-40 years.)
Also, and this is important: the EU and Europe is not interchangeable concepts. Don't treat them as such.
In my mind (and before you all start in, I'm aware this is a gross oversimplification) the face of Brexit usually boils down to two people:
1. The stodgy old curmudgeon at the corner pub who believes in Queen and Country and who thinks things were "better in the old days. Why, when I was in the RAF, you never had any of this <fill in blank> poppycock!"
2. The young chav who gleefully sees a chance to give a big "fook yu" to Brussels, Westminster, and society as a whole. The fact that he can go round and lay into Pakis and poofs and get away with it is just icing on the cake.
I can respect and understand #1, even if I disagree with it. #2 is just a blight on humanity, imho.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 11, 2016, 04:25:43 pm
Ironically, alleged friend of pinkos France has gone the other way and fringes on Front National instead of whatever their hardcore leftist party is.
Post by: scriver on October 11, 2016, 04:32:19 pm
Generally though, and I can't claim to know a lot of Europeans, but I suspect some in support of the EU would resent being labeled part of the right wing because of it.
Of course some would, but if you look like a duck, talk like a duck, and is supportive of the biggest duck organisation in Europe, then it's very likely you are in fact part of the duck wing.
The nationalist right is anti-EU, yes. The pro-EU side is also rightwing - liberals are, has been, and will still be rightwing tomorrow.Yes, socialists can hate the EU too (for being part of the global corporate oligarchy), but they seem a lot less inclined to be all "fuck this, we out bitches" in the way that the Brexit movement was.
The traditional socialist left has always been anti-EU. As I've said before, a good way to measure how much a social democrat or supposedly "left" political faction has been subverted by neoliberalism is to look at their stance/s on the EU. (On a slightly related note, I'd wager a lot on that the upswing in rightwing nationalism has of cause in the steady slide towards neoliberalism that the "left" has undergone during the last 30-40 years.)
Also, and this is important: the EU and Europe is not interchangeable concepts. Don't treat them as such.
In my mind (and before you all start in, I'm aware this is a gross oversimplification) the face of Brexit usually boils down to two people:
1. The stodgy old curmudgeon at the corner pub who believes in Queen and Country and who thinks things were "better in the old days. Why, when I was in the RAF, you never had any of this <fill in blank> poppycock!"
2. The young chav who gleefully sees a chance to give a big "fook yu" to Brussels, Westminster, and society as a whole. The fact that he can go round and lay into Pakis and poofs and get away with it is just icing on the cake.
I can respect and understand #1, even if I disagree with it. #2 is just a blight on humanity, imho.
I am incredibly disappointed in you over this, RedKing. I really thought you of all people would be able to have a more nuanced understanding than something like this.
Besides, the chav denomination is, being younger, much more likely to support the EU :P
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 11, 2016, 06:07:13 pm
Yes, socialists can hate the EU too (for being part of the global corporate oligarchy), but they seem a lot less inclined to be all "fuck this, we out bitches" in the way that the Brexit movement was.The international socialist movement is staunchly anti-EU from Jeremy Corbyn to Yanis Varoufakis, they just want to take over the European Union so they can create a giant socialist superpower without rival
Basically they think the institution is a load of horseshit but they wouldn't want to abolish it, rather take it over. This is in line with their thinking that their governments have not been friends to socialism, but they would not dismantle governance but rather take it over. Brexit movement is too broad to generalize, there are too many political movements under that umbrella on whatever political axis you want, I dunno what point you're making there
It's sometimes hard to tell the European right and left apart on the EU issue because they're both arguing for nationalistic solution, or stand in opposition to EU realities but for different reasons.There are the socialists and nationalists who think the EU is fundamentally shit and the nation state is the best and not worth wrecking, so they are opposed to the EU and in favour of leaving
Generally though, and I can't claim to know a lot of Europeans, but I suspect some in support of the EU would resent being labeled part of the right wing because of it.
There are the socialists who think the EU is shit but not fundamentally so, and so would much rather take it over, being opposed to both the EU and leaving the EU
There are nationalists who think the EU is shit but like it because their countries are poor and they benefit from open migration with Western Europe, being opposed to the EU and leaving the EU
A lot of the times in these cases, the distinguishment between left and right wing parties is worth little here (not entirely worthless, just not entirely useful either), especially because a left wing party in one yurop state is right wing in another
We want Brexit (38% of us), but we don't know what we, collectively, even intended by that. Norway? Swizerland? Canada? North Korea? United Trump Of America?Yeah the pro-EU MPs will listen to their pro-Brexit constituents. That is why they want to stop Brexit. To listen to their pro-Brexit constituents. They know that all those who voted for Brexit really want the EU. They're smartasses like that, fuck that noise, May has it on point
The MPs will know what their constiuents thought and thus ensure that what May flagships is what we collectively want from it...
Labour continuing to do everything they can to lose the working class vote, I see.Clegg and Miliband pop up from time to time
Also had anyone else completely forgotten Ed Miliband existed? Not that it's hard to do that, given that he's possibly the soggiest man in Britain, but still, it's nice to see him temporarily pop back up out of obscurity to show that sexy face again.
Blair still pops around with regular frequency, though he's been hiding because we're all calling him war criminal again
Brown is gone
Other Miliband is gone
Also wtf Nick hosted HIGNFY (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07zbglp/have-i-got-a-bit-more-news-for-you-series-52-episode-1)
Reported allegations have increased, conviction rate remains at 1% for accusations, as collected by LGBT charity Gallup and not police statsQuoteHomophobic attacks? What's the link with Brexit?No idea, but the increase seems rather large to be due to random chance. That's why I find it rather out of the blue.
I is sckeptical
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 11, 2016, 06:14:09 pm
Besides, the chav denomination is, being younger, much more likely to support the EU :PUni students support the EU most, chavs don't go to Uni
You see the problem here? Also they don't vote, so RK's stereotype of summing up the broadest political movement in my country as a chav and a 'curmudgeon' is exactly the sort of ignorance of foreigners I expect of stereotypical americans
absolutely haram
*EDIT
Awww, Nick Clegg looks so happy now that he's not a politician
Also interesting is I wonder if Boris will stop being so happy now. Thing about Boris is that he was once universally loved, and loads of people disagreed with him but still liked him. Not after Brexit though, first time ever loads of people actually hate him, which is gonna be a new for him. rip in pes
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2016, 08:37:10 pm
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2016, 02:26:06 am
There are the socialists and nationalists who think the EU is fundamentally shit and the nation state is the best and not worth wrecking, so they are opposed to the EU and in favour of leaving
There are the socialists who think the EU is shit but not fundamentally so, and so would much rather take it over, being opposed to both the EU and leaving the EU
There are nationalists who think the EU is shit but like it because their countries are poor and they benefit from open migration with Western Europe, being opposed to the EU and leaving the EU
And you're forgetting the pro-EU nationalists, who see the EU as making it easier to escape from some other overlord (NVA, SNP, the Catalans...).
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 12, 2016, 04:59:46 am
And you're forgetting the pro-EU nationalists, who see the EU as making it easier to escape from some other overlord (NVA, SNP, the Catalans...).I avoided them because ones like SNP are nationalist and socialist, and it would be too much b8 to bring up pro-EU nationalist socialists
Happy to disappoint. Consider it a drive-by trolling exchange program with Ameripol thread. :PSorry mate this is a gun free thread, please leave your guns by your freedom in ameripol thread, no freedom allowed here sir
Post by: Max™ on October 12, 2016, 06:55:47 am
*checks watch*
Oh look, is it "Stomp-Nazi-Bastards-O-Clock" again already?
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 07:07:57 am
Quote
Reported allegations have increased, conviction rate remains at 1% for accusations, as collected by LGBT charity Gallup and not police stats
I is sckeptical
Goodness give it freeken time! Court doesn't move that fast.
Wait... conviction rate?... But... that would remain the same even if there was an increase.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 12, 2016, 07:22:53 am
Goodness give it freeken time! Court doesn't move that fast.You didn't give it time
Wait... conviction rate?... But... that would remain the same even if there was an increase.
*ears perk up at the mention of freedom being not allowed and national socialists*SNP aren't nazis
*checks watch*
Oh look, is it "Stomp-Nazi-Bastards-O-Clock" again already?
Only time I've seen someone seriously consider SNP nazi is this bloke (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/david-starkey-defends-remarks-comparing-the-snp-to-nazis-10321023.html), or this one (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/585307/top-german-journalist-living-highlands-compares-snp-hitler/). Oh and this thing linking an SNP leader with aiding Hitler (http://www.scotsman.com/news/mi5-file-links-former-snp-leader-to-nazi-plan-1-1103305).
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 07:28:31 am
Is SOMETHING that differs pre to post brexit.
So... What laws have drastically changed?
And no this isn't a trap... I am open to the fact that it wasn't a huge bigotry push, that was just a product of... well... the advertisement in the same way that *redacted* was advertised as ultimately anti-foreigner but wasn't voted for, for those reasons.
There is a difference between those two.
Post by: scriver on October 12, 2016, 07:47:31 am
Honestly what I am waiting for in terms of "Proving that Brexit was about self-definition and not anti-foreigner"
Is SOMETHING that differs pre to post brexit.
So... What laws have drastically changed?
And no this isn't a trap... I am open to the fact that it wasn't a huge bigotry push, that was just a product of... well... the advertisement in the same way that *redacted* was advertised as ultimately anti-foreigner but wasn't voted for, for those reasons.
There is a difference between those two.
Are you for real? The process hasn't even begun yet. The vote isn't even binding, it was just... I forget the proper English term, so I'm going to directly translate ours - just an advisory vote. The actual exit from the EU won't happen until years from now.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 12, 2016, 07:53:34 am
It's nice and all that you're open to facts, but it's probably more important that you find them than doing what you're doing now - you've already got very strong opinions on everything about the UK's situation when you don't know what's going on. Less current year man, more facts
Starters Brexit was about leaving the European Union
Seconds we're not living post-Brexit, Brexit hasn't even happened yet
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 07:59:21 am
you've already got very strong opinions on everything about the UK's situation when you don't know what's going on.
It is hard when the writing on the wall made it easy to see it one way. The UK has some serious issues with anti-foreigner attitudes and has been a rather... shall we say... divided country before Brexit. It wasn't hard to see it as a boiling over of previous issues that existed since what? the 80s? Not to mention the heads of the Leave party don't exactly have the... best reputation... (DAMN IT NIGEL!)
but no I am not laying bait... Also years?
*Reads internet*
Ohh... it could be... delayed indefinitely and never actually happen... and they are ALREADY setting up delays intentionally.
So by the time Brexit actually happens... the entire reason for Brexit will be over... UUUGH! (well... COULD be over)
Quote
Seconds we're not living post-Brexit, Brexit hasn't even happened yet
I don't know why I thought Brexit was the vote, not the actual leaving.
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2016, 08:04:35 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 08:06:26 am
Well, two and a half years if May is true to her word. Still, stuff like the mandate that company list their foreign workers don't bode well.
I seriously don't see that going very far given where the money comes from.
If the USA hasn't eliminated "They took me jerb!" I doubt the UK will have better luck.
Though once again I wish I could get away from this symbolism... Since goodness does this fit into place a bit too well.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 12, 2016, 08:18:22 am
It is hard when the writing on the wall made it easy to see it one way.Neonivek I have no idea what writing on the wall you're referring to. I don't know what you see, what information you receive, you never say anything and you seem to agree with every opinion piece that shits on the UK as if it were fact :P
Hell, I distinctly remember you taking satire pieces seriously :|
The UK has some serious issues with anti-foreigner attitudes and has been a rather... shall we say... divided country before Brexit.All according to you, one who does not live in the UK, nor know what's going on in the UK
It wasn't hard to see it as a boiling over of previous issues that existed since what? the 80s? Not to mention the heads of the Leave party don't exactly have the... best reputation... (DAMN IT NIGEL!)>Leave party
Enough vague platitudes mate, get some meat in your broth. What previous issues? What did you see? What is the Leave party? What reputation do you refer to? How has Nigel incurred your wrath?
but no I am not laying bait... Also years?So much bait
*Reads internet*Completely unsourced bait, you're getting this on tumblr as far as I know
Ohh... it could be... delayed indefinitely and never actually happen... and they are ALREADY setting up delays intentionally.Keep reading, you're still far far behind current news. Heck if you lurked this thread you would've got it
So by the time Brexit actually happens... the entire reason for Brexit will be over... UUUGH! (well... COULD be over)
Endless bait falling from the skyEDIT: Literally seconds after I post that last paragraph, May punks me and sets a deadline for declaring Article 50 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/02/theresa-may-brexit-boris-johnson-david-davis-liam-fox-live/). What a bitch.D-DAY 180
HYPE
I don't know why I thought Brexit was the vote, not the actual leaving.Cos you know as much as Jon Snow
I seriously don't see that going very far given where the money comes from.Where does the money come from? You need to flesh out you assertions so they are more than just opinion
If the USA hasn't eliminated "They took me jerb!" I doubt the UK will have better luck.BELOW SHITPOSTING
Though once again I wish I could get away from this symbolism... Since goodness does this fit into place a bit too well.Holy shit we've gone so vague we've entered cryptic bullshit
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 08:23:11 am
Quote
All according to you, one who does not live in the UK, nor know what's going on in the UK
If you say so. Though I have no idea what person from the UK would deny my allegations except out of misplaced Nationalism blind of all rationality.
Then again there are people who said racism was over because Obama became president...
So I guess the UK fixed racism because... I dunno... Dr. Who or Northern Ireland.
Quote
Where does the money come from?
Businesses.
----
Honestly Loud Whispers
It sounds like your more against everything that I have to say more out of a need to ignore any problems the UK might have.
Then out of an honest disagreement.
Even to the point of objecting to me, just for speaking.
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2016, 08:35:09 am
Covenant: I remember reading something about the Calais migrants, a lot if not most wants to go to the UK rather than stay in France because they have family and/or contacts in the UK.
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 08:38:34 am
It really doesn't take a whole lot of effort to prove that the UK has had big problems with racism since the 80s. Yet the reason I don't is because I am not here for a debate.
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 08:49:47 am
And anti-foreigner doesn't mean bigot.
Also truthfully yeah it wasn't so much direct racism that was I personally experienced but more a dissatisfaction with how the UK handled foreigners usually pointing to a failure to implement multiculturalism in a positive way... Often referred to as "Multiculturalism gone wrong"
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2016, 08:53:12 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 08:55:38 am
WTH are you here for, if not to debate?
Quote
So... What laws have drastically changed?
Post by: Starver on October 12, 2016, 08:57:48 am
But that was a handfull of people with maybe two handfuls of reasons between them. Not representative, but gives me reaon to support the xenophobia-causes-Leave idea, even if I know that not every Leave is caused by xenophobia.
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 09:00:57 am
Also from a previous page
Quote
Also truthfully yeah it wasn't so much direct racism that was I personally experienced but more a dissatisfaction with how the UK handled foreigners usually pointing to a failure to implement multiculturalism in a positive way... Often referred to as "Multiculturalism gone wrong" and sometimes even an outright denouncement of Multiculturalism as a positive thing
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 12, 2016, 09:17:41 am
If you say so. Though I have no idea what person from the UK would deny my allegations except out of misplaced Nationalism blind of all rationality.Because you provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to your allegations, demonstrated profound ignorance as to what was going on in the UK and asserted your opinion as fact with nothing backing that up. All attempts to get you to add anything specific, detail your points, show where your statements are grounded in reality failed.
You want to get cheeky, say I'm denying your allegations out of misplaced nationalism? Well I've spent the last few years constantly criticizing my country, and every time I did it I posted reliable sources. You're taking it for granted that the entire world should automatically agree with your opinion for some reason, what moral superiority do you claim that warrants you needing no evidence for the things you say?
Lmao asking for facts makes you blind, western intellectualism produces very rational people
Then again there are people who said racism was over because Obama became president...Do you even have a case to make?
So I guess the UK fixed racism because... I dunno... Dr. Who or Northern Ireland.
Businesses.Normally you'd use a sentence, one like this: "Businesses such as..." or "Businesses in..." - "for reasons such as..."
Honestly Loud WhispersWhat are you saying? All you've done is say the UK is racist and anyone who disagrees is racist, something about American politics and Dr. Who. No substance, no facts, no point, pure bait
It sounds like your more against everything that I have to say more out of a need to ignore any problems the UK might have.
Then out of an honest disagreement.
Even to the point of objecting to me, just for speaking.
Say whatever, don't just expect the world to agree with your opinion "because." If you're going to make a rational argument, make sure you actually have an argument. If you're going to state your opinion based off of facts, make sure you actually have those facts.
Oh and I don't need to defend my character in regards to the UK, there's no country I've criticized more than the UK. Second place to Sweden xD.
Ok now the REASON my posts are so low effort... Is because I don't actually want to pick a fight.Yeah I doubt that lol
It really doesn't take a whole lot of effort to prove that the UK has had big problems with racism since the 80s. Yet the reason I don't is because I am not here for a debate.Oh yeah, it doesn't take a whole lot of effort that's why you decided to waste time
Good bait, got me to reply 10/10
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2016, 09:21:09 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 09:26:35 am
BLARGLE!!! Skipping...
Never EVER going to provide proof... It really isn't worth it. No one is gonna pull me into it.
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 09:34:15 am
If you're just going to go by and drop baseless accusations and not give us the respect of posting proof when asked, then don't bother posting.
What accusation?
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 09:36:10 am
Nothing's changed because it hasn't happened yet.
Done...
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 09:39:49 am
Not sure if you're asking a question or remarking on something or meta-remarking on this discussion or what.
Not really, I was trying to wind the thread down from being openly hostile to me... but it always dug itself back up.
So Done as in "Ok good, this is as far as the conversation needed to go" instead of the accusations again and again. I seem to have an ability to be even more aggravating and infuriating the more I try not to be, mostly because I try to be less direct.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 12, 2016, 09:40:43 am
BLARGLE!!! Skipping...Refrain from bait in future
Never EVER going to provide proof... It really isn't worth it.
After "The UK blocks EU defense cooperation because they're dicks", now enjoy "The UK block Montenegro from accession talks becasue they're dicks" (http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/uk-blocks-montenegro-s-eu-accession-talks-10-11-2016).
Quote
Britain is blocking Montenegro from opening two more EU accession chapters, apparently because it doubts the country is ready to make concessions on the free movement of labour, BIRN has learned from a well-informed source in Montenegro.It's nothing Jim
Meanwhile from the European Union:
Quote
The Secretary General of the European Movement International, Petros Fassoulas, said on 27 June that “enlargement will be frozen” after the UK’s decision to leave the EU, as the Union would be preoccupied with its own problems.From 4th of July (https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/analysts-brexit-will-slow-eu-enlargement-in-the-western-balkans/)
He said that the freezing entailed continuous postponement, or slowing down, to the point where not much would happen, is worse than taking a break.
The British referendum will launch the process of closing off, said Fassoulas in a debate in Belgrade on the consequences of the British referendum. “There is uncertainty among the leaders of the EU governments and enlargement certainly won’t be the first thing to come to their mind,” he added.
I'm going to side with the European Union stating their decision to freeze enlargement clearly over anonymous quotes
*EDIT
It would be hilarious though if someone in Britgov singled out Montenegro for no reason though
They were just all, EU: We will leave only under the condition that you contain Montenegro
Post by: Sheb on October 12, 2016, 10:21:56 am
Post by: martinuzz on October 12, 2016, 04:24:40 pm
http://www.volkskrant.nl/foto/collignon-2~p4368444/4129998/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/foto/collignon-2~p4368444/4129998/)
Post by: Max™ on October 12, 2016, 11:19:09 pm
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 11:27:01 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Max™ on October 12, 2016, 11:45:02 pm
Post by: Neonivek on October 12, 2016, 11:48:40 pm
I was actually jabbing at LW because that particular post amused the hell out of me when I moused over the link.
Ohh... Opps! uhhh... I'll spoil my entire post then.
Post by: Sheb on October 13, 2016, 01:32:19 am
Post by: Sheb on October 13, 2016, 07:36:44 am
In other news, falling sterling cause marmite and Ben&Jerry shortage. (https://www.ft.com/content/58560c1e-909a-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923?siteedition=intl#axzz4Mxl1Xd6H) Well, not exactly shortage: the produce wants to raise price to reflect higher price of imported inputs and supermarkets don't want that.
Post by: Radio Controlled on October 13, 2016, 08:46:46 am
In other news, falling sterling cause marmite and Ben&Jerry shortage. (https://www.ft.com/content/58560c1e-909a-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923?siteedition=intl#axzz4Mxl1Xd6H) Well, not exactly shortage: the produce wants to raise price to reflect higher price of imported inputs and supermarkets don't want that.Alternative source for those (like me) that can't access the article: BBC: Tesco removes Marmite and other Unilever brands in price row (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37639518)
More on the parliament pushback:
Quote from: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37639307
Brexit case 'of fundamental constitutional importance'
The need for Parliament to give its approval before the Brexit process starts is of huge "constitutional importance", the High Court has heard.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote
Take a look at anti-immigration and/or nationalist groups historically, and you will frequently find anti-LGBT behavior bundled in with that.So, 'general shitheads feeling empowered' then, you think. Fantastic.
I don't want to Godwin this, but the best-known example began with an N, and rhymes with Yahtzee.
Look at the right-wing nationalists in Russia, in Hungary, in Poland.
And from what I've seen, most of the Brexit anti-Europe sentiment stems from the Right, not the Left.
Quote
Yeah the pro-EU MPs will listen to their pro-Brexit constituents. That is why they want to stop Brexit. To listen to their pro-Brexit constituents. They know that all those who voted for Brexit really want the EU. They're smartasses like that, fuck that noise, May has it on point
Even if they wouldn't be allowed a vote to prevent it from happening, that doesn't mean they couldn't be involved in the process. After all, the only thing the ref polled about is whether to leave or not, not under what circumstances or what type of new deal to strife for. It's not like the Leave campaign had a unified voice, so it's not like people voted for a concrete plan.
Next to that, if you think British politics has gotten to a point where elected officials no longer represent their constituents, then whether or not the UK is part of the EU seems like the least of its problems. Fighting the symptoms vs the disease, unless it's just on this specific matter that this happens.
Quote
Reported allegations have increased, conviction rate remains at 1% for accusations, as collected by LGBT charity Gallup and not police stats
I is sckeptical
Like someone else said, conviction rates for accusations can remain the same while absolute numbers go up. Next to that, suppose that police stats don't increase, what would that mean? Either the police, Galop or the people filing complaints would be outright lying, or the victims don't report most incidents to the police for some reason (eg cause they don' think they could really prove what happened in court or don't want to face the hassle) while still reporting to Galop.
Here's a quote from the article:
Quote
Four in five respondents to the Galop report, released today, say they have experienced hate crime. However, only a quarter reported the last hate crime they experienced, suggesting a gap in the data collected by police and government departments. The report, based on a survey of 467 LGBT people, shows low satisfaction with the police, with half of those who reported a hate crime to them feeling unsatisfied with the outcome.
Post by: Sheb on October 13, 2016, 10:42:23 am
Post by: RedKing on October 13, 2016, 11:28:11 am
Here we go again. Sturgeon announce new Scotxit referendum. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37634338)FREEEEEDOMMMMM
Post by: Leafsnail on October 13, 2016, 12:02:11 pm
Post by: hector13 on October 13, 2016, 11:43:39 pm
Here we go again. Sturgeon announce new Scotxit referendum. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37634338)
Naw she didnae, she announced a consultation to a bill that might lead to a second referendum.
I would suggest she's just being prudent, but I may be slightly biased in the matter.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on October 14, 2016, 06:53:04 am
The Tesco vs Unilever battle seems like a bit of a sideshow. Prices will go up, nultinationals aren't just going to absorb losses for us out of the goodness of their hearts.
The point being that Tesco refused to raise prices because cheapness and tiny margins is their by-word
Post by: Starver on October 14, 2016, 07:27:08 am
ETA: "Hard Brexit or No Brexit" is the current message from Europe. Perfectly understandably, probably will end up as "Crunchy Brexit" after 'face-saving' negotiations on both sides where it's still not anything like what anybody wants but each can claim they clawed something back from the mess...
(Roll on WWIII, to make the whole thing moot? November 8th is first up on the agenda...)
Post by: hector13 on October 14, 2016, 09:15:03 am
Post by: Radio Controlled on October 14, 2016, 01:38:21 pm
And battling a big overarching mega-corporation like Unilever might be seen as better than (and thus perhaps make up for) their past battles to drive down consumer costs by battling the multitude of little-guy suppliers like the farmers (dairy,meat, vegetables, etc) in recent times...It seems to have been resolved by now: Tesco and Unilever end price dispute (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37650234)
Quote
ETA: "Hard Brexit or No Brexit" is the current message from Europe. Perfectly understandably, probably will end up as "Crunchy Brexit" after 'face-saving' negotiations on both sides where it's still not anything like what anybody wants but each can claim they clawed something back from the mess...Are you referring to this?
Quote from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37650077
'Hard Brexit' or 'no Brexit' for Britain - Tusk
Britain's only real alternative to a "hard Brexit" is "no Brexit", European Council President Donald Tusk has said.
Speaking in Brussels, he warned that the EU would not compromise on its insistence that freedom of movement will be a condition for Britain's access to the single market.
Mr Tusk will chair meetings of EU leaders negotiating Britain's exit from the 28-member bloc.
[...]
If yes, it's really just another EU official restating the whole "we will not compromise on the 4 freedoms, it is one of the cornerstones of our union". It's their official stance.
Post by: Starver on October 14, 2016, 02:52:00 pm
And Tesco is now the 'good guy'. Like when Microsoft released Internet Explorer for free against the 3vul Netscape and their browser you had to pay for (everyone remembers that, yeah?). Not so long ago they were being boycotted over arbitrarily withholding payments to suppliers and causing (as with other supermarkets, including ones I favour more than Tesco anyway) the demise of the dairy farming industry by forcing down milk wholesale prices and putting the farmers into a spiral of increasing debt.And battling a big overarching mega-corporation like Unilever might be seen as better than (and thus perhaps make up for) their past battles to drive down consumer costs by battling the multitude of little-guy suppliers like the farmers (dairy,meat, vegetables, etc) in recent times...It seems to have been resolved by now: Tesco and Unilever end price dispute (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37650234)
Yesterday, there were people saying that they adore Marmite, but they'll now shop more at Tesco just to sjow their disoleasure with Unilever. Now they can shop at the angelic Tesco and get their Marmite!
(Also, now the public knows how many pies (and spreads and ice-creams and detergents and...) Unilever has its thumb in, this new deal might even help them in looking like they are compromising, and as long as they don't lose too much profit in the long-run even keep the investors and stock market happy...)
BTW, in the Metro, this morning, there was a full-page ad for Asda (arranged given the news? ...or just along with several other full - page ads on other pages continuing the same theme but for other products) that proclaimed proudly that Marmite was now cut from two-and-bit-pounds per jar to just £2 flat! Made me laugh.
Quote
Wasn't my source (might have been Metro; if I see a news story in the Metro I've learnt not to then try and find it on the website to get the URI, because of frequent failure to get anything sensible out of it, so I might say "look it up in your favourite news-site" if I don't myself look it up in another of my own favourite news sites...) but much as I saw.QuoteETA: "Hard Brexit or No Brexit" is the current message from Europe. Perfectly understandably, probably will end up as "Crunchy Brexit" after 'face-saving' negotiations on both sides where it's still not anything like what anybody wants but each can claim they clawed something back from the mess...Are you referring to this?Quote from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37650077'Hard Brexit' or 'no Brexit' for Britain - Tusk
Britain's only real alternative to a "hard Brexit" is "no Brexit", European Council President Donald Tusk has said.
Speaking in Brussels, he warned that the EU would not compromise on its insistence that freedom of movement will be a condition for Britain's access to the single market.
Mr Tusk will chair meetings of EU leaders negotiating Britain's exit from the 28-member bloc.
[...]
If yes, it's really just another EU official restating the whole "we will not compromise on the 4 freedoms, it is one of the cornerstones of our union". It's their official stance.
Your commentry seem to be much as I already had in mine, though... Or am I misunderstanding/misspeaking?
Post by: Radio Controlled on October 14, 2016, 03:00:54 pm
Still, if the UK is willing to make the necessary concessions, then this might still end up with a very soft Brexit, the EU would be all for it I think. Or maybe the UK parliament will keep voting down negotiation plans because they're too hard for their taste up until the appetite for the whole thing fades, who knows.
EDIT: How awkward for the Prime Minister. She clearly forgot the NHS is going to get £350m a week. I saw it on a bus. (https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/787038965480194048/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 15, 2016, 11:33:10 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Max™ on October 15, 2016, 10:41:49 pm
Post by: scriver on October 16, 2016, 07:27:57 am
Post by: Codician on October 16, 2016, 07:35:05 am
Here we go again. Sturgeon announce new Scotxit referendum. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37634338)
Scotland has a £15bil annual deficit paid for by British taxes. I'd be very shocked if Sturgeon actually wanted to get out of the UK, more likely just wants to make a noise and get more money for Scotland.
I'm not sure the EU has anything to save face about. The UK got quite a bit of special treatment while they were in the EU, and I don't think EU leaders want the precedent for a country leaving to be that the leaver gets a good deal.
Because the best way to show how good and gracious you are is to give whoever wants out of your club a boot up the arse.
Post by: Frumple on October 16, 2016, 08:13:55 am
Post by: hector13 on October 16, 2016, 08:47:32 am
I'm not sure the EU has anything to save face about. The UK got quite a bit of special treatment while they were in the EU, and I don't think EU leaders want the precedent for a country leaving to be that the leaver gets a good deal.
Because the best way to show how good and gracious you are is to give whoever wants out of your club a boot up the arse.
Why do they need to show they're good and gracious? What do you think the remaining members of the club will think if the UK retains the benefits without the drawbacks?
Post by: Leafsnail on October 16, 2016, 09:11:08 am
Post by: Codician on October 16, 2016, 10:00:33 am
Particularly given what's been happening vis a vis the oil in the past few years.
... somehow I don't think the economic considerations are at the front of folks minds with this stuff. It certainly wasn't for the UK, and the EU was screwing their sovereignty a lot less than the UK has for scotland.
Because the UK isn't as bad off as Scotland will be if it leaves the Union. Scotland will lose some combination of it's free healthcare, free welfare or free tertiary education. Nevermind the fact they'll have to start paying for their own armed services (which will cost them a small fortune).
The UK has a sizeable uranium reserve in Cornwall, too. I've seen plans which involve making the UK completely self-sufficient on energy using nuclear power. Dunno if they'll ever go through with it, though.
Why do they need to show they're good and gracious? What do you think the remaining members of the club will think if the UK retains the benefits without the drawbacks?
Because the primary problem people have with the EU is that it's vastly outstripped it's original designation. It's now trying to be some sort of weird United States of Europe without even the USA's nominal democracy. Showing that they're bitter at the idea of people leaving the mess it's become just reinforces the image of it being a bureaucratic jackboot manufacturing facility.
Post by: MorleyDev on October 16, 2016, 10:14:42 am
The amount of renegotiation of contracts the company I work at will have to do with customers, since we deal with a lot of customer data (financial and such), which is protected under EU regulation and we're free to host anywhere in the EU. If/when we leave, even if we keep the current data protection guarantees of the EU, we're still legally exporting data outside the EU. Which is against the current contracts. So either they have to agree to export the data to the UK from the EU, we have to move to the EU, or there are safe-harbour laws where EU data is regarded as under EU regulations. Even if all the data is stored in the EU, the mere detail of us being in control of it as a UK-based company can cause problems.
And if the UK ever weakens our data protection laws compared to the EU ones (very likely, considering they keep trying to), that could cause major problems for business in the digital sector in the UK who deal with personal/financial information from outside sources. Best case is we can lock-step with or ideally actually provide stronger rights and guarantees than the EU, but given our governments historically...spotty relationship with digital rights (When there are people in power in 2016 in a diplomacy who still want to ban encryption you know something is wrong).
So the UK really needs to be promising things like that they'll seek safe-harbour laws, because at the moment if I was a business in the UK I'd be really hoping Scotland does stay in the EU just so we can convince people to move to the new head offices in Edinburgh, just because that'd be an easier sell than "move to Paris/Berlin/Dublin"
Because it's starting to look like it'll be easier for a services company to do business in the UK from the outside than from the inside. Which, considering the global-serving digital sector is a big corner of our economy (it basically emerged unscathed from the recession) and really benefits from the EU membership even when dealing with non-EU countries (since it guarantees them EU-quality digital rights and data protection on our end). And is quite alarming, since previously the UK was a great place to grow from by doing business inside the UK at first, and then expanding to outside the UK.
But losing the EU regulations, and potentially the single market access, basically cutting ourselves off from that easy access to the single largest market of developed and developing countries in the world (aka. the kind of market a digital service industry dreams of)...yeeeeah. Worrying.
Maybe if there was some plan to build an EU-style trading bloc without the "outstripped it's purpose" (and aside from a few prominent EU people wanting an EU army and immediately getting shot down by the rest of the prominent people, which is just a thing that happens in any democratic structure, I'm not sure how it has in any way that isn't just the natural development of any trading bloc).
Though I don't actually have a problem with the EU growing in scope, I actually *want that*, if anything I actually am more annoyed because I don't think it actually *is* doing that anywhere near the extent it should be to be truly effective. Which it may actually do without the UK, we've been holding it back a lot by vetoing and sabotaging a lot of the bills. Which now hurts us in the negotiations since that's a lot of EU members where we've been sabotaging their attempts to curb tax dodging and whatnot, not exactly predisposing them to giving us too much of a way back in if we want out.
I do think that eventually Europe, and eventually eventually the world, will become a set of federal states under a single democratically elected government. So I do expect to inevitably see a Federal States of Europe appear someday in the future (well, maybe I won't see it. But at some point in the future I fully expect it to happen). Either that or we eventually nuke ourselves out of existence or at least back a few millennia. But that's more long term thing.
Post by: Frumple on October 16, 2016, 10:35:44 am
Because the UK isn't as bad off as Scotland will be if it leaves the Union. Scotland will lose some combination of it's free healthcare, free welfare or free tertiary education. Nevermind the fact they'll have to start paying for their own armed services (which will cost them a small fortune).... and? Pretty sure the scots side of thing is that they're willing to take an economic hit if it means getting the rest of UK's grip off their short hairs. More willing after the UK referendum, anyway. Maybe they've got more to lose economically, but they've got more to gain in regards to sovereignty and self-determination and whatnot, too. I'd personally say the economic argument is a strong one, sure, but, well. As mentioned, UK folk apparently don't consider that as important as you'd think, so it'd be hard to blame scotland for doing the same. Well, any more than you already blame the UK, ha.
Don't think scotland's or sturgeon's after money, basically. Devolution or independence is more likely. Economic arguments may be there but after the UK referendum it seems pretty likely they're going to hold a lot less weight than they did before. Maybe the relative hit would be harder, but again, the UK's been shafting scotland harder than the EU did the UK. Scots've got stronger (grounds for, at least) motivation to take the hit.
Post by: MorleyDev on October 16, 2016, 10:38:27 am
...Now where have I heard that one before? :)
Post by: scriver on October 16, 2016, 10:44:57 am
Maybe they've got more to lose economically, but they've got more to gain in regards to sovereignty and self-determination and whatnot, too.
Yeah, this. When it comes to sovereignty over the self economy often takes the back seat (and yeah, I agree that it is better to be poor and decide your own future, and slightly less poor and with your life in the hands of others).
Post by: Neonivek on October 16, 2016, 10:49:30 am
Maybe they've got more to lose economically, but they've got more to gain in regards to sovereignty and self-determination and whatnot, too.
Yeah, this. When it comes to sovereignty over the self economy often takes the back seat (and yeah, I agree that it is better to be poor and decide your own future, and slightly less poor and with your life in the hands of others).
Except for you know... the UK having WAAAAY too much sway over the EU...
It is one of the things I find odd about the whole "self-determination" angle... They pretty much had that under the EU.
Post by: scriver on October 16, 2016, 10:57:14 am
And the UK has had a lot of influence in the EU, that is definitely true. They have used that influence mostly to force exceptions from EU law in the UK, as opposed to France/Germany/Italy and such countries who have used their influence to force laws that benefit themselves upon the rest of the EU. The UK used their sway to make the EU leave them alone, the Germano-Franks used their sway to make other countries dance to their flute. I by no means like the UK's attitude of "yeah sure, you do that, we'll just not ourselves" but I much prefer it to the unabashed self-interest shown by other powerful countries in the "union".
Post by: Sheb on October 16, 2016, 11:16:22 am
Here we go again. Sturgeon announce new Scotxit referendum. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37634338)
Scotland has a £15bil annual deficit paid for by British taxes. I'd be very shocked if Sturgeon actually wanted to get out of the UK, more likely just wants to make a noise and get more money for Scotland.
The UK as a whole as a budget deficit of £170 billion. Scotland's account for about 8% of the UK's population IIRC, so their share of the current deficit is around £ 13 billion.
Post by: Starver on October 16, 2016, 11:29:40 am
Not the only reason to/not to leave, but it's similar across most of the field. (Scotland's free tuition/prescriptions aren't even something it gains from the UK, BTW. and if it is in poorer financial status than E+W1 then it will become a net beneficiary the way 'we' complained about being a net donor to the EU pot..) . Given Scotland's state as pretty much civilised and pretty much English-speaking, it'd indeed make a good surrogate for London's environs, in many ways. If Europe doesn't splinter, I could actually see it happy to assiimilate Scotland... A bit of effort needed, but could be deemed worth it to further snub the hostile elements of 'Westmister', at the very least.
1 Not going to mention NI. Scotland finds a way to go it 'alone', NI will probably say "Fuggit" and decide to go it alone in an "orphaned Unionist" enclave member of the EU, even if they still don't want to join Eire officially, just be a neighbouring EU state...
Post by: Neonivek on October 16, 2016, 11:46:18 am
Post by: Codician on October 16, 2016, 01:32:32 pm
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
Scotland is basically autonomous now anyway. They have their own system of parliament which determines both Scottish and English (British) matters. That's one of the main reasons their deficit is fucking crazily high.
I hope Scotland gets independence, but they will choke on it.
Here we go again. Sturgeon announce new Scotxit referendum. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37634338)
Scotland has a £15bil annual deficit paid for by British taxes. I'd be very shocked if Sturgeon actually wanted to get out of the UK, more likely just wants to make a noise and get more money for Scotland.
The UK as a whole as a budget deficit of £170 billion. Scotland's account for about 8% of the UK's population IIRC, so their share of the current deficit is around £ 13 billion.
I don't know where you got £170bil from. UK has a budget deficit of £67.6bil (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis) (although apparently it's only maybe £19~bil).
So, the UK's deficit is 10~%. Scotland deficit is 25%.
It's not population, it's taxation and the Scots don't have as much work.
Not the only reason to/not to leave, but it's similar across most of the field. (Scotland's free tuition/prescriptions aren't even something it gains from the UK, BTW. and if it is in poorer financial status than E+W1 then it will become a net beneficiary the way 'we' complained about being a net donor to the EU pot..) . Given Scotland's state as pretty much civilised and pretty much English-speaking, it'd indeed make a good surrogate for London's environs, in many ways. If Europe doesn't splinter, I could actually see it happy to assiimilate Scotland... A bit of effort needed, but could be deemed worth it to further snub the hostile elements of 'Westmister', at the very least.
Scotland being (probably) assimilated by the EU is another major problem of the EU. It will just be another Greece with a huge debt sink and no way to really fix the problem.
Post by: hector13 on October 16, 2016, 02:12:54 pm
Scotland is basically autonomous now anyway. They have their own system of parliament which determines both Scottish and English (British) matters. That's one of the main reasons their deficit is fucking crazily high.
That's why they are being taken out of the EU against their will and have a Tory government they didn't vote for, then? Autonomy ftw.
Scotland has about 9% of the MPs in parliament, whereas England has ~82%. Scottish MPs can cast deciding votes every now and again, they certainly have no way of controlling it.
Then we can argue that the continued use of the Barnett formula means that changes in spending in England influence levels of spending in the rUK, including Scotland, meaning that while the things they vote on might only directly affecting England in regards to policy, they will indirectly affect Scotland regarding pennies.
Here we go again. Sturgeon announce new Scotxit referendum. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37634338)
Scotland has a £15bil annual deficit paid for by British taxes. I'd be very shocked if Sturgeon actually wanted to get out of the UK, more likely just wants to make a noise and get more money for Scotland.
The UK as a whole as a budget deficit of £170 billion. Scotland's account for about 8% of the UK's population IIRC, so their share of the current deficit is around £ 13 billion.
I don't know where you got £170bil from. UK has a budget deficit of £67.6bil (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis) (although apparently it's only maybe £19~bil).
So, the UK's deficit is 10~%. Scotland deficit is 25%.
Or 4% and 9.5%, respectively. Where are you getting your numbers?
Not the only reason to/not to leave, but it's similar across most of the field. (Scotland's free tuition/prescriptions aren't even something it gains from the UK, BTW. and if it is in poorer financial status than E+W1 then it will become a net beneficiary the way 'we' complained about being a net donor to the EU pot..) . Given Scotland's state as pretty much civilised and pretty much English-speaking, it'd indeed make a good surrogate for London's environs, in many ways. If Europe doesn't splinter, I could actually see it happy to assiimilate Scotland... A bit of effort needed, but could be deemed worth it to further snub the hostile elements of 'Westmister', at the very least.
Scotland being (probably) assimilated by the EU is another major problem of the EU. It will just be another Greece with a huge debt sink and no way to really fix the problem.
What are your thoughts on the UK likely losing free (in the sense of no tariffs or the like) access to one of the largest open markets in the world?
Post by: Codician on October 16, 2016, 02:23:37 pm
That's why they are being taken out of the EU against their will and have a Tory government they didn't vote for, then? Autonomy ftw.
Scotland has about 9% of the MPs in parliament, whereas England has ~82%. Scottish MPs can cast deciding votes every now and again, they certainly have no way of controlling it.
Then we can argue that the continued use of the Barnett formula means that changes in spending in England influence levels of spending in the rUK, including Scotland, meaning that while the things they vote on might only directly affecting England in regards to policy, they will indirectly affect Scotland regarding pennies.
Scotland ruined any chance of a Labour government by voting for the SNP, so good job on that I guess.
Scottish MPs determine Scottish policy (for example: free tuition fees) whereas British ones have very little choice in Scottish policy.
Again, SNP ruined any chance of a Labour government. If they didn't want that, they shouldn't've voted for that.
Or 4% and 9.5%, respectively. Where are you getting your numbers?
That's deficit versus GDP, I'm talking about deficit versus total public spending. Scotland spends £60~bn and has a £16~bn deficit. The UK spends £740~bn and has a £70~bn deficit.
What are your thoughts on the UK likely losing free (in the sense of no tariffs or the like) access to one of the largest open markets in the world?
It won't.
Germany relies on the UK as open trade provides them directly with around 750~k jobs and likely from that provides other industries with a lot more. A loss of an open trade deal would cause Germany a LOT of harm and would result in a tit-for-tat war regarding tariffs.
Post by: Frumple on October 16, 2016, 02:38:10 pm
And the UK is trying to sign itself up for a decade or three of trade renegotiations...
Post by: hector13 on October 16, 2016, 02:45:44 pm
That's why they are being taken out of the EU against their will and have a Tory government they didn't vote for, then? Autonomy ftw.
Scotland has about 9% of the MPs in parliament, whereas England has ~82%. Scottish MPs can cast deciding votes every now and again, they certainly have no way of controlling it.
Then we can argue that the continued use of the Barnett formula means that changes in spending in England influence levels of spending in the rUK, including Scotland, meaning that while the things they vote on might only directly affecting England in regards to policy, they will indirectly affect Scotland regarding pennies.
Scotland ruined any chance of a Labour government by voting for the SNP, so good job on that I guess.
Scottish MPs determine Scottish policy (for example: free tuition fees) whereas British ones have very little choice in Scottish policy.
Again, SNP ruined any chance of a Labour government. If they didn't want that, they shouldn't've voted for that.
Scottish folks have realized that British parties aren't going to look out for their interests.
Even had Labour won every single seat in Scotland, Scotland would've had a Tory government that they didn't vote for. I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that Scottish voters ruined any chance of having a non-Tory government.
What are your thoughts on the UK likely losing free (in the sense of no tariffs or the like) access to one of the largest open markets in the world?
It won't.
Germany relies on the UK as open trade provides them directly with around 750~k jobs and likely from that provides other industries with a lot more. A loss of an open trade deal would cause Germany a LOT of harm and would result in a tit-for-tat war regarding tariffs.
Germany is not the EU. I don't think they have enough sway to influence enough of the other 26 members to allow the UK access without conditions - specifically the Four Freedoms - and even if they did, there are non-EU member countries in the EEC who will probably then demand the same treatment.
Merkel also said shortly after the referendum that Germany wouldn't accept the UK having access to the single market sans Four Freedoms.
Post by: Radio Controlled on October 16, 2016, 02:46:46 pm
Quote from: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/10/14/decision-article-50-should-rest-pm-not-parliament-/
Decision on Article 50 should rest with PM, not Parliament, says public
More than half of people say that the decision on invoking Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to makeSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-350m-a-week-a7359121.html
Brexit: UK faces £350m-a-week 'divorce bill' as result of leaving the EU
According to new analysis, a total of £18 billion could be owed to cover shared liabilitiesSpoiler (click to show/hide)
And some 'bonus' material (warning, daily mail headline):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Codician on October 16, 2016, 02:57:56 pm
The UK relies (or relied, anyway) on a great deal of trade they (or at least its politicians) functionally told to bugger off, too, though. I'm not sure I'd be so confident that germany (or whoever) won't decide to take an economic hit for non-economic reasons. Or a short term one for long term gains sans the UK (or with less of em, I guess). Not sure I'd even call it a particularly bad idea, at this point. An unstable economic partner is sometimes worse than not having that partner at all.
And the UK is trying to sign itself up for a decade or three of trade renegotiations...
The reality of it is that that's not politics. It's very unlikely that Germany will bother doing that.
Scottish folks have realized that British parties aren't going to look out for their interests.
Even had Labour won every single seat in Scotland, Scotland would've had a Tory government that they didn't vote for. I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that Scottish voters ruined any chance of having a non-Tory government.
Then the union breaks.
People won't vote for a Labour that won't be able to support the British people. It would've been an SNP-Labour coalition government, with SNP deciding all the terms.
Germany is not the EU. I don't think they have enough sway to influence enough of the other 26 members to allow the UK access without conditions - specifically the Four Freedoms - and even if they did, there are non-EU member countries in the EEC who will probably then demand the same treatment.
Merkel also said shortly after the referendum that Germany wouldn't accept the UK having access to the single market sans Four Freedoms.
Germany has a ridiculously large amount of influence within the EU. Then again, one of the principle problems with the EU is that it's impossible to understand what the hell is going to happen considering how opaque it is to outsiders (and, honestly, to insiders as well).
Merkel has said a lot of things through the years, including that multiculturalism has failed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451). She's a politician, nothing more.
Post by: hector13 on October 16, 2016, 03:23:28 pm
Scottish folks have realized that British parties aren't going to look out for their interests.
Even had Labour won every single seat in Scotland, Scotland would've had a Tory government that they didn't vote for. I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that Scottish voters ruined any chance of having a non-Tory government.
Then the union breaks.
People won't vote for a Labour that won't be able to support the British people. It would've been an SNP-Labour coalition government, with SNP deciding all the terms.
That was certainly the rhetoric from the Tories at the time, which England fell for hook, line and sinker.
I recall being in Lincoln a few weeks prior to the election, and seeing Tory ads with Eddie in Salmond's shirt pocket.
Kinda shows you how much UK parties care about Scotland, since Salmond had stepped aside months prior, with Sturgeon as the leader at the time.
Germany is not the EU. I don't think they have enough sway to influence enough of the other 26 members to allow the UK access without conditions - specifically the Four Freedoms - and even if they did, there are non-EU member countries in the EEC who will probably then demand the same treatment.
Merkel also said shortly after the referendum that Germany wouldn't accept the UK having access to the single market sans Four Freedoms.
Germany has a ridiculously large amount of influence within the EU. Then again, one of the principle problems with the EU is that it's impossible to understand what the hell is going to happen considering how opaque it is to outsiders (and, honestly, to insiders as well).
Merkel has said a lot of things through the years, including that multiculturalism has failed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451). She's a politician, nothing more.
So's May, and everyone else involved in Brexit. They all have their jobs to think about pre- and post-Brexit.
The reality is that the EU has a lot more to lose by giving the UK a good deal than they will by, as you say, giving them a boot up the arse for leaving the club.
The prominence of political parties that either want to weaken the EU or have their country outright leave it means an example needs to be made.
Post by: Starver on October 16, 2016, 03:50:33 pm
If Leave had lost 35% to 38% they'd be pursuing a rematch at the next opportunistic moment, at least as quickly as the Scindependencers have with their wider margin of 38% to 47% loss.
Post by: Neonivek on October 16, 2016, 06:37:16 pm
Merkel has said a lot of things through the years, including that multiculturalism has failed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451). She's a politician, nothing more.
No no no. We already established long ago that no one has ever said that in the UK and there is no racial tension!
Edit: And we are still correct she is in Germany!
---
Frankly I wouldn't mind another vote... but given the economic turmoil there is an argument to be made that people would vote against it only because of current economic hardship and not because that is what they actually believe.
Post by: RedKing on October 17, 2016, 12:21:06 pm
If Leave had lost 35% to 38% they'd be pursuing a rematch at the next opportunistic moment, at least as quickly as the Scindependencers have with their wider margin of 38% to 47% loss.
I prefer the term Scexit. Which makes the followers of that idea Sceksis.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: alway on October 17, 2016, 08:14:11 pm
Post by: hector13 on October 17, 2016, 08:23:00 pm
Or Caledonixit.
Albexit?
Nah, abandonshipbeforeeverythinggoestoshitxit.
Post by: Max™ on October 18, 2016, 03:03:49 am
If Leave had lost 35% to 38% they'd be pursuing a rematch at the next opportunistic moment, at least as quickly as the Scindependencers have with their wider margin of 38% to 47% loss.
I prefer the term Scexit. Which makes the followers of that idea Sceksis.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: scriver on October 18, 2016, 05:33:17 am
Post by: Radio Controlled on October 18, 2016, 07:41:04 am
Also, new study results:
Quote from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-held-again-second-remain-leave-vote-pound-crash-uk-economy-bregret-a7365561.html
Brexit: If EU referendum was held again Remain would win due to 'Bregret', official figures reveal
'The finding highlights the shortcomings of using referenda to make policy choices on issues as complex as membership of the EU'Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I took a quick look at this study to check if the independent wasn't exaggerating here. Note that the polling for whether or not people regretted their vote is only a small part of the study, there's other elements questioned, such as whether people with high social capital were more likely to vote leave or remain ("It shows a strong trend between social capital and Leave voting – those with the lowest levels of social capital are almost twice as likely to have voted Leave as those with the highest levels."), nostalgia ("there is a very strong relationship between thinking that things in Britain have got worse and voting Leave.") and others.
Quote from: http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/brexit-britain-british-election-study-insights-from-the-post-eu-referendum-wave-of-the-bes-internet-panel/#.WASu0fkrKUl
So yeah, according to these figures it would have been enough to change the outcome, but there's about as much regret as there is during regular elections (check the study itself for the figures and graphs, can't be arsed to copy them right now).Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Oh, and the Home Office recently confirmed the rise in hatecrime as well: BBC: Race and religious hate crimes rose 41% after EU vote (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37640982)
Post by: RedKing on October 18, 2016, 09:35:02 am
Celtix?Nah, that's if Asterix the Gaul holds a referendum.
Post by: Starver on October 18, 2016, 09:42:58 am
There's a biggish difference between the P-Celtic and Q-Celtic...Celtix?Nah, that's if Asterix the Gaul holds a referendum.
Post by: Neonivek on October 18, 2016, 09:45:47 am
Oh, and the Home Office recently confirmed the rise in hatecrime as well: BBC: Race and religious hate crimes rose 41% after EU vote (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37640982)
Impossible! We all know the UK has no racial issues.
Though I do find it funny at the implications that the 41% could, in fact, be even higher! depending on how cowed people became.
Though the anti-disabled sentiment is certainly not something I would have pegged on the UK... that is certainly... surprising.
Why are people becoming increasingly antagonistic towards the disabled? (though it could be linked to the racial tension...)
Post by: Sheb on October 18, 2016, 09:50:52 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 18, 2016, 10:04:51 am
Going to play devil's advocate, but could it be due to improvement in reporting of some kind? That would explain the concommitent rise in anti-disabled people thing.
The other could also be that the improvements in the work force and school allow people with disabilities to be more visible.
For example in one town I know of there wasn't really any anti-disabled sentiment... Until the wheelchair laws started to become enforced which closed down a lot of businesses that couldn't afford to accommodate them.
Ok bad example... As I was going more for "Out of sight out of mind" suddenly not applying... rather than "They took me jerb!".
Post by: Flying Dice on October 18, 2016, 10:01:30 pm
Going to play devil's advocate, but could it be due to improvement in reporting of some kind? That would explain the concommitent rise in anti-disabled people thing.Yeah, that seems to be the more reasoned interpretation. They're literally saying that they're only basing that claim on anecdotal evidence (but it's really good anecdotal evidence, guys!).
The spike right after the referendum I can buy being an actual increase, but settling down at a slightly higher average than pre-referendum (and across more spectra than the Muslim and Pole hate) suggests that some aspect of reporting or investigating (or looseness of interpretation of what constitutes a hate crime) has changed, rather than that Britons suddenly became 15-25% more hateful.
Or possibly that the bigots are pissed and mouthing off more frequently, that could explain it too, natch.
Post by: Neonivek on October 18, 2016, 10:05:13 pm
Given that the last time the UK had SUPER serious racial tension (err... the fourth time from now... 80s time) it only stopped after a economic upturn... Ignoring the UK never had racial tension
I don't think the current economic forecast exactly declares clear skies right now.
Post by: hector13 on October 18, 2016, 10:16:35 pm
On-topic-but-not-necessarily-relevant: Football Manager 2017 looking to simulate Brexit outcomes in their upcoming release (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37692481).
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 19, 2016, 05:21:21 am
Rather saddening that, Phillip Hammond and Theresa May are both people I very much respect as professionals, to see them in conflict is a great waste of resources. Essentially Phillip Hammond is arguing for what he terms 'soft brexit,' which is a formal withdrawal from the European Union that remains within EU institutions like the single market, whereas Theresa May is arguing for what Philip calls 'hard brexit,' which is withdrawal from all EU institutions. Again, rather surprisingly, I agree with Donald Tusk that there is no distinction between 'soft brexit' and 'hard brexit,' only 'membership' and 'brexit.' Reason being if we stay in the common market then our external trade with the rest of the world would be controlled by the EU, which just wouldn't make sense since our world trade is the majority of our trade, and we would have to sacrifice migration & security controls in order to keep that. Sans being one of the negotiators of course, so it would be the worse end of everything for everyone who's not a banker lol
Speaking of bankers, and german bankers for that, rather intriguing this stuff about the EU's plans for capital union (http://ec.europa.eu/finance/capital-markets-union/index_en.htm). The EU bankers figured fiscal union is still a very long way off and impossible to achieve in the short term, yet they reckon the EU still needs to integrate further or else the Euro glue will crumble and the Union will shatter. So: Capital Union. Not fiscal union, but a very big step towards it. Naturally Brexit (http://www.wsj.com/articles/brexit-bedevils-plan-to-unify-eu-capital-markets-1466983035) throws a spanner in the works (https://www.ft.com/content/bf7c5b5a-4833-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab), so it is interesting to see what occurs half a decade hence
Impossible! We all know the UK has no racial issues.Lmao you still salty people asked you for sources
I don't begrudge Leavers for trying every tactic they can to hold off even the faintest of challenges to their wishes. There's up to 38% of people who can see defeat being snatched from the jaws of victory. (Also why it appears the words "overwhelming majority" have been retasked to describe "barely scraped past those bothered to vote otherwise", because they really want it to be so, and like "Crooked Hillary" or any other soundbite meme you could mention it just aims to transcends reality.)Aye, Brexit campaign was very maligned when it didn't control government and had to deal with Remain in control, now the gov is in Brexit hands the winner takes all mentality has switched over to Brex camp
If Leave had lost 35% to 38% they'd be pursuing a rematch at the next opportunistic moment, at least as quickly as the Scindependencers have with their wider margin of 38% to 47% loss.
There isn't much need though to quell opposition, as there is no realistic opposition; this is due to the implosion of labour. Currently the biggest schism is Philip Hammond vs Theresa May, which is the final battle between neoliberalism and conservatism for at least a few decades
A safe space? :pI gotta get the LES Marmite piece up here, if I can find the newspaper lying around somewhere, it's hilarious
In other news, falling sterling cause marmite and Ben&Jerry shortage. (https://www.ft.com/content/58560c1e-909a-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923?siteedition=intl#axzz4Mxl1Xd6H) Well, not exactly shortage: the produce wants to raise price to reflect higher price of imported inputs and supermarkets don't want that.
Ahah, LW you're so funny, continually quoting random think-tank and presenting that as European policy.Haha you must be joking Sheb, the ESI's advice being sought after by European policy makers and in turn being implemented as European policy does European policy a make!
You must be rather silly to deny the Merkel Samson plan as implemented by the European Union does not represent European Union policy (http://www.esiweb.org/index.php?lang=en&id=597)
Next you'll tell me European Union law has nothing to do with European Union law, that German banks have nothing to do with European monetary policy, that European Nations have nothing to do with the European Union
Quote
“As soon as mid-September, ESI had already proposed a solution to the refugee crisis, which in large part has now been adopted by the European Commission. At the core of ESI’s proposal is the idea that the German government should take the lead and commit to resettling 500,000 Syrian refugees directly from Turkey to Germany … In return, Ankara should immediately readmit all migrants reaching Greece via the Aegean or the Turkish-Greek land border in Thracia. Substantial elements of this idea apparently are part of a plan that the EU Commission says it has negotiated with Turkey, but there is no official confirmation from Ankara about the existence of such an agreement. Before Turkish President Recap Tayyip Erdogan arrived in Brussels this Monday, ESI continued to advocate for a “package deal”: readmission of a number of refugees to be determined in return for the immediate application of the readmission agreement between the EU and Turkey.”You try to dig deeper and provide interesting information about behind the scenes political sausage making and yuros plug the sausage in their ears xD
7 October: Angela Merkel on German TV (Anne Will) where she explains her plan:“We must better protect our external borders, but this is only possible if we reach agreements with our neighbours, for example with Turkey, on how to better share the task of dealing with the refugees. And this will mean more money for Turkey, which has many expenses because of the refugees. This will mean that we will accept a set number of refugees, in a way so that the human traffickers and smugglers in the Aegean will not earn money, but in an orderly way …
random think tank (http://www.esiweb.org/rumeliobserver/2016/01/29/the-merkel-samsom-plan-a-short-history/)
Also seems I caught up with everything ITT
Post by: Sheb on October 19, 2016, 05:27:09 am
Meanwhile from the European Union:QuoteThe Secretary General of the European Movement International, Petros Fassoulas, said on 27 June that “enlargement will be frozen” after the UK’s decision to leave the EU, as the Union would be preoccupied with its own problems.From 4th of July (https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/analysts-brexit-will-slow-eu-enlargement-in-the-western-balkans/)
He said that the freezing entailed continuous postponement, or slowing down, to the point where not much would happen, is worse than taking a break.
The British referendum will launch the process of closing off, said Fassoulas in a debate in Belgrade on the consequences of the British referendum. “There is uncertainty among the leaders of the EU governments and enlargement certainly won’t be the first thing to come to their mind,” he added.
I'm going to side with the European Union stating their decision to freeze enlargement clearly over anonymous quotes
LW, why are you bringing up the ESI? Look above, you're clearly presenting the analysis of some dude from the EMI (a federalist think-tank) as the word of the EU. Earlier, you did the same with the words of the spokesperson for the european packaging lobby when we were talking about france's plastic cutlery ban.
Post by: Starver on October 19, 2016, 05:28:59 am
Reason being if we stay in the common market then our external trade with the rest of the world would be controlled by the EU, which just wouldn't make sense since our world trade is the majority of our trade, and we would have to sacrifice migration & security controls in order to keep that. Sans being one of the negotiators of course, so it would be the worse end of everything for everyone who's not a banker lolExactly my views, before and after. Who are you, and what have you done with the real Loud Whispers?
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 19, 2016, 05:56:06 am
LW, why are you bringing up the ESI? Look above, you're clearly presenting the analysis of some dude from the EMI (a federalist think-tank) as the word of the EU. Earlier, you did the same with the words of the spokesperson for the european packaging lobby when we were talking about france's plastic cutlery ban.Oh I see, that makes a lot more sense. Pardon, a lot of context I lost in catching up on the thread. ESI is the only think tank I've overtly brought up in regards to the EU definitively, at least in any depth or sense of effort I can remember.
In regards to why, I don't draw much more than an academic distinction between political institutions and their intellectual, financial & popular support base, in addition to their advisors and technical support. My views on this are coloured in part by the EU (of which you have heard about it to death) but mostly by British politics, of which I am most familiar with, in which as with all things control of the intellectual core of a political party will result in control of it in future. That's not going into detail on when private companies are employed to fulfill agendas that state actors cannot push through public legislation :]
If you mean specifically, then this is why:
Quote
The European Movement works as a study and information group, and also as a pressure group. It operates as a study and information group through the many projects and activities undertaken, and has been at the forefront in helping large segments of the public take part in the dissemination of information on European affairs and activities. It operates as a pressure group through the influence exerted by its members at all levels in each sector of activity. The European Parliament, Commission, national parliaments, authorities and governments, business-people, industry associations, NGOs and the many associations which make up the civil society in Europe have been influenced through the European Movement’s network of contacts.EMI: who we are (http://europeanmovement.eu/who-we-are/).
There is information lacking in formal channels so I resort to the closest analogue vs anonymous sources, found nothing from the EU here (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-balkans-idUSKCN0ZE0R5), vague unstated reaffirmations without any words quoted here (http://www.europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/article-3981), and on closer search I finally found one good quote from an EU commissioner saying just the same:
Quote
"The EU is still committed to the enlargement, there is no doubt about it – we are continuing the work that we have started, which is “by far not complete”, Hahn stated at a conference on public administration as a foundation of European integration.Showing the peril of trusting in anonymous quotes.
http://aa.com.tr/en/analysis-news/-analysis-eu-and-western-balkan-relations-after-brexit-vote/599556
P.s. what do lobbying groups buy? :P
You may have noticed this before in how I disregarded the argument presented earlier that I would be okay with anything for as long as the UK government did it; I made it quite clear that British ministers acting on behalf of the EU and its agendas would be utterly meaningless to me, for they would be little more than an acting branch of the EU. Same principle here
I'm not an edgy contrarian everydayReason being if we stay in the common market then our external trade with the rest of the world would be controlled by the EU, which just wouldn't make sense since our world trade is the majority of our trade, and we would have to sacrifice migration & security controls in order to keep that. Sans being one of the negotiators of course, so it would be the worse end of everything for everyone who's not a banker lolExactly my views, before and after. Who are you, and what have you done with the real Loud Whispers?
Post by: hector13 on October 19, 2016, 09:44:08 am
The very basic summary is they seem to think it was the 6 years of austerity prior the the vote that was the largest factor that encouraged people to vote Leave, and not immigration like the media were suggesting at the time.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 19, 2016, 05:28:31 pm
University of Warwick paper on factors involved in why folk voted for Brexit (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/305-2016_becker_fetzer_novy.pdf).That's an interesting read, I'm more surprised they have the balls to conclude that there was a largest factor - I like that bravery xD
The very basic summary is they seem to think it was the 6 years of austerity prior the the vote that was the largest factor that encouraged people to vote Leave, and not immigration like the media were suggesting at the time.
Also in other news, Beeb are gonna make a mockumentary on Nigel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozg9dsUtKsw)
I'm still jelly that Ameripol stole him
Post by: Codician on October 20, 2016, 06:07:14 am
Basically, it's really not as bad as people are making out.
Post by: Neonivek on October 22, 2016, 03:14:28 am
And predict that we are going to have another Riot in the UK. Either Race or Class.
Just a hunch.
And honestly I hope I am wrong... and HOLY GOODNESS do I hope we haven't had one already.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 22, 2016, 04:27:40 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 22, 2016, 04:46:06 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 22, 2016, 04:58:38 am
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/my/account/emailthispage/?r=http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14810016.WATCH__Moment__smirking_thug__smashed_plank_into_man_s_face_for_speaking_Spanish__but_he_s_not_racist__court_told_/
Post by: Neonivek on October 22, 2016, 05:12:43 am
Reminds me of a woman who experienced a traumatic experience due to a black man and as such developed a phobia towards black men (though she kind of hated herself for it)... She wasn't racist...
So lets see the excuse here... uhh... what is the excuse? I can't see the website.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 22, 2016, 05:27:05 am
...actually it might be more xenophobia that racism, given that the attack was for speaking in a foreign language. Not that it makes much of a difference.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 22, 2016, 11:20:30 am
Post by: Max™ on October 22, 2016, 11:25:45 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on October 22, 2016, 12:21:02 pm
Guys, to the progressive thread or eu related news thread, this is the brexit thread for brexit news
Wha... but....
(https://media.giphy.com/media/u6BI1GSiTcKsM/giphy.gif)
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 22, 2016, 12:47:29 pm
Post by: scriver on October 22, 2016, 01:36:32 pm
Post by: Dorsidwarf on October 22, 2016, 05:54:36 pm
It's ok ChairmanPoo, one day there will be a rainy island news thread to post news in
Where'stheendingtosilentthundersyoumonster
Post by: Starver on October 22, 2016, 05:59:31 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 23, 2016, 11:18:27 am
Very hiatus atm, but I don't feel like abandoning it because it's a nice Fort
Where'stheendingtosilentthundersyoumonster
Tell you what: how does Canada's failures in getting a deal with EU bode with UK's in/out/shake-it-all-about/do-the-hokey-cokey-and-you-turn-around status? If that's what it's all about. Oy!It does nothing
Probably would've helped Remain very much if it had happened before the referendum though
It could however be a sign of things to come, so for example there may be a point where the negotiations go on for years because one country does not like the terms within the EU, so things could go on for a long long time (so people are saying if Canada cannot do this because one province in Belgium doesn't like their deal, maybe something similar will happen in the negotiations)
Too early to say, but it is hilarious nonetheless
Post by: Starver on October 23, 2016, 12:08:27 pm
Not sure if it'll mean a UK/Canada deal will be more or less possible than previously anticipated (could go either way, depending on the actual actors concerned, and if anybody wants to play silly-buggers), but I'm sure there'll be opinions about it. Which is why I was wondering why nobody had mentioned it.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 23, 2016, 01:23:26 pm
Post by: Starver on October 23, 2016, 01:49:19 pm
Also helps dispel rather definitively the myth that being a part of the EU gives you clout, the EU can't even make a trade deal with Canada because a tiny province of a tiny province said 'yeah nah fam'Exactly the opposite, as I just said...
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 23, 2016, 02:08:29 pm
Exactly yeah, it can't negotiate trade deals for shit, AND it kills multilateralismAlso helps dispel rather definitively the myth that being a part of the EU gives you clout, the EU can't even make a trade deal with Canada because a tiny province of a tiny province said 'yeah nah fam'Exactly the opposite, as I just said...
It's like alcohol that gives only hangovers and liver failure
*EDIT
Some of you may have noticed that for a Brexit conversation, there has been very little talk about what UKIP are doing. This is because that just as Labour implodes, UKIP is in death spiral - it seems that the moment UKIP's charismatic leader left, everyone was at each others' throats (fights broke out that got people hospitalized) and replacement leaders resigned. Behold UKIP's last hope, Raheem Kassam, running under the slogan 'Make UKIP great again. (https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam)'
Ayyy lmao, it really is a shame Stephen Woolfe couldn't make it (first time he tried applying for leadership he missed the deadline, second time was cos of the fight). That leaves UKIP with two major contenders for leadership, Paul Nuttall (UKIP MEP, deputy leader, wants capital punishment brought back for child killers, wants to make a definitive working class brand for UKIP as opposed to its current arrangement of disaffected Tories, Working Class Labour and Libertarian brokers all duct taped together). The other is Raheem (editor for Breitbart, former aide to Nigel, wants to focus on Brexit and get an international brand for UKIP).
So who wins this leadership contest is gonna decide their image and shit
They both have their advantages and disadvantages in terms of identity
Paul Nuttall
- Working class man, helped oversee some of UKIPs best electoral performances in his areas in addition to founding UKIPs youth wings and shit
- He's English so he's easy media pickings
Raheem Kassam
- 2nd gen migrant, shiite Muslim, as such the media does not know how to deal with him cos diversity points maximized
- Is an irl shitposter, thus nullifying the media benefits of his diversity
I do not see UKIP doing well in the UK's future, at this rate it's pretty much doomed - it could only survive if Labour managed to destroy itself worse than UKIP is destroying itself. All in all I can see why Farage wanted to gtfo as soon as possible
Post by: Sheb on October 24, 2016, 08:01:23 am
Post by: Neonivek on October 24, 2016, 08:04:17 am
So, apparently there are trolls in the Commission, because they want the Brexit negotiations to be conducted... in French. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-negotiator-talks-french-michel-barnier-negotiation-insists-eu-article-50-conducted-a7373556.html?cmpid=facebook-post) :P
This is... not that unusual for the French who is having a strong "protect our culture" kick last time I heard.
Ahh the glory of living in Canada... Ohh wait we have Quebec don't we? As well as a history that continues to this day of abusing our natives... DANG IT!
Post by: Starver on October 24, 2016, 08:23:08 am
So, apparently there are trolls in the Commission, because they want the Brexit negotiations to be conducted... in French. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-negotiator-talks-french-michel-barnier-negotiation-insists-eu-article-50-conducted-a7373556.html?cmpid=facebook-post) :P"Avveh voo luh.. lah? ...lair.. umm... Tradio Dealio... " <French, you idiot! Not Spanish!> "...for... poor us. Nous. Silver plate, garkon? Murky."
Post by: Max™ on October 24, 2016, 11:54:54 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 24, 2016, 03:10:05 pm
Quote
As an EU commissioner until 2014, Barnier, 65, had a difficult relationship with London, as he sought to tighten regulation of Britain's dominant financial services industry. One British newspaper called him the "scourge of the City".Holy shit, this is that guy? Ayyyyy lmao
Post by: Sheb on October 24, 2016, 03:13:52 pm
QuoteAs an EU commissioner until 2014, Barnier, 65, had a difficult relationship with London, as he sought to tighten regulation of Britain's dominant financial services industry. One British newspaper called him the "scourge of the City".Holy shit, this is that guy? Ayyyyy lmao
Sadly it turned out it was a fake without basis.
Post by: RedKing on October 24, 2016, 03:14:32 pm
So, apparently there are trolls in the Commission, because they want the Brexit negotiations to be conducted... in French. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-negotiator-talks-french-michel-barnier-negotiation-insists-eu-article-50-conducted-a7373556.html?cmpid=facebook-post) :P"I blow my nose at you, so-called Prime Minister May. You and all your silly English Brrrrrrexiters"
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 24, 2016, 03:20:04 pm
Sadly it turned out it was a fake without basis.What's fake? Sorry I don't know what is being referred to
Post by: Grim Portent on October 24, 2016, 03:33:26 pm
Sadly it turned out it was a fake without basis.What's fake? Sorry I don't know what is being referred to
Presumably he means the 'France wants the negotiations done in French' thing.
Post by: Radio Controlled on October 25, 2016, 04:50:49 pm
Then again, it's not like governments don't sometimes engage in (unfair) protectionist measures, and I've read that courts such as these (such as in NAFTA) usually judge in favor of the country. But I'd have to be able to actually do the digging to form an informed opinion, and these things are always humongous texts of lawyerese. Also note that the Walloon government isn't the only entity that has voiced concerns, organisations like Greenpeace have argued against it, and there have been large demonstrations against it (and it's cousin, TTIP).
That said, the deal isn't buried yet, there's still talks ongoing. The deadline of Thursday will probably be missed, but after seven years I doubt either the EU or Canada will just blow the whole thing off instead of waiting a little longer and maybe making some last concessions/clarifications. It might yet live, with some delays.
Finally, I'm anxiously awaiting the staunch eurosceptics of the world to come out and congratulate the EU on letting even a small part of it block an agreement the majority agrees to in a blaze of sovereign power. :P
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 26, 2016, 06:36:43 am
Zac Goldsmith quits over Heathrow expansion (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37764269) <- He's the guy who tried to become mayor of London supporting Brexit, he also busted elite pedo rings
Post by: Dorsidwarf on October 26, 2016, 06:39:47 am
Michael Gove is very, very sorry (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37765648)
That is some grade-A bootlicking from the antieducator, nice.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 28, 2016, 11:23:34 pm
I guess the one thing he discovered after his holiday is that he really does not like retirementMichael Gove is very, very sorry (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37765648)That is some grade-A bootlicking from the antieducator, nice.
Also in really surprising news, Zac Goldsmith is contesting his own seat after his resignation. He is up against the Libdems as the Tory party aren't fielding someone against him. It's really weird, like a blast from the past, as a former mayoral candidate competes with a once relevant party whilst endorsed by a once relevant party
UKIP is (surprisingly?), endorsing him (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/27/ukip-backs-zac-goldsmith-in-richmond-park-byelection)
Truth be told I don't know what to think of Zac Goldsmith, as I've not seem him in the spotlight much.
In other news, Jeremy Corbyn's parliamentary seat - the centre of British marxism, is to be carved up and given to Corbyn's allies. (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyns-islington-north-seat-to-vanish-from-map-under-tories-planned-boundary-changes-a3342936.html)
[Laughing Tories intensifies]
No doubt this is a ploy to sow discord amongst the beleagured labour party, especially since in order to run, Corbyn would have to exclude himself under his all-women shortlist policy (unless he identified as a woman last minute). Perhaps it really is just a sincere effort to equalize the vote to politician ratio, but that certainly won't stop Corbyn's labour from seeing this as a discord-sowing attempt, and old Labour from jumping at the opportunity to remove Corbyn once more
Post by: Starver on October 28, 2016, 11:44:51 pm
In other news, Jeremy Corbyn's parliamentary seat - the centre of British marxism, is to be carved up and given to Corbyn's allies. (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyns-islington-north-seat-to-vanish-from-map-under-tories-planned-boundary-changes-a3342936.html)Why's that come up again? It was in the news more than a month ago (perhaps slightly behind what the Boundary Commission was doing with Scotland, which was very much spoilery, leaving just one mainland area untouched and potentially removing both Labour and Conservatives from the map in the process...)
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 28, 2016, 11:49:38 pm
I dunno why it's come up again, I just heard of it yesterdayIn other news, Jeremy Corbyn's parliamentary seat - the centre of British marxism, is to be carved up and given to Corbyn's allies. (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyns-islington-north-seat-to-vanish-from-map-under-tories-planned-boundary-changes-a3342936.html)Why's that come up again? It was in the news more than a month ago (perhaps slightly behind what the Boundary Commission was doing with Scotland, which was very much spoilery, leaving just one mainland area untouched and potentially removing both Labour and Conservatives from the map in the process...)
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 29, 2016, 04:19:50 pm
Finally, I'm anxiously awaiting the staunch eurosceptics of the world to come out and congratulate the EU on letting even a small part of it block an agreement the majority agrees to in a blaze of sovereign power. :PI was reading this and this post immediately came to mind for the kekles it produced
Quote
David Cameron plunged Britain's position in Europe into the greatest uncertainty in a generation as he used his veto to block a new EU-wide treaty and left at least 23 other countries to forge a pact to salvage the single currency.The more I look into it it is hilarious, just how hard David Cameron fought for a decade to keep the UK in the EU, and the EU just kept ignoring him lmao
With the apparent blessing of the pro-European deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg – and the subsequent delight of Tory backbenchers – Cameron deployed the ultimate weapon in European summitry at about 2.30am yesterday.
EU leaders promptly agreed to bypass Britain and establish a new accord on the euro among themselves by March. The EU appeared poised to line up 26-1 against Cameron in support of the Franco-German blueprint, leaving Britain utterly isolated.
Cameron's bombshell came at what was billed as the most important EU summit in years, with the fate of the single currency hanging in the balance. The veto was unexpected and was being seen as a watershed in Britain's fractious relationship with the rest of Europe. Cameron insisted on securing concessions on, and exemptions from, EU financial markets regulation as the price of his assent to the German-led euro salvation blueprint.
While Cameron has failed to secure the concessions for Britain's strong financial services sector, Britain has also forfeited its place at the table where Europe's future and the new euro regime will be determined. For the first time since Britain joined the European Community in 1973, a treaty that goes to the heart of how the EU works will be struck without a British signature.
Blast from the past (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/09/david-cameron-blocks-eu-treaty)
Sad airhorns for defeated EU shill (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/19/eu-deal-what-david-cameron-asked-for-and-what-he-actually-got/), it really is hilarious how even a little compromise would've killed us proper dead
Also more hilarious in light of Wallonia getting blown the fuck out by the EU (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37806656), in a blaze of sovereignty being burned
Post by: Starver on October 29, 2016, 04:30:11 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 29, 2016, 04:38:16 pm
May, or May not have veto? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37812303)Holy shit, May supported UK even before Leave existed
Based a/f, exactly what I expect as normal
Post by: Starver on October 29, 2016, 04:51:39 pm
Based on what, you say?May, or May not have veto? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37812303)Holy shit, May supported UK even before Leave existed
Based a/f, exactly what I expect as normal
My reading is that May had once said that parliament should have a say on any changes to EU involvement (not just the unimagined Brexit) and now she says the opposite.
Whether that's because:
1) she has matured her opinion dince then (like Trump now no longer habitually grabs women in rude places(!)),
2) it was only an argument ever to be used whilst in opposition, and/or
3) Brexit isn't a mere 'change to EU involvement' and the rule that kicked in for significant changes stops applying again at some higher threshold...
...it's still a rather interesting thing to know about.
I don't actually understand "May supported UK even before Leave existed", but the above might cover what my best guess is about your (I think) complaint.
Post by: hector13 on October 29, 2016, 04:58:53 pm
Quote
The former shadow minister for Europe, Labour MP Pat McFadden, said Mrs May could no longer deny Parliament a meaningful role in what Brexit means.
Brexit means Brexit, Pat. Dumbass...
Post by: Starver on October 29, 2016, 06:08:13 pm
The idea of Parliament overturning BrexitTouchy, aren't you? It's not about overturning, it's about actually sure that the Brexit we're getting is the Brexit that maybe a third of the population actually wanted.
Post by: Loud Whispers on October 29, 2016, 06:20:43 pm
Based on what, you say?
Quote
Theresa May said in 2007 MPs should have veto on EU negotiations
My reading is that May had once said that parliament should have a say on any changes to EU involvement (not just the unimagined Brexit) and now she says the opposite.I'm gonna forgive you for insulting May with a comparison to Trump, least of all to to put lewdness and May in the same sentence, or that right there is salt farming simulator current year +1 Lol
Whether that's because:
1) she has matured her opinion dince then (like Trump now no longer habitually grabs women in rude places(!)),
2) it was only an argument ever to be used whilst in opposition, and/or
3) Brexit isn't a mere 'change to EU involvement' and the rule that kicked in for significant changes stops applying again at some higher threshold...
...it's still a rather interesting thing to know about.
I don't actually understand "May supported UK even before Leave existed", but the above might cover what my best guess is about your (I think) complaint.
Now back in 2007, Eurosceptic Tories were a significant faction within the Tory party that held no real power in the Tory HQ or in Parliament. Worse still, this was all under the Labour party which was at that time entirely dominated by New Labour (which fit together with the EU like finely aligned tetris blocks). Thus back then, when the EU was enlargening with the Lisbon Treaty, Theresa May was searching for the answer that retained British sovereignty. What was significant about the Lisbon Treaty was that for pretty much everything that makes a nation state, the notion of unanimity votes on
If for example it was apparent that she had a track record of supporting the European Union in policy before she was in the spotlight, before it was relevant to her meteoric rise in public office - it is a demonstration of sincerity that their views were constant before and after they were world-relevant. Hence why I would not trust a capable Tory minister that I know has been supporting the EU until only after the election result, I don't doubt that it is possible they had a sincere change of heart, it's just you can't afford to be wrong. If you're wrong, then we'll likely still be de facto a member of the Union and thus the fight will still have to go on for a very long time.
Why the hell would we give Parliament 'a say'? We elect Parliament to do the boring business of everyday government because we're all too busy doing real jobs. For something important like Brexit we voted on it directly ourselves, and a decision was made.Parliament already had their say, they were up and down the country, on radio, television, morning shows, papers and spam ads campaigning for Remain and were decisively defeated. Now they want to be able to just ignore the fact that their constituents disagree with them :P
Reminds me of an old conversation I had with a Labour MP, after he professed great virtue on how he only deserves office for as long as he listened to his constituents and acted according to his will. Amusingly, this was all before Brexit, so I asked him about how then he would respond to the majority of Britons supporting Leave, whilst he supported Remain - he told me the story of how he helped end fox hunting even though most Britons couldn't really be bothered either way. The subtext was clear, act according to conscience, and maintain the pretense of legitimate mandate - thus pleasing both crowds. Don't think it'll work this time :D
The idea of Parliament overturning Brexit is like an important businessman telling his secretary that Joe Bloggs can't have a raise, but the secretary decides to give him one anyway. Later that week, as the secretary is being sacked and unceremoniously escorted out of the office by security, their wailing and cries of 'But I normally handle the payroll for you! Why are you sacking me?' echo up and down the office, as a warning to the rest of the secretaries lest they start thinking they're running the company.I'm not so sure in this case if Parliament has legs to stand on or not, apart from sad Miliband :[
The secretary later goes home to their apartment and slits their wrists in the bathtub. The obituary is short, and merely reads 'Ed Milliband tragically committed suicide after losing his job for gross incompetence. Again.'
Just cos this really is a rather unique event. I am rather conflicted on the matter, as Parliament overrepresents Remain far beyond their democratic mandate allows, but I also want to hear what Remain wants to say in regards to Brexit now that everyone has calmed down. Help avoid that civil war Remain is edging towards lol
My main issue would be if the overrepresented Remain MPs seek a veto, which they inevitably would use to override Brexit. This would be against the wishes of the majority of the UK, against the wishes of the European Commission, and would cause the most hurt for both the sovereign nations of Europe and the United Kingdom. Saltiness would be understated if the Remain camp, having enjoyed unrivaled control of our media, treasury, parliament and cabinet, still managed to emerge victorious from their most crushing rejection by British voters.
Post by: Starver on October 29, 2016, 06:23:40 pm
But all bants aside, why would I be touchy? We won m8.I won't repeat myself...
And as Tusk himself has said, there's no soft Brexit. Out means out.
Touchy: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159095.msg7219606#msg7219606
What means what: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159095.msg7211843#msg7211843
Post by: hector13 on October 29, 2016, 07:38:59 pm
Why the hell would we give Parliament 'a say'? We elect Parliament to do the boring business of everyday government because we're all too busy doing real jobs. For something important like Brexit we voted on it directly ourselves, and a decision was made.
The idea of Parliament overturning Brexit is like an important businessman telling his secretary that Joe Bloggs can't have a raise, but the secretary decides to give him one anyway. Later that week, as the secretary is being sacked and unceremoniously escorted out of the office by security, their wailing and cries of 'But I normally handle the payroll for you! Why are you sacking me?' echo up and down the office, as a warning to the rest of the secretaries lest they start thinking they're running the company.
The secretary later goes home to their apartment and slits their wrists in the bathtub. The obituary is short, and merely reads 'Ed Milliband tragically committed suicide after losing his job for gross incompetence. Again.'
Covenant with the strawman, ftw.
The question in the referendum was, essentially, "do you want to leave the EU?" not do you want to leave the EU but remain in the single market? What about border controls? Various taxes? Human rights?
Are there going to be referenda on that? No. That's why parliament wants to have a say. They might try to stop Brexit, but taking Labour's ridiculously stupid move after the vote, MPs tried to oust their leader, who was voted in by members of their party, and the members of their party voted him back as leader, and I find it hard to believe anyone can honestly expect an elected representative to say "nah, the people don't know what they want" and have them still be an elected representative. That shit won't fly. People know how to use social media, there'll be lists of MPs that go against the vote going around faster than a cat video.
... Remain and were decisively defeated...
lol 1.9% is decisive.
Remember when Farage was all "we won't accept a 52/48 split"?
Anyhow, my position:
May has said there's going to be no running commentary on their negotiating position. Far as I can tell, even four months hence, there has been no commentary whatsoever. Parliament shouldn't have any say on whether or not the UK leaves the EU, since folk already voted for it - however thin the margin. They should, however, be able to represent their constituents by having a say on whatever terms the UK should push for in the negotiations.
Not everyone voted for the Tories, but as things stand, the Tories are now negotiating for everyone, despite the aforementioned vagueness of the referendum question. Representative democracy ftw.
Post by: Radio Controlled on November 03, 2016, 06:04:23 am
Quote from: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37857785
Brexit court defeat for UK governmentSpoiler (click to show/hide)
In lighter news: Boris Johnson to make "Titanic success of Brexit". (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-says-we-will-make-a-titanic-success-of-brexit-a7394756.html)
Post by: Neonivek on November 03, 2016, 06:13:10 am
It doesn't help, I guess, that he kind of is a giant douche... but I should take what he says seriously instead of dismissing it out of hand.
Anyhow it isn't a "betrayal" for the courts to rule against Brexit if they consider it unconstitutional. Their job isn't to play partisan politics.
And yes it DOES suck when something good is stopped by courts (and great when something bad is stopped by them)... But I don't exactly consider the courts betraying the people.
BESIDES there are ways around the constitution... Just do that
Post by: scriver on November 03, 2016, 06:31:04 am
Sorry if I didn't respond to any comments aimed at me, I've been very busy with my projects. That said, here's a thing:Quote from: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37857785Brexit court defeat for UK governmentSpoiler (click to show/hide)
In lighter news: Boris Johnson to make "Titanic success of Brexit". (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-says-we-will-make-a-titanic-success-of-brexit-a7394756.html)
[/quote
Well, it's true if it suceeds and true if it fails. It's the most kind of true statement!
Post by: martinuzz on November 03, 2016, 09:53:32 am
Sorry if I didn't respond to any comments aimed at me, I've been very busy with my projects. That said, here's a thing:UK government appeals the verdict and wants to get it before Supreme Court. But yeah, setback for May and government. At the very least it means a delay. Dunno how long the waiting lists are for Supreme court cases in the UK. Could well be years.Quote from: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37857785Brexit court defeat for UK government
Post by: hector13 on November 03, 2016, 09:54:53 am
Post by: Radio Controlled on November 03, 2016, 10:02:21 am
Sorry if I didn't respond to any comments aimed at me, I've been very busy with my projects. That said, here's a thing:UK government appeals the verdict and wants to get it before Supreme Court. But yeah, setback for May and government. At the very least it means a delay. Dunno how long the waiting lists are for Supreme court cases in the UK. Could well be years.Quote from: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37857785Brexit court defeat for UK government
Saw somewhere they're putting it on a fast track and that the case will be heard in December, to avoid dragging things on forever.
FAKEDIT: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-latest-theresa-may-supreme-court-article-50-case-uk-eu-high-court-win-loss-a7395036.html
Post by: Leafsnail on November 03, 2016, 03:08:44 pm
The referendum was not binding, we knew from before it happened that any result would require a further act by parliament to implement.
Post by: Starver on November 04, 2016, 08:49:30 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37872899
Could end up as a water-temperature test, in advance of any other major votes (parliamentary or generally electoral)...
Post by: Neonivek on November 04, 2016, 08:53:27 am
The court didn't rule against Brexit, it ruled in favour of the basic manner in which our parliament has always worked. They'd do the same if the government tried to ignore parliament on any other issue.
The referendum was not binding, we knew from before it happened that any result would require a further act by parliament to implement.
No Nigel Faraday already said the courts betrayed all of the UK. His word is officially binding, because he is the King of England!
I don't quite know why Nigel portrays it that way mind you... He isn't stupid (A lot of things yes, but not stupid)
Post by: Leafsnail on November 04, 2016, 12:42:04 pm
Post by: Neonivek on November 04, 2016, 01:06:35 pm
Because he is dishonest.
Are... we allowed to put down Nigel?
I mean... I dislike him greatly and find him to be kind of a bigot who plays off of people's darkest desires.
But I assumed he was popular in the UK and kept waiting for people to get pissed off at me for even questioning his integrity.
Post by: hector13 on November 04, 2016, 01:13:19 pm
Post by: Starver on November 04, 2016, 02:00:39 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 04, 2016, 04:19:02 pm
Dang I have so little respect for Nigel it is like I have a douche filter over everything he says. It doesn't help, I guess, that he kind of is a giant douche... but I should take what he says seriously instead of dismissing it out of hand. Anyhow it isn't a "betrayal" for the courts to rule against Brexit if they consider it unconstitutional. Their job isn't to play partisan politics. And yes it DOES suck when something good is stopped by courts (and great when something bad is stopped by them)... But I don't exactly consider the courts betraying the people. BESIDES there are ways around the constitution... Just do thatNeonivek that's not what Nigel's saying
No Nigel Faraday already said the courts betrayed all of the UK. His word is officially binding, because he is the King of England!It is beautiful how the neoliberal world complains of the ignorance of the unwashed world, whilst proudly displaying their ignorance as highest intellect
I don't quite know why Nigel portrays it that way mind you... He isn't stupid (A lot of things yes, but not stupid)
I fucking died at King Faraday
If you're going to abandon the virtue of humility and plunge into full-smug, at least sit safely in a comfortable seat of objective superiority. If you can't even get the person right you're smug and foolish. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday) Anyways what Imperator Faraecilius Britanniae said is he fears a betrayal of what British voters voted for by their own MPs. He is not accusing the High Court of betraying British public, what he fears is that if our MPs are given the power to not invoke article 50, then they may very well do so in spite of their constituents wishes. Thus pro-EU MPs will proudly represent their constituents who voted to leave... By keeping Britain in the EU, which would make everyone sad :[
lol 1.9% is decisive.51.9 - 48.1 = 3.8
Remember when Farage was all "we won't accept a 52/48 split"?Nick Clegg can fight for a referendum to join the EU, once we've left it - that is fair :]
May has said there's going to be no running commentary on their negotiating position. Far as I can tell, even four months hence, there has been no commentary whatsoever.wat
There is too much commentary, right down to secret leaks
He's not well liked in the UK. He's well liked by bigots and morons, because he's a bigoted moron.You're in good company with the ubermillenial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtTvJXw4cbg)
Sorry if I didn't respond to any comments aimed at me, I've been very busy with my projects.Pretty much agreed
Parliament shouldn't have any say on whether or not the UK leaves the EU, since folk already voted for it - however thin the margin. They should, however, be able to represent their constituents by having a say on whatever terms the UK should push for in the negotiations.
Not everyone voted for the Tories, but as things stand, the Tories are now negotiating for everyone, despite the aforementioned vagueness of the referendum question. Representative democracy ftw.
The court didn't rule against Brexit, it ruled in favour of the basic manner in which our parliament has always worked. They'd do the same if the government tried to ignore parliament on any other issue.My thoughts on the whole court ruling is mostly these two posts, and some more. Which I shall now talk on!
The referendum was not binding, we knew from before it happened that any result would require a further act by parliament to implement.
So the "Parliament" (for sake of ease I am drawing a distinction between the cabinet and the members of parliament, referring to the MPs as "Parliament", when in full literal terms, Cabinet draws its members from the Parliament) does not have the power or authority to propose its own policies or make its own decisions in regards to things like UK foreign policy. The Cabinet is the executive branch of British government, whilst the Parliament is the branch of government that enacts the Cabinet's policies into law, scrutinizes it before that, and if it does not like it - rejects or repeals it. It then gets passed down to our civil service or MOD, which enacts the law into reality in whatever manner they can. Likewise whilst authority lies with the Cabinet and Prime Minister when it comes to formulating policy, Parliament acts as the arbiter (well, the High Court acts as the literal arbiter, but you get the idea), especially on matters of domestic concern. The most relevant example (to this discussion topic) by far - legislation to enact a referendum on EU membership was shot down for years and years on end (with David Cameron counting on his opposition to ensure he did not have to keep his promise without losing face), accidentally outliving his opposition too well, resulting in parliament approving of the referendum act. Rather annoyingly, the same Parliament that passed this act, is the one in which a coalition is forming to ignore the result of the referendum they approved.
You can see why we're concerned that not all of our MPs are sincere in expressing our views <_<
Parliament has a second mechanism with which they can scrutinize and enforce their will upon Prime Ministers and Cabinet members, the motion of no confidence. If Parliament does not like the PM, they can hold a vote to get rid of them and force the dissolution of Parliament, thereby triggering a new general election. This is pretty rare and no one has suggested it yet, but it exists and is worth mentioning, if for example Theresa May's popularity in parliament plummets over some scandal in the future.
The third mechanism is not a Parliamentary one, so much as one of Parliamentary party politics - parties within Parliament can trigger leadership elections to get a new leader in who then reshuffles cabinet (see: firing everyone who lost). Good examples from recent times are the attempts by Labour MPs to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow cabinet, though they have not had any success there. A very famous example would be Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher getting deposed through the Tory leadership election.
The public can also get rid of the Prime Minister by voting them out of their constituency. Whilst the Prime Minister could legally stay on as they don't have to be an MP, since before WWI every Prime Minister has been an MP for the simple reason that they most command the respect of the Commons and if they can't, they'll get removed soon. An informal check
Theresa May won the Tory leadership election and has support of the Commons and her constituency, so those options have been disabled for the time being. Parliament does however have this one trick up its sleeve, the one we've been talking about - since the high court ruling that the PM can't invoke article 50 without Parliament's support, this sets up an interesting precedent. As it stands now Parliament will vote to invoke article 50, it is simply not politically feasible for them to reject it; that is not where the fears from Leave are focused. The fear is that though Parliament will vote to invoke article 50, they will use the vote to force concessions from the government of the UK, to dictate the terms of Brexit - usurping the authority of the government, and placing effective executive power in the House of Commons.
To this end Nick Clegg is leading a coalition of MPs to try and force Brexit on his faction's terms. Rather exciting to see Nick Clegg back on the stage, as you may have found amongst many of my posts I have made many jokes about Nick Clegg, good to see him doing something relevant these days - my favourite politician with whom I disagree with. Anyways the terms Nick Clegg are describing are a soft Brexit, versus what he calls May's version as - hard Brexit.
Defining these terms and why they're problematic:
Essentially Phillip Hammond is arguing for what he terms 'soft brexit,' which is a formal withdrawal from the European Union that remains within EU institutions like the single market, whereas Theresa May is arguing for what Philip calls 'hard brexit,' which is withdrawal from all EU institutions. Again, rather surprisingly, I agree with Donald Tusk that there is no distinction between 'soft brexit' and 'hard brexit,' only 'membership' and 'brexit.' Reason being if we stay in the common market then our external trade with the rest of the world would be controlled by the EU, which just wouldn't make sense since our world trade is the majority of our trade, and we would have to sacrifice migration & security controls in order to keep that. Sans being one of the negotiators of course, so it would be the worse end of everything for everyone who's not a banker lolThe European Commission does not want a UK enjoying the benefits of the single market and the government of the UK does not want the European Commission overriding any decisions of the UK - thus both will struggle to accommodate the wishes of the Remain faction. To make matters worse, there is a time constraint, given that both the EU and the UK want to start Brexit ASAP with article 50 triggered by March 2017, in order to minimize damage to the UK economy and the Eurozone economy caused by political instability. Parliament holding additional debates on top of the PMQs and Committees they have already held would greatly lengthen the whole ordeal to the detriment of both parties involved.
There is also the whole issue of MPs acting on their own conscience in spite of their constituents' wishes. This is an important guess here: Most MPs will most likely act in accordance with the votes of their constituents. It is for example, not surprising that the Liberal Democrat MPs (pro-EU) representing constituencies in London that voted Remain, want to keep the UK as closely integrated with the EU as possible. If you have no issue with Parliament exercising a newfound authority on the government, you would have no issue with that. Where opposition such as myself takes issue is if MPs representing constituencies that voted to Leave take this as an opportunity to decide the terms of Brexit, placing themselves above the Cabinet on the basis of representing their voters whilst simultaneously acting against their wishes on the basis that they are Oxbridge elite, their voters are plebians. Would an MP be willing to betray its voters who wanted to Leave? In my personal experience, they have more than enough moral rationalizations to do so. Unfortunately, without no general election, there is nothing to replace them with an MP obligated to obey their mandate.
One should expect MPs not to behave so, but given that they are politicians and the stakes are high, naturally constituents are suspicious. There would be an obvious solution here: To hold a general election. This would allow parties to set out their parties' terms on Brexit and ensure MPs who don't represent their constituents would be replaced, however again, there is that blasted time constraint. Our government, German, French, Italian, Dutch, the rest and the Commission are ready for this dual reformation. "Sucks if there is going to be delays because of this," is how I understate this. Honestly if it has to come to it, I would much rather have Europe and the UK suffer & trigger a general election than allow these smug gits a single chance at having their will above the world.
Some hilarious quotes from The Guardian, which is pro-EU, quality British journalism (when their heads aren't in the clouds)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Oh, and it's worth mentioning that the legal case was started by an anti-brexit campaigner who is butting heads with the Attorney General, who said she was trying to subvert the democratic will of the electorate through the back-door. Top lel, that it was started by fund managers operating from luxury homes in the EU also makes it a goldmine of smugness
Moving aside from the usual shite, what happens in high court with the repeal is gonna set a juicy precedent. On the popular front of things, you get your Sarah Newtons who hate unelected bureaucrats overriding democracy, and thus the unelected judges overriding democracy will not go down well. Then you got those complaining that the likes of Nick Clegg leading the parliamentary faction keen on overturning the clear mandate having been voted out, again same issue. Whatever happens, serious power shifts are bound to happen between the Government, Parliament and High Court. A severe fault line has been exposed in our constitution:
The Government acts foremost in foreign policy, the Parliament acts foremost in domestic policy. Brexit is an act of foreign policy with huge impacts on domestic affairs (indeed, on British sovereignty). Thus a legal precedent must be set.
To get an idea of how seriously the High Court is treating this, it is very rare for 9 justices to sit on a case in the High Court. For this matter, for the very first time in British history, all 11 will be present at and adjudicating at the case. So if you hear someone saying this doesn't matter - tell them though it may be boring, it matters immensely.
Those are just my opinions though lol
Post by: Neonivek on November 04, 2016, 04:32:28 pm
Also I am glad I am entertaining someone. Though I am not sure why I'd be a Neoliberal O_o
Post by: Starver on November 04, 2016, 04:44:47 pm
37.442% - 34.712% = 2.73% (All registered voters)lol 1.9% is decisive.51.9 - 48.1 = 3.8
33.902% - 31.430% = 2.47% (All voting-age)
26.741% - 24.791% = 1.95% (UK population)
I stick with the first of these, but the others are as valid.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 04, 2016, 05:21:49 pm
Ahh that makes a lot more sense.I dunno man, your posts are kinda boring
Also I am glad I am entertaining someone.
They don't really explain your view or add any insight or facts to the discussion, they're mostly just affirmations of someone else's opinions with virtue signalling
Are... we allowed to put down Nigel?This post illustrates all I mean (in good faith). When you post like this, posting only an opinion based on the opinions of those around you, what worth is that? If this forum was entirely composed of those who supported Fāréi Huángdì why would you withhold your opinion based off of opposition - surely then it would be the most appropriate for you to explain why you oppose Nài jié? Conversely, why then do you only seek to reaffirm the opinions of those who already agree with you, preaching to the choir with only smug and no substance? I can tell you now, the Leave campaign did not win because its campaigners locked themselves in a room talking to its own supporters about how much better they were than Remain supporters, so why would you pursue the losing strategy?
I mean... I dislike him greatly and find him to be kind of a bigot who plays off of people's darkest desires.
But I assumed he was popular in the UK and kept waiting for people to get pissed off at me for even questioning his integrity.
Though I am not sure why I'd be a Neoliberal O_oJust what I got you penned as ~o.o~
Glad you agree, the first of these is to be stuck with37.442% - 34.712% = 2.73% (All registered voters)lol 1.9% is decisive.51.9 - 48.1 = 3.8
33.902% - 31.430% = 2.47% (All voting-age)
26.741% - 24.791% = 1.95% (UK population)
I stick with the first of these, but the others are as valid.
Dat 3.8% victory top kek
Are we going to be really that sad and try to manipulate stats to minimize the appearance of Remain's failure cos then you're just gonna open yourself to shitposting about how 75% of the UK's regions voted by majority to leave ;P
Also lmao, even rounding 1.95% down to 1.9
Post by: hector13 on November 04, 2016, 05:36:44 pm
He was late 'cause of the immigrants doing... something? to the M4 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/07/nigel-farage-blames-immigration-m4-traffic-ukip-reception).
The man is a bit of a tit.
Anyhow, you did bring up an early GE, LW; what do you think the chances are of that actually happening?
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 04, 2016, 05:56:39 pm
Just 'cause I'm not a huge fan Ed "too good for this fucking country" Milliband, I will provide one piece of evidence on Farage's moronic bigotry, mostly because I can't find the video I'm looking for in which UKIP was accused of being a racist homophobe by a passerby during an interview, to which he responded "we're not homophobes", which I found to be quite funny.WHO IS UKIP
WHY DOES HE WEAR THE PURPLE
Also I'm surprised by your supposed quote, I would've thought it'd be the other way around
He was late 'cause of the immigrants doing... something? to the M4 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/07/nigel-farage-blames-immigration-m4-traffic-ukip-reception).Why the ellipses, you know what he says from the quote
The man is a bit of a tit.
Quote
“It took me six hours and 15 minutes in the car to get here. It should have taken three and a half to four,” he later said. “That has nothing to do with professionalism. What is does have to do with is a country in which the population is going through the roof, chiefly because of open-door immigration, and the fact the M4 is not as navigable as it used to be.More people = more drivers
At any rate, he was jokin lol
Anyhow, you did bring up an early GE, LW; what do you think the chances are of that actually happening?Depends on the court ruling
As of now unlikely, since May believes the House of Commons (well, enough of it) supports her, that she could press on and continue with Merkel and Tusk
If however Parliament gets the vote, May may not take it in good faith that those supporting her will not manage to get their way. To trigger an early general election she'd have to get the assent of Parliament, but to that end Labour and the Tories both support an early general election, so unless Corbyn changes his mind she would be able to
Post by: Starver on November 04, 2016, 06:06:18 pm
a) For deliberately misinterpreting me, I shall now point out that in 51.9% vs 49.1% then it is true that just 1.9% (give or take small change) of votes need to switch to alter the result.Glad you agree, the first of these is to be stuck with37.442% - 34.712% = 2.73% (All registered voters)lol 1.9% is decisive.51.9 - 48.1 = 3.8
33.902% - 31.430% = 2.47% (All voting-age)
26.741% - 24.791% = 1.95% (UK population)
I stick with the first of these, but the others are as valid.
Dat 3.8% victory top kek
Are we going to be really that sad and try to manipulate stats to minimize the appearance of Remain's failure cos then you're just gonna open yourself to shitposting about how 75% of the UK's regions voted by majority to leave ;P
Also lmao, even rounding 1.95% down to 1.9
b) I'm not minimising the Remain failure, I'm pricking the thin membrane being used to over-inflate statements such as thar of Leave's 'overwhelming' success. Seriously, 'vast majority'? 'The country's mind is clear'? 'We all voted Leave to <insert speaker's own personal reason to vote Leave here>'? It's a mess. We haven't got a clear mind to Leave, just a slight swing to possibly doing so, and even those who want to Leave can' t agree what kind of Leave we want.
c) 50% of the UK's nations voted to Leave, about two thirds of the districts (strict district numbers) or 63% of the population (residents of those districts) or maybe half of the area (district sprawl), and you can have those 'justification figures' for free...
d) Wasn't me who "rounded 1.95 to 1.9", but if you want to know, I rounded 1.9497783... up to 1.95, to give you 2DP (reasonable enough, given I'd used 3DP for the subtraction*), but I could have rounded to 1DP and actually said 1.9% and you wouldn't have known a thing.
* Clarification, I'd displayed 3DP in the subtractions, and 2DP is a reasonable choice for the result as 1DP can easily get 'lost' in the rounding, but I'd actually used the whole display (10DP, although it was technically 2DP for the whole percentile and the other 8 for the percentile fractions) and/or calculator memory in the sum and only reproduced the truncated/traditionally rounded decimals for your delight and delictation. The point is that I was very thorough. A pity the 2016 population number was an estimation, but I religiously used the figure of "forty-six million, five hundred thousand and one" registered voters where relevent. Maybe that "one" was me, and without me it would have been the unbelievably rounded "46,500,000" instead. Like with Mt Everest.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 04, 2016, 06:16:10 pm
The backlash against the judges for making a legal decision really worries me.
Post by: martinuzz on November 04, 2016, 06:25:02 pm
The Telegraph tones it down a bit, but still worrisome: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/the-plot-to-stop-brexit-the-judges-versus-the-people/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/the-plot-to-stop-brexit-the-judges-versus-the-people/)
Ofcourse my newspaper's cartoonist couldn't resist. http://www.volkskrant.nl/foto/collignon-2~p4368444/4176159/
Post by: Starver on November 04, 2016, 06:49:56 pm
And it's that they are just so, so, so goddamn boring.I beg to differ, as I will soon prove to you with this 3-hour long Powerpoint presentation that I have prepared in advance for this exact situation... Now, bear with, as it starts with a joke embedded in a Victorian-style acrostic, which I may have to carefully explain to you.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 04, 2016, 06:56:04 pm
a) For deliberately misinterpreting me, I shall now point out that in 51.9% vs 49.1% then it is true that just 1.9% (give or take small change) of votes need to switch to alter the result.A nice sounding statement that is ultimately meaningless, except for making Remain's failure appear diminished.
The decisive victory was caused by a margin of 3.8%, when the original claim made was that it was 1.9%. That first claim is just wrong. The second statement that 1.9% of the votes switching would alter the result has nothing to do with the original claim and is completely irrelevant; 50% of the votes switching would have altered the vote, 0.1% of the votes switching would have altered the vote, and they didn't. Why should I abandon the legitimacy of victory to cater to alternate realities? In another dimension, let it be
b) I'm not minimising the Remain failure, I'm pricking the thin membrane being used to over-inflate statements such as thar of Leave's 'overwhelming' success. Seriously, 'vast majority'? 'The country's mind is clear'? 'We all voted Leave to <insert speaker's own personal reason to vote Leave here>'? It's a mess. We haven't got a clear mind to Leave, just a slight swing to possibly doing so, and even those who want to Leave can' t agree what kind of Leave we want.I can tell you now what would've pricked Leave more would be Remain getting 2,5M more votes it never had, and I'll do you one better for statements
I walked in on that day with so many Britons into the ballet box. I like all others read this question: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
Presented with two options:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
I don't understand where all these pro-EU MPs seem to get the idea that their constituents who ticked Leave the European Union were under some illusion that that meant, "Remain a member of the European Union," or "Remain a member of the European Union." Bit curious that? I'll keep to it lol that's the one thing we got definite clarity on
c) 50% of the UK's nations voted to Leave, about two thirds of the districts (strict district numbers) or 63% of the population (residents of those districts) or maybe half of the area (district sprawl), and you can have those 'justification figures' for free...Tyvm good netizen
d) Wasn't me who "rounded 1.95 to 1.9", but if you want to know, I rounded 1.9497783... up to 1.95, to give you 2DP (reasonable enough, given I'd used 3DP for the subtraction*), but I could have rounded to 1DP and actually said 1.9% and you wouldn't have known a thing.
The Telegraph tones it down a bit, but still worrisome: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/the-plot-to-stop-brexit-the-judges-versus-the-people/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/the-plot-to-stop-brexit-the-judges-versus-the-people/)
Ofcourse my newspaper's cartoonist couldn't resist. http://www.volkskrant.nl/foto/collignon-2~p4368444/4176159/
Quote
The Prime Minister pledged to face down any attempt to thwart Brexit, suggesting that she intended to dare MPs who support Remain to vote against her in Parliament, in a move which would provoke a constitutional crisis.Rofl half expecting May to roll into Parliament atop a Challenger 2, pointing a chain gun just above the benches
Sounds interesting tbhAnd it's that they are just so, so, so goddamn boring.I beg to differ, as I will soon prove to you with this 3-hour long Powerpoint presentation that I have prepared in advance for this exact situation... Now, bear with, as it starts with a joke embedded in a Victorian-style acrostic, which I may have to carefully explain to you.
Post by: Starver on November 04, 2016, 07:13:21 pm
It should (ignoring that first of all it wasn't even a sensible thing to ask) have been a three-hander. Leave/Status-Quo/Deeper-In. Then the lean (probably to Out) could have been recorded, but likely with the middling-ground prevailing. It would have stopped the 'feared' Superstate (the UK being "of Europe but not in Europe") but not have wrecked all the decent cooperative elements about it that few people utterly dismiss, if I'm not too far from imagining this.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 04, 2016, 07:14:39 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 04, 2016, 07:37:25 pm
There were people who read "Leave..." as "I want to annoy David Cameron", there were others who wanted "No purely hypothetical EU superstate, but everything else is Ok, thanks" and there were others who just don't like mayonaisse on their chips. The "I don't like Syrians, they're all terrorists" crowd are at the other end of the list and may or may not have good reasons to vote Leave, but that one wasn't it.We've gone over this, it didn't say "Leave..."
It said "Leave the European Union."
It should (ignoring that first of all it wasn't even a sensible thing to ask)Why? Seems obvious enough to you, not obvious at all to me.
Remain a member of the European Union.
Leave the European Union.
These are the choices the European Union presented us. David Cameron did not promise a referendum on integration, he promised a referendum on membership. There is no way for you to wiggle in all this nonsense without ignoring the very clear choice made
Then the lean (probably to Out) could have been recorded, but likely with the middling-ground prevailing.Haha, two option choices for EU membership on the card and one to leave. I'm glad you weren't in charge of the voting ballots xD
As for what the results would be, I don't particularly care, though I'd place my money on Leave still winning since this referendum itself was a rejection of status quo. I wonder as well, if splitting Remain's vote into two options wouldn't just stack all of Leave into one super-majority. Anyways my boredom is sourced from all up through the referendum, three months worth of hypothetical results and poll predictions saying Remain would win, I don't need even more hypotheticals even after they've lost xD
I'm happy to continue talking about this subject though, the hypotheticals of it all. Just not right now, too exhausted - I'll be off now till Sunday :<
It would have stopped the 'feared' Superstate (the UK being "of Europe but not in Europe") but not have wrecked all the decent cooperative elements about it that few people utterly dismiss, if I'm not too far from imagining this.Yeah you're pretty far off. The European Commission has made it pretty clear, you're either a member of the European Union or you're not, and there is only one direction for European Integration - further. When even Germany was saying the EU needed to slow down its pace of integration and reform, their reforms were further integration. What makes you think the EU would listen to a British referendum that said "give us all the benefits but you have no power over us unlike every other nation state within your fold." Every other nation would just seek the same agreement, so it would represent a unique challenge - for example how would we remain in the single market without also having the EU control our external tariff rates?
Since the margin was so small many MPs will have constituencies that voted against Brexit.Noted, see here:
There is also the whole issue of MPs acting on their own conscience in spite of their constituents' wishes. This is an important guess here: Most MPs will most likely act in accordance with the votes of their constituents. It is for example, not surprising that the Liberal Democrat MPs (pro-EU) representing constituencies in London that voted Remain, want to keep the UK as closely integrated with the EU as possible. If you have no issue with Parliament exercising a newfound authority on the government, you would have no issue with that. Where opposition such as myself takes issue is if MPs representing constituencies that voted to Leave take this as an opportunity to decide the terms of Brexit, placing themselves above the Cabinet on the basis of representing their voters whilst simultaneously acting against their wishes on the basis that they are Oxbridge elite, their voters are plebians. Would an MP be willing to betray its voters who wanted to Leave? In my personal experience, they have more than enough moral rationalizations to do so. Unfortunately, without no general election, there is nothing to replace them with an MP obligated to obey their mandate.Tl;dr is no one's too bothered by an LD representing one of the London constituencies doing exactly what their mandate says on the tin: Campaign for EU membership til the end. We're a lot more worried by those leftover Tories and Labour who sit on constituencies that voted Leave, some of whom have said anonymously they'd respect their constituents, some of whom rather euphemistically say they will vote with their conscience against their constituents' "self harm." Cheeky authoritarians
One should expect MPs not to behave so, but given that they are politicians and the stakes are high, naturally constituents are suspicious. There would be an obvious solution here: To hold a general election. This would allow parties to set out their parties' terms on Brexit and ensure MPs who don't represent their constituents would be replaced, however again, there is that blasted time constraint. Our government, German, French, Italian, Dutch, the rest and the Commission are ready for this dual reformation. "Sucks if there is going to be delays because of this," is how I understate this. Honestly if it has to come to it, I would much rather have Europe and the UK suffer & trigger a general election than allow these smug gits a single chance at having their will above the world.
Post by: Starver on November 04, 2016, 07:50:39 pm
We've gone over this, it didn't say "Leave..."You know very well that it was a handy ellipsis that was always going to be easily understood as refering to the longer version. I even ignored the "kek" in a prior message to try and justify my abandoning my self-restricting moritorium on trying to negotiate with your particular brand of wilful and obdurate contrariness. I should know better.
It said "Leave the European Union."
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 04, 2016, 08:06:08 pm
You know very well that it was a handy ellipsis that was always going to be easily understood as refering to the longer version. I even ignored the "kek" in a prior message to try and justify my abandoning my self-restricting moritorium on trying to negotiate with your particular brand of wilful and obdurate contrariness. I should know better.Well this is disappointing
I originally wrote out
"We've gone over this, it didn't say "Leave... I want to annoy David Cameron" e.t.c. (with the rest typed out in the same format).
Just thought it got to the point far quicker to just put it was not "Leave..." but "Leave the European Union." It was obvious you were trying to avoid the beautiful simplicity of the statement "Leave the European Union" to suggest that people who chose "Leave the European Union" did not intend to "Leave the European Union," and the former is far more laconic than the latter. I deliberately ignored your long versions because they are wrong.
Thus you want me to read "Leave... No purely hypothetical EU superstate, but everything else is Ok, thanks."
I want you to read what was actually voted for on the ballots: "Leave the European Union."
End of the day, while this conversation is fruitful, the notion that those who chose "Leave the European Union" really wanted to stay in the European Union is something you cannot negotiate on - it's wrong.
Post by: Neonivek on November 05, 2016, 05:07:18 am
Ahh that makes a lot more sense.I dunno man, your posts are kinda boring
Also I am glad I am entertaining someone.
They don't really explain your view or add any insight or facts to the discussion, they're mostly just affirmations of someone else's opinions with virtue signalling
Your really REALLY assuming a lot out of me that isn't there :P (as well as the typical completely misunderstanding my basic words)
Though I guess I should step up my game a little... No that would actually be a bad idea. Since it would make you defensive and then I'll have to deal with defense posts... Instead of "Ohhh!" and defense posts are always worse.
I am just waiting for a development but it seems like the UK has "relatively" calmed down.
---
Quote
End of the day, while this conversation is fruitful, the notion that those who chose "Leave the European Union" really wanted to stay in the European Union is something you cannot negotiate on - it's wrong
There is certainly an argument there. It was certainly the case where people were surprised that leaving the European Union meant leaving the European Union and kind of wanted all the advantages with none of the disadvantages.
A Similar thing happens in a war where people will call for one... and then are surprised that going to war means you actually go to war. They wanted the imaginary perfectly perfect moralistic war in their head where no one died.
Though I'd have no idea how one could argue it and come up with numbers... Though I doubt one could make it for ALL the Leavers.
It... Actually is a very interesting topic that I would like to see though. Not because of "Boo! Leavers" (so stow that).
Post by: Leafsnail on November 05, 2016, 09:53:25 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 05, 2016, 10:02:03 am
One good thing that's come from the Daily Mail hatemongering over this ruling is that I've learnt we have an openly gay ex-olympic fencer sitting on our high court. That's pretty awesome.
Now that is an interesting career path. (No, not saying gay is a career path).
Though... hmmm... It actually made me check if being gay could prevent you from going to the Olympics and so far I can't find anything on that.
Though Daily Mail Hatemongering? Can you explain this? Last I heard anything like this was the initial surge of bigoted hatemail being sent to foreigners after the initial Brexit results.
Post by: RedKing on November 05, 2016, 10:55:40 am
Having an independent court that ensures that the government is acting within the law is an important part of democracy.Meh....the losers in a judicial decision railing about "threats to democracy" is a standard part of democracy. Here in the States they use the term "judicial activism" to mean "Judge didn't rule the way I wanted, so fuck him and fuck the law".
The backlash against the judges for making a legal decision really worries me.
For my part, I'm giggling maniacally at the thought of all that potential thwarted Brexit rage. Britain will once again be the world's largest salt exporter, even surpassing the output of a Trump-boosted post-election America. (Now if Trump wins, all bets are off. We're talking Strategic-level salt deployment then.)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 05, 2016, 10:58:30 am
Er...There were a bunch of Remain supporters who voted Leave, mostly because they wanted it to be closer.You know very well that it was a handy ellipsis that was always going to be easily understood as refering to the longer version. I even ignored the "kek" in a prior message to try and justify my abandoning my self-restricting moritorium on trying to negotiate with your particular brand of wilful and obdurate contrariness. I should know better.Well this is disappointing
I originally wrote out
"We've gone over this, it didn't say "Leave... I want to annoy David Cameron" e.t.c. (with the rest typed out in the same format).
Just thought it got to the point far quicker to just put it was not "Leave..." but "Leave the European Union." It was obvious you were trying to avoid the beautiful simplicity of the statement "Leave the European Union" to suggest that people who chose "Leave the European Union" did not intend to "Leave the European Union," and the former is far more laconic than the latter. I deliberately ignored your long versions because they are wrong.
Thus you want me to read "Leave... No purely hypothetical EU superstate, but everything else is Ok, thanks."
I want you to read what was actually voted for on the ballots: "Leave the European Union."
End of the day, while this conversation is fruitful, the notion that those who chose "Leave the European Union" really wanted to stay in the European Union is something you cannot negotiate on - it's wrong.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 05, 2016, 01:00:22 pm
Now that is an interesting career path. (No, not saying gay is a career path).They branded the judges 'enemies of the people', specifically calling out one as openly gay.
Though... hmmm... It actually made me check if being gay could prevent you from going to the Olympics and so far I can't find anything on that.
Though Daily Mail Hatemongering? Can you explain this? Last I heard anything like this was the initial surge of bigoted hatemail being sent to foreigners after the initial Brexit results.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 05, 2016, 03:03:55 pm
Your really REALLY assuming a lot out of me that isn't there :P (as well as the typical completely misunderstanding my basic words)Neonivek all the posts I have read of you show, is that you are fond of making judgements on other people's countries when you yourself don't know what's going on, and that you enjoy making sarcastic posts mocking others beliefs but refuse to provide any justification for your own :/
Any other poster who thought I was misunderstanding their words would for example, get moderately livid and prove me wrong, showing how I misunderstood their words. You just say it and do nothing, as if it means something O_o
Though I guess I should step up my game a little... No that would actually be a bad idea. Since it would make you defensive and then I'll have to deal with defense posts... Instead of "Ohhh!" and defense posts are always worse.You don't need to step up your game, just put some effort into your posts, and the way you talk of "dealing with defense posts"
wat
No seriously what is that? Do you actually live in a world where everyone agrees with you? I cannot fathom someone for whom normal human dialogue is wasted in such a manner, or someone for whom a normal discussion is treated with threat assessment
I am just waiting for a development but it seems like the UK has "relatively" calmed down.If a development occurs what would you do? Because you don't want a discussion and I have no idea what you want in lieu of a discussion lol
There is certainly an argument there. It was certainly the case where people were surprised that leaving the European Union meant leaving the European Union and kind of wanted all the advantages with none of the disadvantages."It was certainly the case"
No it was not :P. For one you provide no evidence, for seconds this disagrees with all the campaigning I saw and for thirds the factions that campaigned to leave are currently campaigning to leave every EU institution, the drive to remain in the single market is being led by pro-EU MPs who campaigned on behalf of Remain. I haven't met a single person to date who voted to Leave the European Union, who was under the illusion that this didn't mean Leave the European Union, you may have confused those who wanted to ensure no trader barriers were erected with Remain who want to stay in the single market.
Kinda leaves me scratching my head in confusion at what insight you have found to make a definite argument ~o.o~
A Similar thing happens in a war where people will call for one... and then are surprised that going to war means you actually go to war. They wanted the imaginary perfectly perfect moralistic war in their head where no one died.Ah yeah now we're getting somewhere :D
Though I'd have no idea how one could argue it and come up with numbers... Though I doubt one could make it for ALL the Leavers.
It... Actually is a very interesting topic that I would like to see though. Not because of "Boo! Leavers" (so stow that).
I know what you mean, I know people who support a war fervently to protect civilians, then very passionately switch to opposing the self-same war the first moment a civilian is killed in the crossfire. I get the idea but I haven't found any evidence for it - if there was, there'd be more buyer's remorse. Reposting from before, despite the prevalence of Regrexit stories in the media (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/27/bregret-dont-bet-on-it/), there was no evidence that Remain or Leave voters had changed their mind. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/voters-showing-no-signs-of-buyers-remorse-over-brexit-top-pollst/)
I was in the local coop and saw the papers. It was basically 'THE JUDGES ARE EVIL AND WANT TO RUIN THE COUNTRY! HOW DARE THEY BE SUCH BASTARDS!'They're now roasting Liz Truss for not condemning the press (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37883576)
I was stood there thinking 'They interpret the law. You want to get pissy with them for being as unbiased as possible in interpreting the law?'
Of course, they're newspapers. The people running them would kill their own mothers if they thought it would generate enough controversy to sell more.
Speaking of, when is the appeal judgement going to be announced anyways? I can't find a lick of news on that, so I'm assuming it's announced whenever the 11 Justices figure out an answer they like
Post by: Neonivek on November 05, 2016, 03:19:18 pm
It is one of the major reasons why the UK can't do another referendum vote and expect a honest result.
Quote
I get the idea but I haven't found any evidence for it
I can only say it exists because... well... it must exist on some level due to human nature with at least some number of people.
But yeah not only could I never hope to tell you how prevalent it is (or how unprevelant)... But even if the laws of reality broke and 100% of the Leave votes were this, I don't think it is easily provable.
Though what I meant isn't so much that there are people who voted leave who didn't really know they were voted to leave the EU. So much that some might not have thought it through that leaving the EU means they might not have the same advantages as saying in the EU.
Which I'd point to newspapers and articles acting surprised that leaving the EU means they are leaving the EU... But they tend to be alarmist anyhow and likely played up the whole "What? We might not have the same trade position!?! This is incredulous!" aspect.
Post by: martinuzz on November 05, 2016, 04:09:51 pm
Post by: Starver on November 05, 2016, 04:13:59 pm
Though what I meant isn't so much that there are people who voted leave who didn't really know they were voted to leave the EU. So much that some might not have thought it through that leaving the EU means they might not have the same advantages as saying in the EU.Reminds me of the broadcast interview with someone outside* the place that they had voted to Leave, in, in a deprived part of Wales where they basically said "What has the EU ever done for this area?", whilst clearly visible behind them on the entry to the obviously new community centre/school/sports venue/whatever was the obvious "Financed by the EU Regional Development Fund", or similar, notice.
* The next day, when it was allowed again to be in the vicinity, as part of covering the result/fallout.
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on November 05, 2016, 06:07:58 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on November 05, 2016, 06:34:32 pm
Feel free to use this as a metaphor in whichever scenario ends up happening.
Post by: Radio Controlled on November 06, 2016, 06:18:57 pm
Quote
I know what you mean, I know people who support a war fervently to protect civilians, then very passionately switch to opposing the self-same war the first moment a civilian is killed in the crossfire. I get the idea but I haven't found any evidence for it - if there was, there'd be more buyer's remorse. Reposting from before, despite the prevalence of Regrexit stories in the media, there was no evidence that Remain or Leave voters had changed their mind.There was that study I linked to a couple of pages back that did show that the amount of 'regrexit' or whatever dumb term it has would be enough to change the outcome should another vote be held, but which also nuances this a bit.
For convenience: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159095.msg7222140#msg7222140
Post by: Radio Controlled on November 08, 2016, 04:47:24 pm
Quote from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-legal-challenge-live-supreme-court-theresa-may-permission-article-50-ruling-a7404971.html
Supreme Court gives Theresa May permission to appeal Article 50 rulingSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/06/nigel-farage-to-lead-100000-strong-march-on-supreme-court-on-day/
Farage to lead 100,000-strong march on Supreme Court on day of historic Brexit court hearingSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Finally:
Quote from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-campaigns-crown-prosecutors-cps-complaint-a7403161.html
Crown prosecutors consider complaint against Brexit EU referendum campaignsWonder if anything will come from this. Kinda doubt it right now, tbh. And then there's the shenanigans some of the remain campaign pulled (the leaflet thing springs to mind, though I'll say now I don't know the details of that), wonder if that will ever get addressed.
The letter accuses Vote Leave and Leave.EU of misleading votersSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 08, 2016, 06:07:41 pm
I'm a bit sad that the Brexit will be cancelled. Now Amsterdam won't get all the rich bankers.Be glad, rich bankers are very awkward because you can't live with them nor live without them, better to live in a world where you have no dependency on them to begin with
Reminds me of the broadcast interview with someone outside* the place that they had voted to Leave, in, in a deprived part of Wales where they basically said "What has the EU ever done for this area?", whilst clearly visible behind them on the entry to the obviously new community centre/school/sports venue/whatever was the obvious "Financed by the EU Regional Development Fund", or similar, notice.This is a monty python joke
* The next day, when it was allowed again to be in the vicinity, as part of covering the result/fallout.
Wonder if anything will come from this. Kinda doubt it right now, tbh. And then there's the shenanigans some of the remain campaign pulled (the leaflet thing springs to mind, though I'll say now I don't know the details of that), wonder if that will ever get addressed.Probably not, you'd end up having to prosecute everyone from Osborne to Boris and even Cameron
As it stands they've still got too much support from their camps to face legal action, hell look at Blair, he's the blood god to most of the UK but has enough friends still that he's a free man
I'm not even sure what laws could apply to them all under corrupt campaigning practices, as interesting as it would be to see most of the campaigners fined into oblivion :/
*EDIT
Trump has won the US election, which is significant for Brexit because he was the presidential candidate who supported Leave whilst Clinton supported Remain, and Trump went on to say the UK would be at the top of the list for trade negotiations in accordance with the special relationship
Also he kidnapped Farage to help him campaign in Ameriland. This is important as while Trump views the UK very favourably, he may not view our current government favourably, as May alongside most of the MPs on left, right and centre have criticized Trump, and Trump does not handle criticism well at all. That's ok, we'll just send Negotiator Boris to sort things out
Post by: Codician on November 09, 2016, 07:51:06 am
There was that study I linked to a couple of pages back that did show that the amount of 'regrexit' or whatever dumb term it has would be enough to change the outcome should another vote be held, but which also nuances this a bit.
For convenience: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159095.msg7222140#msg7222140
Is this like the polls before the Brexit vote where they said it was 60% of people voting to Remain?
Post by: Radio Controlled on November 09, 2016, 08:27:41 am
There was that study I linked to a couple of pages back that did show that the amount of 'regrexit' or whatever dumb term it has would be enough to change the outcome should another vote be held, but which also nuances this a bit.
For convenience: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159095.msg7222140#msg7222140
Is this like the polls before the Brexit vote where they said it was 60% of people voting to Remain?
Haven't looked into the methodologies of either (though for the latter there were different polls with different methods of varying reliability) so couldn't say for sure. It's true there have been a few 'high-profile' surprises when it comes to predictions from polls recently, but what that means exactly is hard to tell, though I think we'll hear more about that as time goes on. Maybe it's just a fluke of probability.
Post by: Max™ on November 09, 2016, 09:08:19 am
My bad.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 09, 2016, 01:11:39 pm
Post by: Innsmothe on November 09, 2016, 01:13:35 pm
Honestly I'm kindof relieved that Brexit won't be the worst decision made by a major western democracy this year. And the Special Relationship can continue, although it will now be a lot more like an episode of Jackass.Exports have now been confirmed down, so the last lie is exposed. Weak currency exchange =/= booming exports.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 10, 2016, 08:26:46 am
Haven't looked into the methodologies of either (though for the latter there were different polls with different methods of varying reliability) so couldn't say for sure. It's true there have been a few 'high-profile' surprises when it comes to predictions from polls recently, but what that means exactly is hard to tell, though I think we'll hear more about that as time goes on. Maybe it's just a fluke of probability.This is a weird phenomenon, I was looking at the Hillary emails and one of the things was a little piece on how they were trying to study public sentiments and voting intentions in the UK, very uncontroversial stuff. What was rather unusual was that they believed that if they were successful in creating a predictive model for the UK, they would be able to apply it to the USA - that is to say, the countries are similar enough that one model crafted here really can apply to over there.
Evidently the model applied to the UK and USA has failed for both
More than 2/3 of all our polls predicted Remain victory and Bookie odds for Remain victory were at 80%, over the pond all polls I saw predicted Clinton victory and odds were at 93% chance of Clinton victory
The cynic in me says polls are used as weapons and so should be ignored wherever possible, and one should always assume they will lose
Post by: Sergarr on November 10, 2016, 09:45:43 am
I've been hearing news that Brexit is getting cancelled by some insane judges who unfortunately have full support of the pro-Remain government
how did it come to this I thought that EU had finally got rid of the pesky Englishmen
Post by: Starver on November 10, 2016, 10:01:21 am
The cynic in me says polls are used as weapons and so should be ignored wherever possible, and one should always assume they will loseThe polls will lose?
What I think you mean is that "whatever the polls say, they are wrong", which is like a more complicated way of saying "when I roll this dice it will never land on the six", and thus just as wrong.
My theory is that perhaps we're moving into a post-status quo world. In modern times, whilst still mostly beholden to Dunbar's Number, we have far more dynamic social networks in which breaking and remaking, by choice or otherwise, and we are more likely to find some transient links far beyond the traditional community, and sometimes a network of networks (now far easier to form) representing off-static pressures rumble the traditionally 'underground' views in ways that only recently has been seen.
See the domino-falls of uprisings, without even a single common goal other than "not what we have now". A far cry from the conformist "my country/party/whatever, right or wrong" that did occasionally break, under tension, now there's a vastly increased affinity with non-locals where the ties that bind 'us' are less significant and the motivations to try something new are distilled into a more potent mix.
The art of polling perhaps needs just to factor in this destabilising effect, more, in calculating the lack of community binding that would previously have meant sampling of a given number of individuals was indeed good enough to determine their physical locality's tendencies, their classes and their superclasses.
(Grrr. Rather stupidly, I'm trying to write this whilst John Redwood is being condescending to an interviewer in the background. I normally could write this and listen to that at the same time, but just had to pause it as too distracting.)
Post by: Starver on November 10, 2016, 10:14:03 am
Okay so what the fuck is going onUnless there's something breaking, this sounds like the thing from the other day where the government/cabinet (not all pro-Remain, but certainly heading that way) is being asked to make sure that parliament (all MPs, as representatives for their people) get a vote on the shape of the Brexit.
I've been hearing news that Brexit is getting cancelled by some insane judges who unfortunately have full support of the pro-Remain government
how did it come to this I thought that EU had finally got rid of the pesky Englishmen
Brexiteers are deathly afraid that this means Brexit will be cancelled, despite their 'overwhelming' public victory, and so are moaning about Bremoaners. In reality, the all it'll do is give the competing views about how-and-how-much we leave a better airing than having the narrow viewpoints of the chief Leave-makers dominate, upsetting potentially even half the "yes, we meant Leave" camp. There's already been a pro-EU MP in an anti-EU constituency who has decided to step down because he wouldn't want to vote his conscience vs. his constituents' wishes, so it's looking like Leave is being directed by on-the-ground feelings, and now we can get a better feeling of whether or not we are willing to trade Equivalence along with Free Movement, or whatever...
Post by: Starver on November 10, 2016, 10:42:57 am
Speaking for the Brexiteers, we're really not that worried about it mate.Maybe you're cocksure, but I see a lot of worries. Depends on why the person wanted Brexit. It's not so much a broad church as various competing chapels.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 10, 2016, 11:05:12 am
The polls will lose?No, one should always assume they will lose
What I think you mean is that "whatever the polls say, they are wrong", which is like a more complicated way of saying "when I roll this dice it will never land on the six", and thus just as wrong.Oh I get it, there's a confusion with what I said
Sorry about that
I'm referring to how everyone was making plans on what to do on the event of Leave's defeat, on what to do on the event of Trump's defeat, because they were assuming based off of all the scientific polls that their absurdly high victory chances signaled guaranteed victory. Thus the Leave campaign fought like a cornered animal whilst the Remain campaign was complacent & arrogant, I do not know enough about the American campaigns to talk otherwise but I hear the Republicans were high energy whilst the Democrats were killing their own high energy millennials... Which is an odd strategy, but moving on - one should always assume they're losing. Polls are bullshit, one side uses them to inflate the perception vs actual popularity of their views whilst the other uses them to lull their opponents into arrogant complacency.
Thus LW recommends that one should always assume they are the only person in the world who holds those beliefs, never taking for granted that the rest of the world agrees with you. I took a look at prediction maps for Remain made by Remain for example, forecasting a yellow Britain with only Wales, Northern Ireland and Southwestern England voting to Leave, compared with the reality where even Labour strongholds voted Leave. I took a look at the EC USA map predictions made by Democrats forecasting a sea of blue, contrast with the reality where all but one swing state bled red. I think liberal populations in this century are especially hurt by this informational bubble, because of how their populations are concentrated in dense urban & academic centres. They meet millions everyday who share the same views and same beliefs, never encountering anyone who says anything to the contrary. Couple with the general partitioning of informational communities based off of political belief, this creates a serious shitfest of a political bubble for them. As a consequence they don't understand how few people support them and they also don't know how their opponents think, which in turn can cause alienation as urban centres also act as the conduits for most power - media, financial, political and technological. It would be tough to fix this, as it is not really something you can change, nor do people want to change
A great piece on this from a remainer (http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2016/08/23/eu-me-and-social-media-filter-bubble)
Conservatives in the UK don't fall afoul of this as much because they have to understand, learn and work in the liberal cities of the world if they are to get anywhere in life, so they understand their opponents' strategies and thinking. They also understand their own weaknesses, as they see how many do not support their views. And when it comes to online stuff, maybe not basic bitch conservatives, but certainly the more esoteric members are much more averse to informational bubbles - you'll see edgelords on 4chan go to tumblr and reddit, but never the other way around.
IRL I occasionally bring this up in London to my liberal mates and they're not all that interested in these principles, of self-knowledge, self-judgement and learning from your opponents. Basically because they find them boring, disagreeable or bigoted, on the contrary if you look at some of the people in Leave - they were collecting information from people, not polls, for decades. I also find it fun to learn from the free market of ideas personally :>
Also kill snobbery wherever it lies. Arrogance kills. My one observation made clear is that the Tory party has been too long dominated by the smug, and it is only through sheer misfortune that their opponents managed to actually outsmug them, and thank God that May is reversing the smugness. It is rather worrying seeing the liberal reaction to these two defeats, that of Brexit and Trump. Their reaction seems not to have been one of learning, but one of a backlash and desire to be as pure progressive as possible, refusing any compromise whatsoever.
I will add this as I do find it undesirable that the liberal world still wants to be useless and uncompetitive, as in the democratic world where the ruling parties have no opposition, corruption and complacency is abound - and if Labour doesn't unfuck itself in mind, party and soul, then I suspect after May's retirement things will go downhill. You can't have a functioning democratic country if you're content with a large portion of it being dysfunctional lol, and with no oversight, what is functional becomes dysfunctional
My theory is that perhaps we're moving into a post-status quo world.I was reading the NewStatesman the other day and this was really compelling for me:
The world is changing in ways the British left cannot comprehend. (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/strange-death-liberal-politics)
Quote
A lesson of the past few days is the danger of groupthink. Along with the major international institutions, the assembled might of establishment opinion – in the CBI and TUC, massed legions of economists and a partisan Bank of England – was confident that the existing order here and in Europe would be preserved by promises of unspecified reforms. Until around 2am on the morning of Friday 24 June, the bookies and currency traders followed the playbook that had been given them by the authorities and the pollsters. Then, in a succession of events of a kind that is becoming increasingly common, the script was abruptly torn up. A clear majority of voters had reached to the heart of the situation. Realising that the promises of European reform that had been made were empty, they opted for a sharp shift in direction. The consequences can already be observed: rapid political change in Britain and an accelerating process of unravelling in the European Union. The worldwide impact on markets and geopolitics will be long-lasting and profound.I remember talking in one of the Yurop politics threads, someone thought all my shitposts were of the death of the world, I remember replying how my guesses were not the death of the world, they were the death of the liberal world. Cold war is long over and the liberal world has no desire to change with the times :[
The D20 can always roll a 1Speaking for the Brexiteers, we're really not that worried about it mate.Maybe you're cocksure, but I see a lot of worries. Depends on why the person wanted Brexit. It's not so much a broad church as various competing chapels.
Caution is always warranted, and I think May's public statement of confidence does not stand up to reality, the possibility of the High Court ruling in favour of the Commons is possible, and the likelihood that all the MPs professing support for her are lying to her is very likely. Simply put it is better to be in a situation where MPs can't turn back on their word than be in a situation where they can, because they probably will when the stakes are this high
Post by: Starver on November 10, 2016, 11:26:24 am
Post by: Dozebôm Lolumzalìs on November 10, 2016, 11:28:32 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 10, 2016, 11:38:00 am
Sorry, but I didn't get a consistent message from that. My inability, I'm sure. Not ignoring you, just don't actually know what to agree/disagree with you about.Basically
1. Don't listen to polls. If they tell you that you are winning, work on the assumption that you are losing.
2. Don't be smug
3. Know who you are, know you you are facing, hear your critics
Post by: Dorsidwarf on November 10, 2016, 11:54:19 am
Sorry, but I didn't get a consistent message from that. My inability, I'm sure. Not ignoring you, just don't actually know what to agree/disagree with you about.Basically
1. Don't listen to polls. If they tell you that you are winning, work on the assumption that you are losing.
2. Don't be smug
3. Know who you are, know you you are facing, hear your critics
This is probably the best advice I've heard in any of the bay 12 political threads, with the possible exception of "make the byzantines assault you in mountain strongholds to kill them off through attrition "
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 10, 2016, 12:05:08 pm
This is probably the best advice I've heard in any of the bay 12 political threads, with the possible exception of "make the byzantines assault you in mountain strongholds to kill them off through attrition "
Spoiler: byzantine galleys folded gorillion times abbasid pls nerf (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 11, 2016, 11:23:52 am
This is a very long article, but holy shit am I glad I found it and read it. It is a very similar expression of my comments on the smugness of the liberal world as seen by an American liberal, and pretty neatly outlines why the liberal world has gone from being the world order of the 21st century to despised across the world and undone at every chance. What is worrying is just how similar our experiences are, even though we live worlds apart in all senses of the word, and should not be experiencing the same phenomena.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 12, 2016, 09:07:42 pm
Post by: Starver on November 12, 2016, 09:14:18 pm
Mai waifus might be fighting (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37965089)It'd be a notable meeting of mind, except that Trump already met Farage.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 12, 2016, 09:29:40 pm
It'd be a notable meeting of mind, except that Trump already met Farage.Yeah, before Trump became President of the USA, back when the polls were saying Hillary was 93% likely to be victor
Now Farage's the first politician of Britonland to see President Trump and not Prime Minister May or Foreign Secretary Johnson
Just
Farage
cheeki breeki
*EDIT
BoJo is weighing in (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37963046)
Quote
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will not attend a European special meeting called to discuss Donald Trump's US election victory.Ahahaha 2016 is the best year ever ahahaha 2017 we all die ahahah
The Foreign Office spokesman said: "The foreign secretary will not attend the meeting convened for Sunday. There is a regular Foreign Affairs Council meeting on Monday where a range of issues can be discussed in the normal way.
"We do not see the need for an additional meeting on Sunday because the US election timetable is long established. An act of democracy has taken place, there is a transition period and we will work with the current and future administrations to ensure the best outcomes for Britain."
On Friday Mr Johnson said: "With respect to my beloved EU friends and colleagues, I think it is time we snapped out of the general doom and gloom about the result of this election and the collective whinge-o-rama that seems to be going on in some places".
Post by: Starver on November 12, 2016, 09:46:49 pm
Now Farage's the first politician of Britonland to see President Trump and not Prime Minister May or Foreign Secretary JohnsonI suspect that Johnson+Trump is like the virtual particle/antiparticle pair reanihilating in the quantum foam. They look the same, they have the same spin and many similar qualities, just one is +clever inside, -clever on the surface and the other is the reverse polarity. Anyway, the point is that I don't expect to see them in the same room for quite a while.
May's not a priority, either, even if he's apparently invoked the Maggie And Ronnie Show of the '80s (I forget if you've suggested you're old enough to remember that era, but I'm always assuming you' re not from your affected online persona).
But, seriously, it really means nothing.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 12, 2016, 10:27:37 pm
Boris Johnson is amazingly shameless in his u-turns even for a politician
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 12, 2016, 10:31:01 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/09/boris-johnson-slams-donal_n_8758292.htmlBoris doesn't U-turn, he solely traverses the roundabout
Boris Johnson is amazingly shameless in his u-turns even for a politician
But, seriously, it really means nothing.Means plenty for entertainment though
Post by: Max™ on November 13, 2016, 01:55:57 am
It's also why I was annoyed that the whole situation was "attack Trump and his voters" rather than "explain why you should vote for Hillary" which was much the same over there, "Leave voters are dumb and hateful" 'ok, but why should we stay?' "BECAUSE YOU'RE DUMB AND HATEFUL" didn't work then, didn't work Tuesday either.
Though the alt-right and the /pol/ sections of it are full of the same smug in a different flavor with all their talk about red-pilling and whatnot, so the real lesson is: if ur waifu is a person then ur waifu a shit cause people a shit.
Post by: Neonivek on November 13, 2016, 02:12:57 am
Poor poor majority, so abused, so unloved. All alone in this world with their majority, if only they could be like the completely respected minority. I mean no one says anything bad about Hillary Supporters and Stayers.
Which is this sort of circular thing isn't it?
Stayers: Dang it leavers stop being so racist!
Leavers: Dang it Stayers stop abusing us!
Stayers: Dang it Leavers stop being such wimps!
Leavers: Dang it Stayers stop being such jerks!
It is almost like no one is looking good here... and no I am not going to play who was worse.
Because as with the Trump campaign there were very important issues brought up and while Anti-Trump was "Your Racist!" the Pro-Trump was "What racism?"... Mostly because they believed if they acknowledged it on any level it would invalidate them.
Irrational Anger Versus Irrational Denial FIGHT!
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 13, 2016, 03:32:01 am
That smug article goes right to what Bill was saying the whole time apparently. "Court the disaffected middle class whites, don't treat them as easy wins" and oh look, the First Almost-Dude was right.Seems like Bill's all right
Though the alt-right and the /pol/ sections of it are full of the same smug in a different flavor with all their talk about red-pilling and whatnot, so the real lesson is: if ur waifu is a person then ur waifu a shit cause people a shit.I disagree, different phenomenon entirely
alt-right aren't smug, they're degenerate, and /pol/ isn't smug, they're hateful. There was only one side that had millions of people lauding their own degrees, own wealth, at the poor idiots (in the USA I love the Bernie Sanders campaigners who coined the term "low information voter" for African Americans who voted Clinton or Trump, as if they only needed to know the obvious truth that they were too stupid to vote in their own interest). The scale and symptoms do not compare - the alt-right and /pol/ are tiny fringe communities with vastly disproportionate shitposting power to their population, similar to CTR and SJWs - differences noted in how they operate differently, one through dank memes and the other through social media activism for example. The issue of smugness is not one addressed to fringe groups of SJWs or /pol/ wherein we can make BBC certified impartial slates of both groups as impartial third party bystanders, it is one addressed to liberals. Normal people, millions of them, once the majority in the West - maximum smug. Yesterday alone I had to put up with multiple monologues and diatribes about how female voters in America are full of internalized misogyny, are voting against their interest, how African Americans are voting against their interest, how terrible the UK is (but still far superior to US liberals, even in defeat virtue signal), got text messages from people curled up in foetal balls asking me if my country was as retarded as the USA; my most interesting conversation was someone who'd come from Canary Wharf. We didn't talk of where our political views lay with Brexit, or for that matter the US elections, what we talked about was how remarkable it was that everyone was unanimous in their opinions.
So when I went to SW England a few years ago (before the European parliamentary votes) there were massive UKIP signs spread out from hill to hill, whilst back at home the great contest was between social liberals, social democratic liberals or liberals, everyone concurring that the European Union was the best thing ever :P. Unanimity based on geography. But one thing I did notice was that all the people in the countryside were honest workers, working in salons, docks, farms, shops, transport, engineering, real salt of the earth; a few thought it amusing my accent didn't match with my ethnicity and showed me especial hospitality, and they treated themselves with humility. I contrast that with some of my best friends who are liberals and they genuinely believe that liberals are more qualified to know what's best for their countrymen than their countrymen. Their success, intellect and power grants them status, status not tempered by British humility, because British humility is not European and so never learned :[
One thing that article did really well was talk on how the comedy catered to liberals illustrated more about them than the targets of satire. No longer about making yourself laugh and hurt, it became about laughing at someone else to rally liberals around their own superiority. I had a great chuckle watching the transition of Mock the Week, where a bunch of socially liberal comedians did just that - mock the news of the week. Absolutely fantastic, wonderful, then the comedians started getting old and they replaced them with socially liberal comedians of a much younger, smugger generation. It felt bizarre seeing comedians ask "how do we ban UKIP", no setup or punchline, and the audience laughing in support. ~o.o~
Is liberalism conducive to smugness, or is the fact that most liberals are elite that lends them to smugness? Don't know honestly, all I do know is that it's done a lot to kill them
P.s. no ur waifu a shit
Poor poor majority, so abused, so unloved. All alone in this world with their majority, if only they could be like the completely respected minority. I mean no one says anything bad about Hillary Supporters and Stayers.See what I mean about this smug, it's just repulsive to normal people
Which is this sort of circular thing isn't it?This has never happened
Stayers: Dang it leavers stop being so racist!
Leavers: Dang it Stayers stop abusing us!
Stayers: Dang it Leavers stop being such wimps!
Leavers: Dang it Stayers stop being such jerks!
It is almost like no one is looking good here... and no I am not going to play who was worse.
Because as with the Trump campaign there were very important issues brought up and while Anti-Trump was "Your Racist!" the Pro-Trump was "What racism?"... Mostly because they believed if they acknowledged it on any level it would invalidate them.I'm pretty certain that wasn't the case but I don't want to get into that in Brexit thread
I'll just say this, cos your argument is very applicable to Brexit, back when the socialists and conservatives were eroding away at the liberals, the liberals still held media and state dominance, and had immense power in narrative control within the city. The moment you answer to your opposition is the moment your opposition controls your narrative, and of course they're going to tear you apart. They say your whole argument is the issue. Not only are you wrong, you're morally wrong, and you're now on the backfoot defending yourself against a smug opponent escaping scrutiny. Did Remain address the concerns of ethnic minorities voting to Leave? No. Did Remain address the concerns of the working class voting to Leave? Again, no. Because they did not want to disrupt their narrative of the enlightened versus the ignorant. Before Remain, there was Cameron, there was Brown, Blair and the important issues we're talking about today, they never took seriously, and whilst they showed such smiles for the camera, they showed their contempt in sincerety when caught unaware. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7645072/Gordon-Brown-calls-campaigner-bigoted-woman.html) Fucking hell, I've not met a single supporter of Corbyn or May who suggested taking away the voting rights of vulnerable groups, nah that's not beyond liberals, fuck old people, fuck poor people. Don't even get me started on the whole regrexit saga, of liberals genuinely trying to make the case that millions of people were too stupid to vote and thought "Leave the European Union" meant "Stay in the European Union."
A great exception in leadership I think was Nick Clegg, who never gave off that smugness, despite being talented and literal aristocracy he seemed humble enough, and had the gall to actually apologise for being such a failure to the public, which despite ending his career made me respect him more in retirement than service. Indeed in a better world he wouldn't have been such a failure and the liberals of UK could've unsmugged themselves, but towards the end even he became smugged. I still remember the hilarious slogan the LD used before getting absolutely slaughtered in GE, of how they'd add a brain to labour and a heart to conservatives. Well done at pissing off everyone eh? :D
Irrational Anger Versus Irrational Denial FIGHT!There are ways of rationally discussing this ya know fam
Post by: Max™ on November 13, 2016, 04:26:30 am
Our first black president was a gigantic manwhore, but he did know how to shmooze like nobody's business.That smug article goes right to what Bill was saying the whole time apparently. "Court the disaffected middle class whites, don't treat them as easy wins" and oh look, the First Almost-Dude was right.Seems like Bill's all right
Dunno man, I got curious about what was going on over there and watched various threads progress leading up to and after election night. The /pol/ folks running around trying to shitpost a meme into office were actually just discussing trying to grab some of the "Bernout" crowd who weren't really dems and could be given the whole Matrix "awakening" if they could be convinced to take the red pill, whereupon they would see how the various outgroups are trying to "keep the white man down" and be able to help them turn the SJW crowd against the minority crowd to leave the dems in ruins.Though the alt-right and the /pol/ sections of it are full of the same smug in a different flavor with all their talk about red-pilling and whatnot, so the real lesson is: if ur waifu is a person then ur waifu a shit cause people a shit.I disagree, different phenomenon entirely
alt-right aren't smug, they're degenerate, and /pol/ isn't smug, they're hateful. There was only one side that had millions of people lauding their own degrees, own wealth, at the poor idiots (in the USA I love the Bernie Sanders campaigners who coined the term "low information voter" for African Americans who voted Clinton or Trump, as if they only needed to know the obvious truth that they were too stupid to vote in their own interest). The scale and symptoms do not compare - the alt-right and /pol/ are tiny fringe communities with vastly disproportionate shitposting power to their population, similar to CTR and SJWs - differences noted in how they operate differently, one through dank memes and the other through social media activism for example. The issue of smugness is not one addressed to fringe groups of SJWs or /pol/ wherein we can make BBC certified impartial slates of both groups as impartial third party bystanders, it is one addressed to liberals. Normal people, millions of them, once the majority in the West - maximum smug. Yesterday alone I had to put up with multiple monologues and diatribes about how female voters in America are full of internalized misogyny, are voting against their interest, how African Americans are voting against their interest, how terrible the UK is (but still far superior to US liberals, even in defeat virtue signal), got text messages from people curled up in foetal balls asking me if my country was as retarded as the USA; my most interesting conversation was someone who'd come from Canary Wharf. We didn't talk of where our political views lay with Brexit, or for that matter the US elections, what we talked about was how remarkable it was that everyone was unanimous in their opinions.
They're convinced that everyone would be part of their conservative-ethnonationalist-white-male-countries-ruled-by-white-males-again if they weren't so dumb/blind/manipulated/worried about hurting feelings/wussies. They're cheering on Brexit as a success at doing this, they're cheering on Trump for the same reason, same folks are rooting on Le Pen I think?
They're far from the core group, but as you said, their shitposting ability far exceeds their numbers, and CTR was a lame attempt at counterinsurgency trying to fight them at the source on their home turf only to constantly fail and get run off back to reddit and whatnot.
Normally they would remain in their dark corners, full of gibbering madness, safely hidden out of sight, but Trump brought all this out and gave it an air of legitimacy. Pepe wasn't actually an alt-right or nazi thing, it just happened to be an in-joke that a bunch of alt-right memers used to amuse themselves when the media noticed it, and then suddenly it's being discussed seriously in election coverage by mainstream media channels for the glory of kek.
You're telling me it isn't smugness to discuss ways to wake people up so they see the rightness of your positions, knowing those positions include things which are actually reviled due to being awful like white supremacy, misogyny, anti-semitism, rather than just a difference of opinion like whether it is better to spend tax dollars on budget type A or type B, or whether the religious views of some should be able to affect the treatment and freedom of others?
I can accept that there are people who really believe Je-hee-eezu-uUu-us cares about piddly shit enough that government should get involved, and think that is a more important issue than education or social welfare.
I disagree completely, but I am not offended by the source of the positions.
I can think someone is wrong about whether government should step in on reproductive or marriage rights without having to demonize them as hateful monsters.
On the other hand, I think positions favoring encoding the superiority of a particular group at the expense of all others are wrong, and it is difficult to perform any mental gymnastics sufficient to argue that white supremacists and anti-semites and misogynists aren't hateful monsters.
There isn't nearly enough light shone on the hateful tendencies of the left, true, and they love painting the entire right for the shitposted views of a few assholes, but those same assholes are super smug, especially since they "shitposted a meme into office" just recently.
ps my waifu now is Gabbard, and she is the only time I've ever gotten excited at the thought of someone running for Pres because she rocks, so no u
Post by: Neonivek on November 13, 2016, 10:04:16 am
Quote
I'll just say this, cos your argument is very applicable to Brexit
I wasn't being off topic, I was giving an example.
Mostly because this example is nice because it doesn't bring in Remain or Leave. It leaves it up to the reader to decide what party I might be hinting at.
Unrelated: Yeah Remain was beyond deplorable in defeat.
Post by: martinuzz on November 13, 2016, 10:34:42 am
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexodus-citi-to-move-900-staff-to-dublin-pmjn6w69p
Post by: Neonivek on November 13, 2016, 10:39:11 am
It is the Brexpocolypse! We are heading into a Brexpression! This is Inbrexiveable!
Post by: SaberToothTiger on November 13, 2016, 12:44:18 pm
Post by: Max™ on November 13, 2016, 01:56:49 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 14, 2016, 02:45:42 pm
Spoiler: tl;dr reply to Covenant (click to show/hide)
)Spoiler: tl;dr reply to martinuzz (click to show/hide)
Final word: Lest we forget
*EDIT
Almost missed this post in typing replies
Post by: Max™ on November 14, 2016, 10:47:24 pm
He looked at your block of text and exploded, so you owe me a new parrot, this one has gone to sing with the choir.
Though I did know all of it either in full detail or general sweeps, except the reddit parts, the closest I get is being a user sub gatekeeper on imgur, semi-retired these days, and from that alone developing an irrational hatred of reddit due to people submitting things they just wanted to upload, over, and over, and over, and over... etc. Many parrots died, the Jedi felt it.
I've followed the strings through some of the oppo research threads, was actually there to see the 96000000 get, very amusing, but I don't really belong to any part of 4chan except /dfg/ so it's just as a lurker that I've interpreted various things. I did indeed interpret their use of "whites", various slurs, (((them))), and so forth as the big label mash-up, and you are right that they're not conservatives but here in the US they wear it loosely as a hat because it is the opposition to their opposition: liberals.
I'm not sure if I'm missing a usage of smug, but "acting extremely satisfied and confident in one's rightness/actions/self" sums up my use, and viewing this election as a victory at shitposting a meme into office while proving liberals are dumb definitely fits.
Post by: Angle on November 15, 2016, 04:29:17 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 15, 2016, 07:18:54 am
He looked at your block of text and exploded, so you owe me a new parrot, this one has gone to sing with the choir.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: parrot wall of text (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sheb on November 15, 2016, 08:54:13 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 16, 2016, 05:39:20 pm
Spoiler: broadly off topic but interesting stuff (click to show/hide)
Quote
An Italian minister has accused Boris Johnson of "insulting" his country by suggesting it should back his version of a Brexit deal or face losing sales of Prosecco sparkling wine.Truly we are witnessing international diplomacy like we've never seen before (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37995606)
Carlo Calenda said the UK would abandon some "fish and chips exports" under the foreign secretary's approach.
Post by: Neonivek on November 16, 2016, 05:41:22 pm
Post by: hector13 on November 16, 2016, 06:07:01 pm
Call me crazy... but I don't think the UK's Fish and Chip exports are very high.
I am quite confident in saying it's very much an internal market.
Post by: Starver on November 16, 2016, 06:21:09 pm
But Fish and Chips are big news! They're in all the (yesterday's) papers!Call me crazy... but I don't think the UK's Fish and Chip exports are very high.
I am quite confident in saying it's very much an internal market.
I suspect there'll be much salt. And loads of vinegar too.
Post by: hector13 on November 16, 2016, 06:24:24 pm
But Fish and Chips are big news! They're in all the (yesterday's) papers!Call me crazy... but I don't think the UK's Fish and Chip exports are very high.
I am quite confident in saying it's very much an internal market.
I suspect there'll be much salt. And loads of vinegar too.
What is this heresy? Salt and sauce, you fool.
Post by: martinuzz on November 16, 2016, 06:24:36 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 16, 2016, 06:29:46 pm
Post by: Starver on November 16, 2016, 06:58:32 pm
But Fish and Chips are big news! They're in all the (yesterday's) papers!Call me crazy... but I don't think the UK's Fish and Chip exports are very high.
I am quite confident in saying it's very much an internal market.
I suspect there'll be much salt. And loads of vinegar too.
What is this heresy? Salt and sauce, you fool.
Next thing, you'll be suggesting mayonnaise..!
Post by: wierd on November 16, 2016, 07:10:08 pm
Post by: hector13 on November 16, 2016, 07:56:28 pm
But Fish and Chips are big news! They're in all the (yesterday's) papers!Call me crazy... but I don't think the UK's Fish and Chip exports are very high.
I am quite confident in saying it's very much an internal market.
I suspect there'll be much salt. And loads of vinegar too.
What is this heresy? Salt and sauce, you fool.
Next thing, you'll be suggesting mayonnaise..!
Mayonnaise is nice!
... but not with a chippy, you are correct.
My lunch while at school was a bag of chips with copious amounts of salt, from a chippy up the high street. A betrayal of the highest order, as a friend's uncle owned the one across the road from the one I went to all the time. Ah well...
Post by: hector13 on November 18, 2016, 10:29:09 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 18, 2016, 10:51:54 am
Scotland and Wales get their say in Brexit Supreme Court appeal (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38027230).
Ok I would find it INCREDIBLY fascinating if Brexit was considered unconstitutional because Scotland and Wales themselves didn't vote leave as a whole and because they are direct allies they cannot be forced to leave.
Post by: hector13 on November 18, 2016, 10:53:35 am
But they have separate stuff going through the courts anyway.
Post by: Sheb on November 18, 2016, 11:01:59 am
Post by: Leafsnail on November 18, 2016, 05:03:54 pm
Post by: martinuzz on November 18, 2016, 05:33:07 pm
1) Scotland: "We want independence"
2) UK: "No, just no"
3) Brexit happens
4) Scotland veto Brexit.
5) UK grants Scotland independence by means of kicking them out of UK
Post by: Neonivek on November 18, 2016, 10:04:01 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2016, 11:08:51 pm
Post by: Max™ on November 18, 2016, 11:16:46 pm
Did you break reality and let in the gibbering non-euclidean horrors from outside the all, again?
Can we blame you for 2016 now?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 18, 2016, 11:20:06 pm
Post by: Max™ on November 18, 2016, 11:23:54 pm
Post by: wierd on November 18, 2016, 11:28:26 pm
Though perhaps, he is merely the mad prophet, and we are writing the dread necronomicon together, at this very moment.
Post by: Max™ on November 18, 2016, 11:33:00 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 22, 2016, 06:02:00 pm
In all seriousness I get it, she cannot afford to have the UK running a parallel authority, stuck between May and Farage, and his orange friend. Still disappointing :P
I think this is (particularly in regards to censorship of pornography) a case that there's not a mother or father in the UK who would disagree that their child should not have access to pornography, particularly given how extreme the internet takes its /d/egeneracy. More than that, I think the pornography industry is too powerful and unethical, but all the same is very hard to kill because the demand for it is ingrained in modern psyche (and may very well be ingrained in human DNA).
Quote
“This could lead to tens of thousands of websites being blocked, despite their content being perfectly legal.This is concerning, but we were always at war with eastasia ~o.o~
Inside my soul is a part of me that considers Edward Snowden best waifu and that mass surveillance is not the way to go. Yet no one cared then, nor cares now, and they are happy to let private corporations control what information they receive and what information they collect. It made that part of my soul go quiet. Thus I look on the bright side; May is martially aware of security matters, unlike Hammond who didn't know how the planes he was funding would land on the carriers he was funding (which to my dismay, I found out on the weekend) :/
Will May succeed in controlling the internet? Probably not, any time soon, but she'll probably succeed in making anonymity an increasing rarity and online accountability more common. This has disturbing consequences for shitposting tbh, I'm thinking back to when Cameron was going on about how tinfoil ppl were as dangerous as ISIS, even though that was blatantly untrue. Not too hard to label small people as tinfoil and then crush them unnoticed so rip in pese shitposting in the future
Post by: wierd on November 22, 2016, 06:08:40 pm
It is even complete with machine generated pulp news and culture, now that big data is a thing.
The US loves watching peoples thoughts, and the UK loves watching peoples bodies, and the two are perfectly OK with creating common narrative for why they do these things, and even to indulge the other in their shameless kink of choice.
I'm just waiting for the party to officially declare itself these days.
Post by: Starver on November 22, 2016, 07:26:30 pm
It honestly pains me to see the US and the UK eagerly playing the roles created for them in 1984.How about Brazil?
Which reminds me, I need a plumber...
...Waits to see whether anyone gets the right reference.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on November 23, 2016, 11:27:51 am
Quote
Don't be a fool. The goverment is only restricting the number of digits you can shove in for sexual stimulation. Other purposes (research, healthcare, scratching) are wholly unrestricted
EDIT: 'The censorship regime has led to bizarre understandings between the producers and regulators, Barnett said. One is the “four-finger rule”, which limits the number of digits that can be inserted into an orifice for sexual stimulation.'
I hope my kids ask about this in the future, for some kind of history project. Where were you when t. May started telling us how many fingers we were allowed to shove in our orifices?
Post by: scriver on November 23, 2016, 01:30:21 pm
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 02:01:02 pm
The reality is that the site's "female" population is about 70% chatterbots, (http://gizmodo.com/how-ashley-madison-hid-its-fembot-con-from-users-and-in-1728410265) but that aside, a number of eager, wealthy males have registered with the site.
Given the demographic (wealthy men, willing and able to waste money for pleasure, lots of them registered in one place) the site was a big target for identity thieves and blackmail artists, who hacked the site about 4 months ago, and made off with the user credentials store.
obig wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach
Next time, add a "/s" or similar designator of snide sarcasm. ;P
/s
Post by: martinuzz on November 23, 2016, 02:49:18 pm
Joe Cox campaigned to remain in the EU. While Mair killed her with gunfire and knife stabs, he screamed "this is for Great Britain", and "Britain first".
The judge ruled: "with your actions, you have betrayed the essence of our nation: dedication to parliamentary democracy"
Mair's bookshelves, and browser history showed the police that Mair had strong interest in nazis, white supremacy and Apartheid. According to the justice department, the murder clearly had a political or ideological motivation.
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 23, 2016, 06:54:54 pm
Spoiler: typicalbritpol discussion (click to show/hide)
Also here's an interesting idea no one's considered. Britain not triggering article 50(2) (http://uk.businessinsider.com/britain-does-not-need-to-trigger-article-50-to-leave-the-eu-2016-11)
*EDIT
Oh, and Martinuzz, you really kill me with posting news excerpts without any sources. It KILLS me. Makes it just a little bit harder to sift through disinfo, mistakes & bs. Your post for example has some inaccuracies
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/22/theresa-mays-ministers-defy-terrible-handling-donald-trumps/
The Prime Minister has been blamed by ministers and civil servants for her “terrible handling” of Mr Trump’s election win and allowing “a vacuum” to be created that was “filled by Nigel Farage”.
The backlash came after Mr Trump, the president-elect, urged Mrs May to make Mr Farage Britain’s ambassador to America.
There were claims from two sources that David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union secretary, “spoke regularly” with the interim Ukip leader, with one saying that Mr Davis “knows Nigel well”.
Senior Whitehall figures on Tuesday turned on Downing Street, accusing Mrs May’s most senior officials of “failing to engage properly” before and immediately after Mr Trump’s shock election win.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Leafsnail on November 23, 2016, 08:41:14 pm
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 08:44:07 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 23, 2016, 08:44:44 pm
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 08:47:07 pm
Post by: Max™ on November 23, 2016, 08:57:15 pm
That bit about not actually being required to go through with Article 50(2) does make the whole "UK has to do it NOW" stuff seem really sketchy.Spoiler: typicalbritpol discussion (click to show/hide)
Also here's an interesting idea no one's considered. Britain not triggering article 50(2) (http://uk.businessinsider.com/britain-does-not-need-to-trigger-article-50-to-leave-the-eu-2016-11)
*EDIT
Oh, and Martinuzz, you really kill me with posting news excerpts without any sources. It KILLS me. Makes it just a little bit harder to sift through disinfo, mistakes & bs. Your post for example has some inaccuraciesSee how much detail is lost (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38079594) without a juicy source as close to the primary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38071894) as possible? It's like Chinese whispers, the more lax you get, the more truth gets lostSpoiler (click to show/hide)Quote from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/22/theresa-mays-ministers-defy-terrible-handling-donald-trumps/The Prime Minister has been blamed by ministers and civil servants for her “terrible handling” of Mr Trump’s election win and allowing “a vacuum” to be created that was “filled by Nigel Farage”.
The backlash came after Mr Trump, the president-elect, urged Mrs May to make Mr Farage Britain’s ambassador to America.
There were claims from two sources that David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union secretary, “spoke regularly” with the interim Ukip leader, with one saying that Mr Davis “knows Nigel well”.
Senior Whitehall figures on Tuesday turned on Downing Street, accusing Mrs May’s most senior officials of “failing to engage properly” before and immediately after Mr Trump’s shock election win.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Not as sketchy as the shit you find in the dark corners of the net where prohibited porn lurks, though. I mean, holy fuckbags, let's ignore people crapping on kids while dogs fuck them so we can argue over whether the four finger rule applies to fingers from one hand, two fingers from two hands, one finger from four different people, or if the provision accounts for simultaneous involvement of multiple orifices! Do thumbs count as a finger? What about people who have lost a finger or two? Is an amputee nubbing someone acceptable? I mean, clearly it's more acceptable than the copropedobeastiality horrorshows out there, but goddamn, I thought we had some prudish issues over here in the US.
Post by: wierd on November 23, 2016, 09:02:53 pm
I dunno, but here in crazy world (the US), the more the prudes harp about dirty dirty sex, the more likely you are to find them playing footsie in the public lavatory.
Just saying, be more careful.
Post by: Max™ on November 23, 2016, 09:09:48 pm
WE LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU, DAD, ARE YOU PROUD OF US NOW FATHER?
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 24, 2016, 04:13:47 am
*EDIT
Two things:Sauce pls
1) Since it's here: Snoopers Charter petition (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199)
2) I LOVED how Nigel got upset with the government for not giving him the job. It'd be like me going into Gregg's and throwing a paddy because I wasn't given the job of interacting with the pastry-loving public.
All I got was Nigel throwing a party with top bants (http://news.sky.com/story/ukips-nigel-farage-hails-year-of-big-political-revolution-at-party-10669453), warning May to get Britain Brexed by 2020 or UKIP everywhere
Post by: Starver on November 24, 2016, 04:44:22 am
Post by: Leafsnail on November 24, 2016, 06:43:41 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 24, 2016, 06:59:25 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 24, 2016, 01:40:52 pm
Quote
People who say that the innocent have nothing to fear are wrong
Yeah why does this myth keep coming up? Everytime I've heard it used the exact opposite was true.
For ONCE can we have someone say that and it actually be true?
Post by: Max™ on November 24, 2016, 02:13:47 pm
There you go, that's literally the only time it will ever be true, I avoid killing insects which have done me no harm, I'm certainly not going after anything larger which hasn't done anything to me.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 24, 2016, 03:18:57 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 24, 2016, 06:59:10 pm
One of the UK's leading obscenity lawyers, Myles Jackman, seems to be mounting a challenge (http://www.mylesjackman.com/index.php/my-blog/119-written-evidence-submission-to-digital-economy-bill-committee) to this new Digital Economy bill. Probably a slim hope, but at this point, perhaps our best one.One day we shall all unironically say Tony Blair did nothing wrong, all Americans unaware of the cameras down our spine :DDDDDD
Otherwise, I imagine you'll get fewer arguments here and elsewhere from people in 'political minorities', given the chilling effect (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/technology/government-surveillance-stops-people-sharing-controversial-opinions-online-study-suggests-34581359.html) government surveillance has on unpopular opinions. Not that the government will be complaining about that.
For my part, I'll certainly be a lot more hesitant to post things that could conceivably attract any unwanted attention.
Post by: LoSboccacc on December 01, 2016, 04:00:21 am
You should get the message by now. They will try anything until they succeed. You cannot protest forever and they have time on their side.
People will is irrelevant.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 03, 2016, 04:43:19 pm
Likewise repealing comes with people's will, but it has to exist first
Post by: Leafsnail on December 03, 2016, 09:14:21 pm
Post by: Radio Controlled on December 04, 2016, 03:18:50 pm
Theresa May orders crackdown on unauthorised leaks by ministers and civil servants, leaked memorandum reveals (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-leaked-memo-leaks-government-ministers-civil-servants-sacked-dismissed-crackdown-a7454421.html)
Post by: Harry Baldman on December 04, 2016, 05:13:26 pm
Post by: Radio Controlled on December 04, 2016, 05:33:13 pm
Oh my god, next generation sequencing data analysis for epigenetic markers in one package? What horrors will the British invent next?Derp, that's why you never work late at night on this kind of shit. Link fixed.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 06, 2016, 05:23:27 pm
It seems even in 2016 sadness has followed him
Post by: Starver on December 06, 2016, 06:40:00 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 06, 2016, 06:50:31 pm
I'm going to regret asking for a plain english explanation of what I'd find on that youtube link, no doubt...Nick Clegg is a politician and former leader of the liberal democrat party, he was invited to talk about Brexit in light of the Richmond by-election. In this interview he gets absolutely roasted. I need not go into detail as the slaughter is quick, Nick managing to blunder into every single one of the interviewer's master b8
Post by: Starver on December 06, 2016, 06:57:00 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 06, 2016, 06:58:45 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 06, 2016, 07:19:55 pm
The more interesting news story behind this is Zac Goldsmith getting blown out by the Lib Dems in his byelection from a 23k majority. The Lib Dems were campaigning hard against Brexit and it seems to have paid off big for them.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 06, 2016, 08:22:34 pm
Not seeing it that way. He clearly articulated his position and held his own against a hostile interviewer.If he was Cameron trying to win the 2015 GE then holding his own would've been enough, he needed to really dominate the interview and not be defeated by his own soundbites. The bits where they just played what he said then, versus now - killer bait
The more interesting news story behind this is Zac Goldsmith getting blown out by the Lib Dems in his byelection from a 23k majority. The Lib Dems were campaigning hard against Brexit and it seems to have paid off big for them.Sadly the Libdems are still useless and this victory hasn't made much difference for them, but certainly it is possible under new leadership and in the upcoming general election for the libdems to claw power away from disaffected Tory and Labour voters to become relevant again. Work in progress still, but certainly a good sign for potential libdem revanchism
The by-election certainly is amazing news, so much going on in one little event. Despite the event being so little, it will be like a pebble thrown in a pond, causing ripples far away. I think people will not be too bothered by this news because it seems mostly a local issue, but appearances are deceiving :D
Background to all of this is Richmond, a borough I reckon most famous for Richmond sausages, which really are bloody good sausages. Within Richmond are some of the best houses and open spaces in all of London, lending it to some of the best living standards of all London - you're really lucky if you live there, especially in the vicinity of world famous stuff like Kew Gardens. It's a major part of the green belt around London, which is stuff left to be green with life to break up a sea of concrete, steel and glass, that would otherwise spread over the country!
Richmond Park is one of the electoral divisions within the borough, and this is the one Zac Goldsmith contended. Zac's previously won two general elections there, in 2010 and 2015, and performed exceptionally well (notably being a Tory who increased his voteshare in London, notoriously anti-Tory). Demographically Richmond Park is dominated by wealthy over-40s with a high standard of living, who usually vote Tory or Libdem, and young professionals living in high-end rental accommodation who usually vote Labour, Libdem or Greens. Wealthy professionals and wealthy young professionals were amongst some of the demographics that were fiercest supporters of Remain in the 2015 British Exit of the EU referendum. Full rundown on the numbers here (http://election-data.co.uk/richmond-park). Very posh area
I don't know much about Zac Goldsmith as he's on the wrong side of London to me, but from what I gathered during his bid for Mayorship of London he's a really wealthy Tory on the liberal side of right who has a strong and extensive network of friends, acquaintances and allies, who otherwise prefers to attack his opponents with dog-whistles or remain away from the spotlight. He supported Brexit when running for Mayor of London which was an astounding move (really, not one I expected) and lost to Sadiq Khan. As to where his views on the EU lie, from the things I've seen of him he's never seemed as eager to break apart the EU as say Bojo, but looking at his voting record (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/lib-dem-seize-on-zac-goldsmiths-anti-eu-voting-record_uk_58184d65e4b0672ea689c736), I'd say the lack of overt political display is a sign of him being a London MP (needs to be discrete going against the grain of London opinions) than of sincere belief. From this I reckon it is unlikely that Zac Goldsmith and Theresa May had a disagreement on the course of Brexit, and is genuinely about the Heathrow expansion.
Background to the Heathrow vs Gatwick expansion is in brief, a conflict between which airports to expand in order to increase London's air infrastructure. Opposition to the airport expansions has basically been about those who will lose homes to compulsory purchasing, those who don't want increased air pollution or noise pollution (both of which may drive down the value of their houses and impact their quality of life). Theresa May allowed MPs to challenge her on this (even Boris for example) but Zac raised the stakes by pledging to resign from the party if May pressed on regardless.
The whole gambit was that by resigning, Zac could cause no shortage of headaches for the Tory party. He had a comfortable hold on his seat, so would easily be able to defeat any Tory challenger and humiliate the party, then continue to harry it as an Independent until the airport expansion was canceled. May called his threat and he rather courageously carried through, which is where it all goes downhill for him.
For starters the Tory party fielded no candidate of their own. This meant Zac Goldsmith had no Tory to point to to differentiate himself, making him stand-in as a de facto Tory with none of the support of the party. The reason the Tories did this was because if they fielded a candidate of their own, they would be humiliated either by Zac or by the Libdems, thus they simply decided not to play the game. Labour likewise made their moves by supporting the Libdems (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/26/labour-frontbenchers-urge-party-not-to-contest-richmond-park-byelection) using Zac as the Tory stand-in to deliver a joint message, as Libdems and Labour are allied on the issue of the EU (and if the Supreme court appeal is not successful, then the pro-EU coalition needs to narrow any possible majority May holds - every one seat counts).
This ES article is bretty nice in summing up the framing as the by-election unfolded:
Quote from: http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/indulging-zac-goldsmith-s-games-could-come-back-to-haunt-theresa-may-matthew-dancona-a3408716.html
As Simon Jenkins noted yesterday, the two principal candidates have framed this constituency vote as a referendum by proxy — though they differ on what is at stake. Goldsmith declares that the by-election is all about Heathrow expansion, and that he alone represents “the best bet at seeing off this monstrosity”. Olney has called upon the leafy suburb to rally against Brexit and seize its “one-off chance to send a message to the new government on the direction of the country”.Interestingly the implications most significant are not in Brexit or Heathrow for whom not much has changed, but with May's authority. As it stands May has the country's future in her hands, so she must act sagely
Neither claim withstands scrutiny. Those canvassers to whom I have spoken suggest that education and health remain the priorities of most voters. They also report electoral weariness: this is the fourth time that constituents have been summoned to the polling stations since May 2015 (general election, mayoral contest, EU referendum and now by-election). The grandiosity of the candidates’ claims is not reflected on the ground: neither Heathrow’s third runway nor Brexit will be thwarted by tomorrow’s outcome.
Which is not to say that this by-election is without deep significance. Much more important than the campaigns to nationalise an essentially local contest are the circumstances surrounding Goldsmith’s resignation, and their broader implications.
Quote
Parliament wants its say and will not be a pushover. All of which means May needs every ounce of authority at her disposal. The Remainers must believe that she will be the Malcolm X of Brexit: by any means necessary.Pragmatically it is very clever to use the Libdem's resources to defeat Zac without a single penny of the Tory party's resources having been used, but it is possible that the ES is right - wasted pennies spent challenging Zac may have not been so wasted in proving May is resolute. This will be nothing more than a footnote if her appeal in supreme court is successful, if it isn't, then it has to be general election, and her leadership will be pivotal in deciding nearly everything versus so many bold populists from Corbyn to Farage
The ruthlessness with which she purged the Cameron Cabinet certainly conveyed a clear message. But that message has been weakened by her decision to suspend ministerial collective responsibility over Heathrow and — to return to tomorrow’s by-election — her appeasement of Goldsmith. In both cases, the PM showed that, in certain circumstances, she is prepared to back down for a quiet life.
Would it have been worth risking defeat in Richmond in order to send a broader signal that she means business? Absolutely. There are greater struggles ahead which will be decided by power of personality as much as tight parliamentary arithmetic. The time has come for May to decide if she is the heir to Margaret Thatcher — or just another John Major.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 06, 2016, 09:15:06 pm
The fact that Labour was prepared to largely lie down in this could also be a big deal. A Lib/Lab pact would dramatically shift a lot of constituencies against the Conservatives, which makes calling an early election a lot riskier for May.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 07, 2016, 07:44:45 am
If they could coordinate like this again then all the constituencies where Labour would be hurt by loss of liberals would just go to Libdem, covering one major area of weakness. Meanwhile May does not have any such arrangements with UKIP which could split the Tory vote in such a GE
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 07, 2016, 03:31:30 pm
There has been some more research into who was more likely to vote to remain or leave, apparently. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38227674)Pretty dank, but I wonder if there is a version for people who want to understand why you'd vote Remain
Post by: Starver on December 07, 2016, 03:47:01 pm
Post by: martinuzz on December 07, 2016, 04:01:19 pm
wut, she planning on having the UK join the Netherlands? I'm all for it as long as that means we get rid of the euro. I'm sure we can work out fishing rights.
Post by: Baffler on December 07, 2016, 04:25:02 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Make Brexit British again!
Post by: Starver on December 07, 2016, 04:28:21 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 07, 2016, 04:39:51 pm
Remind me again of the advantages of Leaving..?
- Weakens the EU
- The EU will not have supremacy over British law or decide British regulations
- Or for that matter decide Britain's trade deals with the rest of the world
- In fact, Britain will actually be able to make trade deals, given the EU's failure to do so
- The EU will no longer incrementally creep upon British sovereignty
- EU army will not include British forces
- Schengen will never include the UK, no open movement will ever include the UK
- EU will never gain command over UK intelligence
- Ayyy lmao we can deport 100% of Swedes
- Last one is a joke
- UK free trade will not conflict with EU protectionism, with the UK as a member of the EU, the EU's authority over Europe would be undermined at every turn. If this does not kill the EU, then Yuropeans can go about pursuing global hegemony without inside interference.
- British legislation dating as far back as time immemorial will no longer be repealed and replaced with legislation decided not by parliament elected by Britons, but by unelected bureaucrats from Brussels bamboozling all with a bonanza of bollocks.
- Normies get the fuck out my fishing waters
- We'll finally stop paying into a system that has seen us as a threat in spite of our great contributions
Happs time
Apparently, on a visit to Bahrein, May said something about a 'red-white-blue Brexit'Makes no sense out of context
wut, she planning on having the UK join the Netherlands? I'm all for it as long as that means we get rid of the euro. I'm sure we can work out fishing rights.
So in the UK the Libdems have been fighting for what they call a soft brexit, calling what the Tories want a hard brexit. The times chippered in and said what about a black, grey and white brexit (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-fades-from-hard-to-soft-to-grey-p3sttjkk6).
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
May was talking to our armed forces with the colours flying in the background talking about how the armed services will continue their policing of international trade - and on the topic of Brexit, she went on about how there's been talk of hard brexit, soft brexit, grey, black and white brexit, when she says that it should be red white and blue. Makes sense if you know the context and could see the colours flying besides her, as all she's saying is she wants the deals that best benefit the UK
Post by: Starver on December 07, 2016, 05:28:36 pm
I expected you to give me the better reasons to leave (not that I agree with them, but at least I know what they are). Most of what you've given can be classified as throwing toys out of a pram because you don't want to play. And I've tuned my rebuttals accordingly.Remind me again of the advantages of Leaving..?
- Weakens the EU Good(!), that'll help with various forms of threat from the likes of Russia, IS-or-its-successors, China, maybe even Trumpopia...
- The EU will not have supremacy over British law or decide British regulations For most of the ones which matter, Britain has led the direction of those regulations, but obviously our Olive Oil industry can now do what they want...
- Or for that matter decide Britain's trade deals with the rest of the world ...now we can fail to get good deals on our own behalf.
- In fact, Britain will actually be able to make trade deals, given the EU's failure to do so Good luck with that, there's far too much protectionism, and now we'll have a punitively protectionist EU (and probably US) to deal with
- The EU will no longer incrementally creep upon British sovereignty A meaningless phrase but, if you insist, it also means we can't proportionally impinge upon the other EU counties' soverignties to our own benefit,
- EU army will not include British forces Is that even a bad thing? But let us withdraw from NATO while we're at it.
- Schengen will never include the UK, no open movement will ever include the UK No sign of that happening, the number of exemptions we'd arranged (which would be null and void if we're forced to accept 'associate EU membership' to regaon lost advantages, so we could end up more open).
- EU will never gain command over UK intelligence Command? And we in turn lose useful access to EU intelligence (see also Europol)
- Ayyy lmao we can deport 100% of Swedes Hands off Ulrika!
- Last one is a joke There are plenty of jokes in this, why single that one out?
- UK free trade will not conflict with EU protectionism, with the UK as a member of the EU, the EU's authority over Europe would be undermined at every turn. If this does not kill the EU, then Yuropeans can go about pursuing global hegemony without inside interference. I think you're missing a negative, somewhere, but note I already mentioned protectionism.
- British legislation dating as far back as time immemorial will no longer be repealed and replaced with legislation decided not by parliament elected by Britons, but by unelected bureaucrats from Brussels bamboozling all with a bonanza of bollocks. British legislation, upon(/in the lead up to) Brexit will have every current EU commandment added into it, on the presumption that we'll eventually start to repeal the bits 'we' do not like. FCVO 'we'. And 6th July 1189 isn't exactly so special, any more.
- Normies get the fuck out my fishing waters (Normies? Normans/Norsemen, is that? And fish know no boundaries, so the chances are that we'll be overfished just outside our borders, e en while our own fishing industry remains self-suppressed.)
- We'll finally stop paying into a system that has seen us as a threat in spite of our great contributions You know nothing, Jon Snow.
But I'll give you this: Not an original argument for leaving, but the killer reason right now for completing the leaving process is because every single bit of political good will that we have nurtured (and defended against our continual thumb-nosing at our partners) has pretty much been smashed to pieces by our attrocious incomptence. if we stay, it'll be uncomfortable. No more easy exemptions.
Post by: Neonivek on December 07, 2016, 05:39:44 pm
And you know... the whole... Other reasons that we don't talk about.
Post by: Neonivek on December 07, 2016, 05:45:48 pm
Y'know, not wanting to get into an argument on a topic and then still pointing towards it after several months since the last kerfuffle is not not wanting to get into an argument on a topic.
Yes but no one knows what it is and no one ever gets my hints anyhow. What are the genius chances that someone will find out that the other reason is scapegoating the UK's current situation and blaming it on the EU as a way to politically maneuver?
Which come to think of it... Whatever party Brexits basically becomes KING AND QUEENS OF ENGLAND!
Ok probably not... too many parties have their hands in the pot now.
---
Edit: Mind you, there are serious legitimate reasons for someone to vote Leave. Sorry for making it seem otherwise.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 07, 2016, 06:23:22 pm
*Weakens the EU Good(!), that'll help with various forms of threat from the likes of Russia, IS-or-its-successors, China, maybe even Trumpopia...British troops stationed in Eastern Europe will do more for peace in that regards, whereas I saw the EU deliberately provoke Russia where no other Western nation would. When Bush wanted to extend NATO membership to Ukraine, France and Germany interceded, warning the USA that this was an unnecessary provocation that would split Ukraine apart. Russia is currently weak; I do not want it to be forced into desperation & madness. ISIS and its successors have been made stronger by the European Union's policing - or lack thereof, its destruction of national borders and its inability to accept responsibility for allowing veteran fighters to set up domestic cells and training networks in Europe. The UK is much more capable of helping Europe from outside the incompetence of the European Union - I'm immediately reminded of the ISIS mole working for German intelligence, the French police covering up the scale of the Bataclan tortures, the Germans and Swedish authorities covering up migrant murders etc. if their response to jihadists openly returning to Europe was to make it easier, there is nothing the UK can do from within the EU that would not simply put the UK at risk of befalling their same fate. In regards to China, I do not want the UK to follow the EU in combating China, personally even I am learning Mandarin so you should know where I stand on that. I want the European nation states to be powerful, not the European Union.
*The EU will not have supremacy over British law or decide British regulations For most of the ones which matter, Britain has led the direction of those regulations, but obviously our Olive Oil industry can now do what they want...For most? I don't know what numbers you're referring to or how you've quantified what matters, but I will certainly agree with your general sentiment that Britain has led at the very least, many of those regulations or laws. I don't care, I don't benefit from the UK being a master of Europe, whilst I am actively hurt by my PM capable of using EU law to override British law without having to subject his or herself to opposition from Parliament, or actively hurt by European leaders deciding what regulations and laws the British must follow. Losing a say over what Greeks do with their olives is of no concern to me, losing a say over what my own country does is of highest concern to me.
*Or for that matter decide Britain's trade deals with the rest of the world ...now we can fail to get good deals on our own behalf.The choice is between having no trade deals or deciding the terms of our own trade deals; I'm quite excited to have our failure and our success in our own hands. Much safer with us, than with people who will not be harmed at all if they give the UK a shit deal. Unless you genuinely believe the United Kingdom is somehow uniquely positioned in the world to be the only nation that cannot enter into favourable trade deals because...? As it stands, the only impediment is the EU.
*In fact, Britain will actually be able to make trade deals, given the EU's failure to do so Good luck with that, there's far too much protectionism, and now we'll have a punitively protectionist EU (and probably US) to deal withI look forward to the EU becoming increasingly protectionist, destroying European industries will help speed up the collapse of the EU. The USA is a wildcard but I cheered Trump's election victory, for he was the only candidate across the pond besides Cruz who said if they won, the UK would be at the forefront of trade negotiations. <3
*The EU will no longer incrementally creep upon British sovereignty A meaningless phrase but, if you insist, it also means we can't proportionally impinge upon the other EU counties' soverignties to our own benefit,Meaningless? ahaha, just look at the European sovereign debt crisis to compare the impact between countries that didn't fight the EU's sovereignty creep versus those that did. Likewise I don't want to impinge on the other EU countries sovereignty! The UK helping the commission grow more powerful at the expense of European nations would be a nightmare to me, like my own body being used to manufacture viral pathogens! It would be a most undesirable outcome
*EU army will not include British forces Is that even a bad thing? But let us withdraw from NATO while we're at it.Yes, it is an incredibly bad thing to not control your own military. Why withdraw from NATO? The only rival to NATO's existence is creation of an EU army.
*Schengen will never include the UK, no open movement will ever include the UK No sign of that happening, the number of exemptions we'd arranged (which would be null and void if we're forced to accept 'associate EU membership' to regaon lost advantages, so we could end up more open).We won't end up more open if the Libdems are defeated, I don't want associate EU membership, don't want single market membership or any of that, don't care for it - EU powers have only been taken away from nations and given to the commission, the creation of Frontex that was capable of operating without the consent of national governments and the reaction against Hungary's border control are signs enough. All it'd take if we were still going to be members would be one more Tony Blair and we'd be in, never to leave.
*EU will never gain command over UK intelligence Command? And we in turn lose useful access to EU intelligence (see also Europol)We're the leader in intelligence and security within the EU, the five eyes nations are where intelligence cooperation are best. Working with Europol, not being a part of Europol, that is safest for the UK.
*Ayyy lmao we can deport 100% of Swedes Hands off Ulrika!Linking back to the earlier point (and more seriously) we can deport terrorists and stop them from coming to the UK or coming home to the UK without EU membership, dumping the EU convention on human rights
*Last one is a joke There are plenty of jokes in this, why single that one out?Because it's a matter of >yes
*UK free trade will not conflict with EU protectionism, with the UK as a member of the EU, the EU's authority over Europe would be undermined at every turn. If this does not kill the EU, then Yuropeans can go about pursuing global hegemony without inside interference. I think you're missing a negative, somewhere, but note I already mentioned protectionism.Nah, no negatives. If Europeans managed to build themselves a superstate good on them, if they're willing to pay the price for it without the UK's blood and shillings
*British legislation dating as far back as time immemorial will no longer be repealed and replaced with legislation decided not by parliament elected by Britons, but by unelected bureaucrats from Brussels bamboozling all with a bonanza of bollocks. British legislation, upon(/in the lead up to) Brexit will have every current EU commandment added into it, on the presumption that we'll eventually start to repeal the bits 'we' do not like. FCVO 'we'. And 6th July 1189 isn't exactly so special, any more.No concern to me, the current year is not every year, going from having EU legislation to having EU legislation in the process of repealment seems like a matter of time I'm quite happy with.
*Normies get the fuck out my fishing waters (Normies? Normans/Norsemen, is that? And fish know no boundaries, so the chances are that we'll be overfished just outside our borders, e en while our own fishing industry remains self-suppressed.)Fishermen know boundaries, and by God we'll make them known. Protect your marine habitats and your fish stocks replenish, the only thing saltier than the ocean is me after I hear of Spanish trawlers destroying our coastline to ensure that the borderless fish become nonexistent fish. Fuck up the habitat and they're not even coming back. I'll take my chances with people beholden to British laws and prisons than those who are not. In our waters where the EU has no supremacy, we have done an amicable job. (http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2016/07/a-vision-to-create-a-british-ocean-legacy) I want the standards we've done in warmer oceans brought to our colder coasts.
*We'll finally stop paying into a system that has seen us as a threat in spite of our great contributions You know nothing, Jon Snow.Stannis > Secret Targs
I expected you to give me the better reasons to leave (not that I agree with them, but at least I know what they are). Most of what you've given can be classified as throwing toys out of a pram because you don't want to play. And I've tuned my rebuttals accordingly.Out of the EU and into the world, the pram next to us has begun to stink with the corpse of Grecian children. Tis a grim sight to behold
But I'll give you this: Not an original argument for leaving, but the killer reason right now for completing the leaving process is because every single bit of political good will that we have nurtured (and defended against our continual thumb-nosing at our partners) has pretty much been smashed to pieces by our attrocious incomptence. if we stay, it'll be uncomfortable. No more easy exemptions.-David Cameron, resigned
-Matteo Renzi, resigned
-Francois Hollande, stepped down
-Hillary Clinton, never won
-Angela Merkel, (???), now banning burkas
How is selling the UK for the goodwill of terminated politicians in any way a good thing :P
Which come to think of it... Whatever party Brexits basically becomes KING AND QUEENS OF ENGLAND!wew lads i found king arthur's sword king me
*EDIT
Spoiler: Normans = Normies (click to show/hide)
Post by: Starver on December 07, 2016, 09:19:39 pm
"losing a say over what my own country does is of highest concern to me." - Nobody ever gets a completely untrammelled say. Your arguments lead us to the logical chain of events being increasingly dismantled government at national, regional and local levels. Then when City States (including a feudal catchment of rural areas, or not) are deemed too oppressive, district-by-district localisation, street-level governance, even neighbourly separation. Though as long as I get my techno-skateboard (Snowcrash) and supersonic canine cyborgs, why not? (I tell you why not, it's dystopian. It's a sort-of-ok dystopia, and there are also nightmarish utopias at the other end of the scale, but it looks to me like social vandalism.)
"Unless you genuinely believe the United Kingdom is somehow uniquely positioned in the world to be the only nation that cannot enter into favourable trade deals because...?" - This is the trouble here. You say it as if the raison d'etre of the EU was to ensure the UK member was the sole fall-guy for any failings. Yet somehow it will look favourably upon a non-member UK, in future dealings. At least one of these is wrong, and both are simplifications of whatever truth they're based upon.
"destroying European industries will help speed up the collapse of the EU" - again, the presumption that the EU is better off destroyed. To that, I say, [citation needed]
"British sovereignty" "just look at the European sovereign debt crisis" - you do realise that sovereign debt crises can only happen when the national sovereignty is nsufficiently subsumed into the whole? The problem with Greece would never have happened in the Superstate Europe that you fear in your particularly polarised view.
"Yes, it is an incredibly bad thing to not control your own military." - When does this happen? if we get a European Army (rather than the current coalition of member forces, pretty much exactly like NATO) then it's the same as saying that, as a person living on the banks of the Tweed, 'you' have lost control of the Coldstream Guards regiment as it now gets used to undertake military manouevers on behalf of the British government in the defence of British interests in the world.
And the EU's current military coalition is, as you say, much the same as NATO's in basic principle, which you appatently like. So I fail to see your point of contention in either case.
"I don't want associate EU membership, don't want single market membership or any of that, don't care for it" - So, you can dish it out when a decision you like is unpopular with many people, and speciously tell them that they are overriden and must suck it up, but when something that may yet be popular with many people is mooted (but that you personally do not want) you complain at the mere possibility of you not getting your perfectly photoshopped image of the future...
It's really not up to you. No more than it is up to me, that is. If done properly then a decision (at a level above both oir paygrades) will be made about what perks we try to bargain for. Given that one prime Leave promise (amongst many others, including an exact opposite promise aimed at a completely different target audience) was that Brexit did not mean leaving the Common Market, etc, it is certainly the case that many of your fellow Leavers probably do want Single Market membership, or something very similar. If we actually have a competent government (the jury is still out on that, but let's give the benefit of the doubt, assuming there's no internal plotting and the setting up of each other to fail) the then they'll need to take that into consideration as they form their position. I have no doubt this position will dissappoint me. I believe it will also dissappoint you as well, but for differing reasons. (I remind you that, whilst still in my initial appalled disappointmemt at the result, I actually asked for super-hard immediate Brexit, no negotiations, no caveats, get it over with immediately. I think you would have found that more painful than I would have. And for such imagined potentiality of projected schadenfreude I shall apologise.)
"Working with Europol, not being a part of Europol, that is safest for the UK." - This is your cake and eating it.
"dumping the EU convention on human rights" - This is the more worrying aspect. Ok, so my inner lizard doesn't mind, but if that's not a skinsuit you're wearing, you're probably not aware of what you're letting yourself in for.
"Because it's a matter of >yes" - 4chan formatting reference? Or an actual "greater than"? Memetic fail, sorry.
"Fishermen know boundaries" - as already said, fish do not. I counterargued you on that point before you even said it. Or do I need to explain?
"Grecian children" - Greek children. "Grecian" implies of or about ancient Greece. Not that what you said here made for a competent point worth arguing about, anyway, but you're at risk of getting penalty points upon your Poetic Licence if you drive recklessly through arguments like that all the time.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 07, 2016, 11:01:12 pm
So, LW, I'm cutting down my reply by mostly not quote-tagging your verbiage. And, yay, also thou nounage, adjectivage and the rest.No worries famalam whatever format suits you
"losing a say over what my own country does is of highest concern to me." - Nobody ever gets a completely untrammelled say.I don't get the leap from "nobody gets a completely untrammelled say" to "fuck democracy and shit, we enlightened bureaucracy now." You need to explain how that makes sense to you, because that thinking is completely alien to me
Your arguments lead us to the logical chain of events being increasingly dismantled government at national, regional and local levels.Nah, but it does support as much delegation of authority as is possible to allow for the most efficient management. As a believer in a nationstate I believe the nation state is the largest boundary, largest social unit in which a community can have individuals act against their own self-interest for the benefit of their peers - as long as they care for their peers and their peers care for them, this sacrifice is incentivized to improve the nationstate for their own children.
Then when City States (including a feudal catchment of rural areas, or not) are deemed too oppressive, district-by-district localisation, street-level governance, even neighbourly separation.That's pretty retarded
You say it as if the raison d'etre of the EU was to ensure the UK member was the sole fall-guy for any failings. Yet somehow it will look favourably upon a non-member UK, in future dealings. At least one of these is wrong, and both are simplifications of whatever truth they're based upon.I don't give a shit what the reasoning of the EU is, it has failed the UK and I'm glad it will soon be incapable of failing it any longer. The nature of the EU is that its motives are largely unknowable to me, I don't know the names of the people who acted thus, nor can I find out. Alarm bells for me right there, nor do I care whether the EU looks favourably upon the UK, as the EU is not the world and this is a reality it will have to face.
"destroying European industries will help speed up the collapse of the EU" - again, the presumption that the EU is better off destroyed. To that, I say, [citation needed]Again, the presumption that the EU is better off enduring. To that, I say, [citation needed]
Where's your list of reasons why the EU should exist? I'm happy to go on, but it is an interesting note to make. Maybe if Remain had spent less time going on about how Great Britain is useless and full of invalids who need enlightened European rule and made a better case as to why the EU is a worthy project, they would've had better odds :P
(It's worth noting, they had great odds and still lost lmao)
Man, I think I've still got the serial killer leaflets Remain sent me somewhere XD
"British sovereignty" "just look at the European sovereign debt crisis" - you do realise that sovereign debt crises can only happen when the national sovereignty is nsufficiently subsumed into the whole? The problem with Greece would never have happened in the Superstate Europe that you fear in your particularly polarised view.How am I supposed to realize anything if you neglect to demonstrate just how the EU wouldn't have failed Greece by taking MORE control of European nations? I can point to the reality, if you're going to assert your hypothetical will work you better have at the very least, an explanation. Evidence is better but I'll settle for an explanation of the rationale. Otherwise all I have to observe is the reality where the EU took up the sovereignty of European nations and has consistently fucked them over; when asked to return the sovereignty or reform, the EU has always responded by taking more sovereignty and the cycle repeats. Why would I be convinced to throw the UK into the same fires when it has shown no success and I've heard no explanation as to why at the end of all that suffering and humiliation, there would be this bold and prosperous European superstate? Dysfunction begets dysfunction. Maybe you know something I don't, I can't read minds - you'll have to tell me
"Yes, it is an incredibly bad thing to not control your own military." - When does this happen? if we get a European Army (rather than the current coalition of member forces, pretty much exactly like NATO) then it's the same as saying that, as a person living on the banks of the Tweed, 'you' have lost control of the Coldstream Guards regiment as it now gets used to undertake military manouevers on behalf of the British government in the defence of British interests in the world.Ahahahaha, imagine telling that to the former colonies of the UK. "Oh yeah you're not dependencies if your militaries are controlled by the UK, nah nah nah, it's just a coalition." They didn't buy it because no one is that foolish. There's not a people or nation alive in this world that thinks it can be in charge with its armed forces controlled by a foreign power, hell, we've even got a recent example in the UK - Scottish Nationalists for example have rather useful examples to point to, with its hypothetical plans to divide the British armed forces. The armed forces are the final arbiter of the state abroad and the state at home, the right arm of the law if the civil law court should ever fail in times of crisis. Heck, that's how the British Empire took over Egypt. Soldiers arrive to police Egypt, never leave, oh shit suddenly British army controls the law, controls the country.
And the EU's current military coalition is, as you say, much the same as NATO's in basic principle, which you appatently like. So I fail to see your point of contention in either case.EU army is a threat to NATO, basic principle means jack shit in organization and authority. NATO is a military alliance, an EU army is an army under one authority, the authority of the European Commission, serving the European Commision's whims. No thanks, they can do it without the UK
If for example that NATO wanted to centralize into a NATO superstate I would have a very long list of objections
"I don't want associate EU membership, don't want single market membership or any of that, don't care for it" - So, you can dish it out when a decision you like is unpopular with many people, and speciously tell them that they are overriden and must suck it up, but when something that may yet be popular with many people is mooted (but that you personally do not want) you complain at the mere possibility of you not getting your perfectly photoshopped image of the future...I have opinions and I talk freely of them on public forums, don't get what's so morally objectionable about that
All the stuff you brought up that would be cons for the UK, I don't want that - so they're not cons to me. If you want my honest opinion why would I seek to leave the EU and keep a hold of everything I want to leave? Doesn't really make sense :]
As for overriding, this is a rather binary options list. There is no way to please both sides, you will merely end up failing both. Leave the European Union, or stay in the European Union. Leave won, and so I shall continue fighting for that, against even the possibility of Brexit not happening. You must understand politically I'm used to defeat and frankly expected decades of defeat that would end up nowhere, so the idea that suddenly the stuff I like is victorious and consolidating victory as a rather fun prospect, thus I explore ways in which it could fail or fruit. Admittedly I would probably act the same if I lost, as I just find discussing this stuff a fun use of spare time that keeps me informed of stuff
It's really not up to you. No more than it is up to me, that is.I acknowledge that, however it does not stop me from discussing my hopes, fears and desires, nor putting in a mild modicum of effort to ensure I influence the outcome in whatever way. Every shitpost helps, and I love discussing with those I have polar opposite views on stuff
If done properly then a decision (at a level above both oir paygrades) will be made about what perks we try to bargain for. Given that one prime Leave promise (amongst many others, including an exact opposite promise aimed at a completely different target audience) was that Brexit did not mean leaving the Common Market, etc, it is certainly the case that many of your fellow Leavers probably do want Single Market membership, or something very similar.[Citation needed]
Where is this prime leave promise, hmm? I'm getting flashbacks to the ez bait (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYdht0hg1ik)
The people who promised the UK would remain a member of the single market if the UK left the EU were the Remain campaign, unsurprisingly. Boris, Gove, even the unofficial Farage - all promised the UK would leave the single market, and even Osborne on the Remain campaign said we'd leave the single market if we voted to Leave. No issues there :P
Straight from the Leave campaign's framework
Quote from: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/a_framework_for_taking_back_control_and_establishing_a_new_uk_eu_deal_after_23_june.html
Free Trade Bill. This would require that by the next election, the UK leaves the EU’s ‘common commercial policy’. That would restore the UK Government’s power to control its own trade policy. That would create jobs. The UK would take back its seat on the World Trade Organization, becoming a more influential force for free trade and friendly cooperation. After we Vote Leave, we would immediately be able to start negotiating new trade deals with emerging economies and the world’s biggest economies (the US, China and Japan, as well as Canada, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, and so on), which could enter into force immediately after the UK leaves the EU.
If we actually have a competent government (the jury is still out on that, but let's give the benefit of the doubt, assuming there's no internal plotting and the setting up of each other to fail) the then they'll need to take that into consideration as they form their position.Aye, for things like mutual protections for current emigres and immigrants, for things like the single market there's no way about it without siding with one and going against another. Cabinet's sided with the victorious side, commons it's heads or tails ~o.o.~
Court has sided with the LAW
I have no doubt this position will dissappoint me. I believe it will also dissappoint you as well, but for differing reasons.Such as...? I care not for vague statements, there's no risk or dishonour in being wrong or disagreeing lol. Will I be disappointed? Nah, I keep my expectations realistic - no dreams, only ambitions, there's a lot of working to be done. Actually one of the things that surprised me post-referendum was how normal everything had seemed, the worst thing I had seen happen was Tescos and Marmites get into a pricing/stock dispute, which impacted the price of PG Tips - yet I had already switched to Yorkshire tea by 2015, and was thus unaffected.
(I remind you that, whilst still in my initial appalled disappointmemt at the result, I actually asked for super-hard immediate Brexit, no negotiations, no caveats, get it over with immediately. I think you would have found that more painful than I would have. And for such imagined potentiality of projected schadenfreude I shall apologise.)It would literally be impossible to do a "super-hard" Brexit "immediately" with "no negotiations." There is no preexisting process or framework for leaving the European Union, we have to create one from scratch. This is really the precedent, and our guys have to stack as many cards as they can in the UK's favour; we needed only so many cards as we needed to rid the EU of negotiators who wanted to start a war with the UK :P
"Working with Europol, not being a part of Europol, that is safest for the UK." - This is your cake and eating it.That would be the point, it's good cake. European intelligence agencies are of a lesser capability and are compromised with ISIS moles, giving them open access to our information out of playground notions of fairness would just be playing into our mutual enemies' hands. Cooperation outside of their framework allows us to warn them of attacks without opening ourselves to the infiltrators they let in
"dumping the EU convention on human rights" - This is the more worrying aspect. Ok, so my inner lizard doesn't mind, but if that's not a skinsuit you're wearing, you're probably not aware of what you're letting yourself in for.We're a rainy socialist island camera state, all the oppressive apparatus is in place, yet it is failing to function in its purpose of removing jihadists because of the EU convention on human rights. If the EU convention is not dealing with the oppressive apparatus, but is instead nullifying its value, I oppose it to unlock that value - until such time, if ever, Britons decide it important enough to fight against being a rainy socialist island camera state.
"Fishermen know boundaries" - as already said, fish do not. I counterargued you on that point before you even said it. Or do I need to explain?I counterargued you on that point before you even said it. Fishermen know boundaries and you really do need to explain how protecting our habitats does not preserve fish stocks - as it has been proven to do so in our waters already. I've presented evidence and explanation, where's yours m9
"Grecian children" - Greek children. "Grecian" implies of or about ancient Greece.
Spoiler: Keats is my bossman of beats (click to show/hide)
Not that what you said here made for a competent point worth arguing about, anyway, but you're at risk of getting penalty points upon your Poetic Licence if you drive recklessly through arguments like that all the time.Yeah sorry mate I don't know what your arguments are or else I thought I adequately answered them with a quick rundown of why I believe what I do with all my explanations and evidence so you can scrutinize it and attack it. You gotta provide your own explanations and evidence if you want a more thorough addressing of what you believe, because I don't know enough from your post to say
Thus I go back to giving you stuff to sink your teeth into, so that you may better build a counter-argument for me to sink my teeth into
Create a feedback loop like a lichen
Post by: Starver on December 08, 2016, 02:30:26 am
UK's Ministers do not even need to be elected MPs (though in practice they often are, and those that aren't come from the Lords maybe with prior experience as MPs before going to The Other Place) and even the Prime Minister and Chancellor do not need to be, it is merely a century-and-a-bit unbroken peacetime tradition that they are.
Whatever. I have no problem with a meritocracy over an often fickle public popularity contest.
"Nah, but it does support as much delegation of authority as is possible to allow for the most efficient management." - Now who wants 'layers upon layers of beaurocracy'... You say "efficient management", but it is clear that your depth-first approach would make the more egregious examples of NHS overmanagement look like a smoothly-running village collective idyl.
"As a believer in a nationstate I believe the nation state is the largest boundary, largest social unit in which a community can have individuals act against their own self-interest for the benefit of their peers" - That's arbitrary. Luxembourg-sized, is that? Or Brazil, maybe? China's probably too big to be properly social, but trying hard anyway, and Russia arguably not quite fit for purpose without a domineering leader, either. It'll be fractal, though. The ideal system is variously scalable to look self-similar upon the local national scale as the normalised national scale of any other nation, whatever the relative size differences.
"The nature of the EU is that its motives are largely unknowable to me, ..." - I believe you've never tried. (Not knowing what questions you probably never even asked, I can't give you your answers right now, obviously.) Should I dismiss you like you dismiss the EU? I'm no Europhile, but your reactionary Europhobic reachings have over the course of our 'discussions' actually got me to educate myself a lot in the 'hidden' mysteries of the various EU bodies. An education. (And, it must be said, they're not entirely streamlined, but if such streamlining means removing moderating mechanisms then I'd be as against it as aboloshing the House Of Lords or neutering the High Court.)
"Again, the presumption that the EU is better off enduring. To that, I say, [citation needed]" - Summary of my position: Better to be within a power-block pissing out than on our own, pissing on a bunch of other disconnected nations who are in turn pissing on us and each other. (Unless you're into that sort of thing, of course.)
"Maybe if Remain had spent less time going on about how Great Britain is useless and full of invalids who need enlightened European rule" - Doesn't sound familiar... Neither do "the serial killer leaflets Remain sent". OTOH, you ought to have seen the stuff Leave tried to fob off on me. Maybe it's perspective, but this was while I was largely ambivalent about the vote, so I'm not sure I can so easily ascribe my selective interpretations upon my own biases.
"Evidence is better but I'll settle for an explanation of the rationale." - A single banking system (which I'm no fan of... definitely I would Keep The Pound, for whatever reason, so unpegging the UK always was easy enough) removes 'national' (now 'state') differentials, rather than having to trust to members being truthful and frank at all times about their independent pots of dependent currency. Compare and contrast with the Clydesdale Bank, maybe...
Problems occured due to not grabbing as much overarching control as they could (maybe should) have done. Lessons learnt.
"There's not a people or nation alive in this world that thinks it can be in charge with its armed forces controlled by a foreign power," - You entirely miss the point. The EU Army wouldn't be controlled by a foreign power. It'd be controlled by our power. (Scotland, going independent, would need to look to simultaneously devolve/whatever things like the Scots' Regiments. It couldn't be done overnight, but so couldn't the national split, so it would be be made part of the same dependency timeline.)
"EU army is a threat to NATO" - Does not parse.
"If for example that NATO wanted to centralize into a NATO superstate I would have a very long list of objections" - Something here makes me think were talking apples and oranges...
"I have opinions and I talk freely of them on public forums, don't get what's so morally objectionable about that" - Nothing. It's just the absolutist air. I'm being asked to demonstrate the clear fallacies within your position, and this leaves me desperately trying to not just give you the opposing POV for you to see, but (from my more central position) you're not really encouraging me to present you with "...and the better argument for your case would be <foo>" response, because every time you drift off into "fam" territory it erodes my will to help you. Which only coincidentally has anything to do with the point you were not quite responding to, which was actually about how you, as a Leaver, dare not admit that any Remain point is valid in order to maintain your stand. You're obviously scared of defeat being snatched from the jaws of victory, a threat many others are now beyond the reach of, given the way things went.
"Every shitpost helps," - I respectfully disagree. Like all the Fakenews we've been seeing created recently for the other side of the Pond (but often by the other side of Europe, ironically, for clickbait revenue generation purposes), unsincere posting just devalues the currency of conversation and discussion.
(Skipping the Youtube link that I can't currently follow.)
"The people who promised the UK would remain a member of the single market if the UK left the EU were the Remain campaign, unsurprisingly." - You have that wrong. Remain had no interest in making Leave sound like a better deal. Leavers (I have in mind that it was Gove, BICBW and I can't check until I have a better bandwidth for the time needed to view likely clips) were clearly saying that despite Remain's dire warnings that we'd lose out on trading union, we could Leave for <insert reason tailored to current audience, here> but retain EEA membership to avoid the imposition of tarifs, thus declaring Remain's various objections demolished, La La La, I'm Not Listening...
"This would require that by the next election, the UK leaves the EU’s ‘common commercial policy’. That would restore the UK Government’s power to control its own trade policy. That would create jobs." - (Like I said, whilst some Leavers were saying "don't worry, of course we won't lose out on Europe's few really good things", others were spinning the opposite message for those whose concerns were in other directions.) Faith is a wonderful thing. "A begats B begats C, and so it is prophecised, and so it will surely be. Honest guv'nor!"
"It would literally be impossible to do a "super-hard" Brexit "immediately" with "no negotiations." There is no preexisting process or framework for leaving the European Union, we have to create one from scratch." - Start with Article 50 the morning after the night before, and if sovereignty is so important then command that "EU-only" channels get relabelled to "UK-only" ones at (air)ports, hire/overtime more C&E personnel immediately to increase goods and transit checks, advise financial institutions that export/import fees may now be payable on certain currently exempt transactions (TBA!), start/enhance various necessary papertrails ready for the anticipated influx of clerical staff to work out what to grab back... Loads of little things. Then deal with representations from EU countries, collectively or not (only slightly more shocked than they actually were in the genuinine timeline) . Meanwhile, increased employment, increased taxes, boom time, we're seen as a go-get-'em country and our falling currency doesn't fall so much and perhaps even rises higher than before... (It's as good a story as any other 'A begat B begat C' one, and you can't argue otherwise...)
"That would be the point, it's good cake." - Point missed.
"Cooperation outside of their framework allows us to warn them of attacks without opening ourselves to the infiltrators they let in" - I find myself unable to define your naïveté sufficiently. Why do 'push-only' cooperation (gaining nothing for ourselves in the process) at the exact same time as risking revealing to the supposed external moles enough detail to compromise our own 'moleless' operations.
"all the oppressive apparatus is in place, yet it is failing to function in its purpose of removing jihadists because of the EU convention on human rights." - There's nothing wrong with Due Process in arguable cases. Better than Undue Process in far too many cases to argue about. You will no doubt mention the one or two higher-profile cases where it was a tricky balancing act, but Hard Cases Make Bad Laws.
"I counterargued you on that point before you even said it. Fishermen know boundaries and you really do need to explain how protecting our habitats does not preserve fish stocks - as it has been proven to do so in our waters already. I've presented evidence and explanation, where's yours m9" - You're swimming in circles. "Our" habitats are not solelly within our waters. In extremis just look up eel migration...
Fuggit I'm fed up of this disinginuity, my morning alarm just went off.
Actually scanning it, nothing else you said was verging on sensible and so needed a resonse, thus I'm done anyway, barring tidy-editing which I'll leave off unless it looks really bad once posted.
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 08, 2016, 09:52:36 am
-Europe is democratic as much as UK is.Yeah that's neat we're talking about the European Union though
The bits everyone complain about as 'undemocratic', like the Commissioners departments, are equivalent to Whitehall's ministries. A 2/3rds vote of No Confidence by the fully-elected EU Parliament can even sweep them clean. (I'm not sure if Westmister has that sort of power, though the PM, only actually vaguely voted for, insofar as they could easily be just the anonymous bod who happens to head the current political zeitgeist, does of course appoint.)Ahahaha continental governance modeled on the Whitehall ministries what a democracy
When you strip away the Prime Minister and the Commons and you leave yourself only with the Whitehall ministries, you're left with the Ministry of Defence and Ministers appointing Ministers. Omitting the Prime Minister who is beholden to the electorate is where it all fails <3
UK's Ministers do not even need to be elected MPs (though in practice they often are, and those that aren't come from the Lords maybe with prior experience as MPs before going to The Other Place) and even the Prime Minister and Chancellor do not need to be, it is merely a century-and-a-bit unbroken peacetime tradition that they are.Yeah we've only had a century long tradition of elected ministers what a fucking shitshow
Now who wants 'layers upon layers of beaurocracy'... You say "efficient management"You, your the one in favour of a bureaucratic government xD
What I'm in favour of is already in place. My local councillors manage everything in my area from education to social services and waste disposal, my mayor manages the greater strategic plans for the whole of London such as major infrastructure development with new bridges or tube extensions, my Prime Minister and their cabinet decide on the stuff that affects the whole nation from policing, to fiscal policy, taxation and migration. This is simple efficient management, local managers are at a superior position to direct resources in their area far better than a distant bureaucrat in the continent can, which would further require people explaining all the issues already known to the local manager, and require such explaining to be flawless. This is not a new concept, we've had it for the last thousand years :P
but it is clear that your depth-first approach would make the more egregious examples of NHS overmanagement look like a smoothly-running village collective idyl.Under this system my area went from a shithole where people were dying of malaria to a borough where 40% of the area is under regeneration, with new libraries, schools, houses - they even do planning on the neighbourhood level.
As you can see, this success does not lend me to believe that my situation would be improved with the addition of European bureaucracy overriding all of us because hurr durr poor people can't plan for themselves they need six figure bureaucrats to do it for them, because nothing says efficient management than distant management with more red tape.
That's arbitrary.Exactly
Luxembourg-sized, is that? Or Brazil, maybe? China's probably too big to be properly social, but trying hard anyway, and Russia arguably not quite fit for purpose without a domineering leader, either. It'll be fractal, though.Geographical size doesn't matter, what matters is geographical boundaries and the people within them
The ideal system is variously scalable to look self-similar upon the local national scale as the normalised national scale of any other nation, whatever the relative size differences.Why? You're pretty consistently running into the problem where you expect me to just take your word for it that you're right, which is pretty haram in basic discourse
I believe you've never tried. (Not knowing what questions you probably never even asked, I can't give you your answers right now, obviously.)Simple, same one you asked me: Why shouldn't the UK leave the European Union, why is the European Union worth preserving?
Should I dismiss you like you dismiss the EU? I'm no Europhile, but your reactionary Europhobic reachings have over the course of our 'discussions' actually got me to educate myself a lot in the 'hidden' mysteries of the various EU bodies.Reactionary europhobe, ahaha that's a new one
Cheers mate you're clearly englightened by your superior knowledge you've told no one gj gj add one smug to the pile
Summary of my position: Better to be within a power-block pissing out than on our own, pissing on a bunch of other disconnected nations who are in turn pissing on us and each other. (Unless you're into that sort of thing, of course.)Your position is literally piss
Why is it better to be in this power bloc, why do you think in terms of piss? What does the EU actually offer? What possible basis do you have for believing it is intrinsically better to make the EU more powerful at our expense?
Maybe it's perspective, but this was while I was largely ambivalent about the vote, so I'm not sure I can so easily ascribe my selective interpretations upon my own biases.Most my neighbourhood voted Remain and they were creeped out by Remain's leaflets, that's the point. Literally giant A4 pieces of black paper with red blotched text warning us not to vote Leave lmao
A single banking system (which I'm no fan of... definitely I would Keep The Pound, for whatever reason, so unpegging the UK always was easy enough) removes 'national' (now 'state') differentials, rather than having to trust to members being truthful and frank at all times about their independent pots of dependent currency. Compare and contrast with the Clydesdale Bank, maybe...If you assume that the European Union is intrinsically good and that it taking more soveriegn powers would have not completely fucked over European countries more than it did, then you are left with a conflict. Either the EU takes away more sovereignty from nation states, or it takes away more sovereignty from nation states. Always responds the same way, and is why it's irrelavent what we want for our country as long as our country is a member of the EU - soveriegnty drifts one way within.
Problems occured due to not grabbing as much overarching control as they could (maybe should) have done. Lessons learnt.
The EU Army wouldn't be controlled by a foreign power. It'd be controlled by our power.Is the European Commission my government of my people? Nope, it's a power bloc as you said full of Europeans, who are not my people. Get culturally enriched m8 I'd rather be ruled by Malaysians or Nigerians than the EU
"EU army is a threat to NATO" - Does not parse.Creating a rival to NATO is not a threat to NATO? I don't see Europeans intending to pay for two more militaries than they need any time soon.
Something here makes me think were talking apples and oranges...Yeah, the difference between an alliance and an Empire
Nothing. It's just the absolutist air. I'm being asked to demonstrate the clear fallacies within your position, and this leaves me desperately trying to not just give you the opposing POV for you to see, but (from my more central position) you're not really encouraging me to present you with "...and the better argument for your case would be <foo>" response, because every time you drift off into "fam" territory it erodes my will to help you.That's pretty smug m8
Yeah it's "clear" how wrong I am and how right you are, so clear you haven't given any evidence for the validity of anything you've said or explanation. Yet you're the one complaining about absolutism? I'm asking for your side of things lmao xD
By all means continue being smug helping poor folk like me, I thought we were talking as equals here but evidently you see things otherwise. As it stands you're happy to hear my words and go on and on about how wrong I am without explaining why or giving any evidence of substance - but no, you're not "just" giving me the opposing POV.
Which only coincidentally has anything to do with the point you were not quite responding to, which was actually about how you, as a Leaver, dare not admit that any Remain point is valid in order to maintain your stand.I literally have no idea what points you have made that I could admit are right. You really want me to just take your word as gospel when I keep teling you, human beings do not work like that. Provide evidence, provide explanation, I don't agree with people for the sake of it.
You're obviously scared of defeat being snatched from the jaws of victory, a threat many others are now beyond the reach of, given the way things went.Fully agreed, though I don't think anything is beyond the reach of reality; a stark lesson to learn from Remain is to always assume the highest chance of failure and never stop fighting until you have actually won. Leave's victories do not yet mean Victory.
"Every shitpost helps," - I respectfully disagree. Like all the Fakenews we've been seeing created recently for the other side of the Pond (but often by the other side of Europe, ironically, for clickbait revenue generation purposes), unsincere posting just devalues the currency of conversation and discussion.Pretty haram to compare the noble art of shitposting with Fakenews giving Hillary a 98% victory chance, I actually provide evidence for my arguments
You have that wrong.You have no evidence, you are wrong. Liberal Democrats, Remain, leading these efforts as we speak.
Remain had no interest in making Leave sound like a better deal.Ahahaha better deal for Remain, you'll enjoy the youtube link then - it's got George Osborne going on about how the UK will leave the single market as if that was a thing to be scared of xD
Leavers (I have in mind that it was Gove, BICBW and I can't check until I have a better bandwidth for the time needed to view likely clips) were clearly saying that despite Remain's dire warnings that we'd lose out on trading union, we could Leave for <insert reason tailored to current audience, here> but retain EEA membership to avoid the imposition of tarifs, thus declaring Remain's various objections demolished, La La La, I'm Not Listening...Yeah it wasn't Gove, Gove was in favour of leaving the single market. Again it's in the youtube clip
(Like I said, whilst some Leavers were saying "don't worry, of course we won't lose out on Europe's few really good things", others were spinning the opposite message for those whose concerns were in other directions.) Faith is a wonderful thing. "A begats B begats C, and so it is prophecised, and so it will surely be. Honest guv'nor!"Like you said, but I'd like to see some actual evidence please, otherwise you're just spreading fakenews.
Start with Article 50 the morning after the night before, and if sovereignty is so important then command that "EU-only" channels get relabelled to "UK-only" ones at (air)ports, hire/overtime more C&E personnel immediately to increase goods and transit checks, advise financial institutions that export/import fees may now be payable on certain currently exempt transactions (TBA!), start/enhance various necessary papertrails ready for the anticipated influx of clerical staff to work out what to grab back... Loads of little things. Then deal with representations from EU countries, collectively or not (only slightly more shocked than they actually were in the genuinine timeline) . Meanwhile, increased employment, increased taxes, boom time, we're seen as a go-get-'em country and our falling currency doesn't fall so much and perhaps even rises higher than before... (It's as good a story as any other 'A begat B begat C' one, and you can't argue otherwise...)Yeah I can easily. What you're arguing for is impossible
Quote
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.It would only favour the European Union to follow your plan, no thanks for me. Rather happy with negotiating all we can to ensure the UK is not murdered by irate commissioners tyvm
"That would be the point, it's good cake." - Point missed.Basic wordplay
I find myself unable to define your naïveté sufficiently.That's ok, you've failed in defining anything so far. At any rate I struggle to see how open door Europe is the pinnacle of cynical intelligence gathering that you seem to be championing, after all if they weren't so naive, they would not be in this mess to begin with - and our help would be superfluous
Why do 'push-only' cooperation (gaining nothing for ourselves in the process) at the exact same time as risking revealing to the supposed external moles enough detail to compromise our own 'moleless' operations.Europeans being murdered when we have information that could prevent that is not exactly something I want to use as a bargaining chip, it's a simple matter of security in that letting the cells grow in influence in Europe is bad for us in the UK. Giving EU intelligence access to our intelligence opens us to their moles, what information we give them would be at our discretion, as opposed to compromising everything we have.
There's nothing wrong with Due Process in arguable cases.I'm not arguing against due process
You're swimming in circles. "Our" habitats are not solelly within our waters. In extremis just look up eel migration...You've confused habitats with migratory fish stocks, our maritime habitats are by definition, within our waters. Well, not the ones currently administered by the EU lmao
Actually scanning it, nothing else you said was verging on sensible and so needed a resonse, thus I'm done anyway, barring tidy-editing which I'll leave off unless it looks really bad once posted.Oioi goodnight
Post by: martinuzz on December 08, 2016, 10:20:19 am
Makes no sense out of contextI found it funny though. I haven't heard someone from the UK refer to their flag that way before. Usually, I hear Brits refer to it as Union Jack. The French refer to their red-white-blue as 'tricolore'. We Dutch refer to our flag as 'red-white-blue' most often. I guess we just lack the imagination to call it anything less factual and more fanciful.
Post by: Neonivek on December 08, 2016, 10:20:56 am
Taking down the EU prevents the apocalypse.
As IF YOU REMEMBER the requirement for it is a "One World Government"
Plus there are a lot of people who hate the idea of governments that run more than one country (unless it is colonialism)
Post by: Starver on December 08, 2016, 10:47:56 am
You're obtusely ignoring the simile. Strip away the President Of The European Parliament and the EP and you could equate to removing the PM and MPs from the British system. They are all elected. As are the European Council, elected at source, being the elected HoS/HoGs of the member countries, at times accompanied by the nation's foreign minister. We elect these people, as much as we directly elect anyone in a representive democracy. But it is hard to keep track of all the branches.-Europe is democratic as much as UK is.Yeah that's neat we're talking about the European Union thoughThe bits everyone complain about as 'undemocratic', like the Commissioners departments, are equivalent to Whitehall's ministries. A 2/3rds vote of No Confidence by the fully-elected EU Parliament can even sweep them clean. (I'm not sure if Westmister has that sort of power, though the PM, only actually vaguely voted for, insofar as they could easily be just the anonymous bod who happens to head the current political zeitgeist, does of course appoint.)Ahahaha continental governance modeled on the Whitehall ministries what a democracy
When you strip away the Prime Minister and the Commons and you leave yourself only with the Whitehall ministries, you're left with the Ministry of Defence and Ministers appointing Ministers. Omitting the Prime Minister who is beholden to the electorate is where it all fails <3
Sorry, I really can't be bothered. I read the rest of your responses and found similar near-misses all over the shop. I've got more interesting things to do during my break than extract the few decent points, give youself a cookie for driving me back into unofficially ignoring you again.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on December 08, 2016, 11:23:28 am
On the one hand screaming and giggling about Keks and saying the EU is an evil empire is not helping LW at all, but the other side implying/imagining that it doesn't have some fairly deep systemic flaws is just as bad.
Post by: Starver on December 08, 2016, 11:45:19 am
I'll have a Luxemburger with cheese, please... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38252802) One interesting business 'move' to the UK. I'm wondering what the hidden deal is. Apart from "Getting the hell out of (Tax) Dodge", of course.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 08, 2016, 11:40:02 pm
Post by: martinuzz on December 09, 2016, 06:02:51 am
Johnson on the other hand is getting lots of support from his party, who say that it's good that someone says what all diplomats think and know.
Heh, perhaps May's government will fall before she can even get started on the Brexit thing, because infighting. Johnson requested a word with May just last week, demanding she and other members of her government stop portraying him as a clown, and stop making jokes about him.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 09, 2016, 06:06:09 am
Post by: martinuzz on December 13, 2016, 05:46:52 am
According to striking train crews, the strike is about a difference in opinion between Unions and train company Southern, about who is responsible for closing the train doors at departure, the conductor, or the machinist.
According to the minister of Transport however, the strike is all about 'hurting people in the Conservative parts of the country.'
Post by: Neonivek on December 13, 2016, 05:50:44 am
According to the minister of Transport however, the strike is all about 'hurting people in the Conservative parts of the country.'
Ohh Brexit you continue to indulge me.
So now that conservatives are the victims being picked on as a whole... I wonder what they should do next?
Typically in this situation they would force the strike to close through arbitration. Which judging by the Minister of Transport's statement... He might know this in advance and be trying to move the arbitration more in their favor.
Post by: martinuzz on December 13, 2016, 05:56:01 am
People already lost their jobs because they couldn't get to work.
Companies are reported to have stopped hiring people that live in areas affected by train strikes.
Cancer patients from Uckfield and Burgess Hill have had to postpone their treatments in London.
It's the first time in 22 years that there's no trains going between London and Brighton, a line for which a year subscription costs 4108 pounds.
At the moment, there's a private initiative ongoing to charter a train for that line. This would cost 35000 pounds. If they manage to fill up the train, that would come down to 50 pounds a person, which is about the same as the price of a ticket for that distance.
Post by: Neonivek on December 13, 2016, 05:58:44 am
I know Canada can and it has... mixed opinions on it (People like it as an option... but hate it as a go to)
Post by: martinuzz on December 13, 2016, 06:00:35 am
UK government is not trying to interfere yet, but rumour has it they want to limit the Union's powers, and want to revoke the license of Southern's mother company Govia and let another train company take over. That would mean all strikers are out of a job.
I have a feeling however that if they do that, the UK will see riots far beyond the scope of the Thatcher coal miner riots.
Post by: Neonivek on December 13, 2016, 06:01:49 am
UK government is not trying to interfere yet, but rumour has it they want to limit the Union's powers, and want to revoke the license of Southern's mother company Govia and let another train company take over. That would mean all strikers are out of a job.
Given my UK friend told me that Strikes are quite a bit more violent in the UK then they are in Canada (due to moonlighting laws or something I don't know) WOOSH do I forsee bad things...
Post by: martinuzz on December 13, 2016, 06:07:50 am
Southern wants to get rid of conductors, and only have a machinist on the train. With the advent of electronic access gates, checking tickets has become redundant, and the train company says the public would rather see more staff at the stations, than in the train. Other train companies in the UK, and the London underground have already adapted this policy.
The strikers however say that this will deteriorate safety in the trains. Rush hour trains already have no conductors, simply because they're too full, and that won't fit. The trains to and from London Victoria are the busiest trains in the country. The government refuses to take measures.
Another part of the conflict is about pay for working overtime.
Post by: scriver on December 13, 2016, 06:56:00 am
According to the minister of Transport however, the strike is all about 'hurting people in the Conservative parts of the country.'
Ohh Brexit you continue to indulge me.
So now that conservatives are the victims being picked on as a whole... I wonder what they should do next?
What the fuck has Brexit got to do with this?
Post by: martinuzz on December 13, 2016, 07:01:23 am
The fact that the minister of Transport sees it as an attack on the conservatives instead of a worker / union issue.According to the minister of Transport however, the strike is all about 'hurting people in the Conservative parts of the country.'
Ohh Brexit you continue to indulge me.
So now that conservatives are the victims being picked on as a whole... I wonder what they should do next?
What the fuck has Brexit got to do with this?
Post by: Starver on December 13, 2016, 07:11:40 am
But, looking at actual journey-ticket ptices: Assuming that SR price is £50 return, compare and contrast with the price as low of £3 each for two singles (standard class) between Leeds and Manchester, as a random Northern Rail example (not on my regular itinery, and my pass wouldn't cover any part of that, but it was my first stab at an equivalent journey), in two weeks' time (between Christmas and New Year, so might not be entirely representative of the regular cost1) for a journey of maybe 90 minutes and 45 miles.
Brighton and London (60 to 90 minutes, 60 miles) is a tad over £10(x2) for the 'same' experience in the same period.
York and Manchester (70 miles, 105 minutes or less), is £17.50, but that's on a higher-class train (Trans-Pennine Express) that isn't the same cattle-truck experience, but is my next (and final, for now) stab at matching for distance.
But let's look at Leeds to London (single, standard class but expect a seat, Virgin East Coast). That's £50, for 255-ish minutes and 170 miles of Travel down, maybe ⅓rd of the country, rather than a 'local' feeder town. I assume it's the same cost to get a single back again, rather than far, far cheaper/costlier(*delete as inapplicable, according to taste). ;)
(Leeds to London by coach, 27th December, is £6 single for National Express and £12 by Megabus, without trying to invoke any additional discounts like group bookings, etc, and is 4.5 to 5.5 hours.)
All trains in the North seem to have conductors/ticket-inspectors that actually operate the doors, letting the driver know to drive by (on the smaller trains at least) the application of a double-buzzer SIG/ACK handshaking between the two employees to indicate that all is well, above and beyond whatever lights blink in the cab regarding door status. It works!
I'm not sure what this tells us, especially w.r.t. Brexit, but throwing it out there, having just collated that information despite all common-sense...
1 Buy-it-now prices are £16x2, but a regular commuter would invoke some sort of discount or season ticket, and unfortunately I couldn't get a better future-time journey cost that doesn't get affected by the holidays...
Post by: scriver on December 13, 2016, 08:43:16 am
The fact that the minister of Transport sees it as an attack on the conservatives instead of a worker / union issue.
But what has that got to do with Brexit.
Post by: Neonivek on December 13, 2016, 08:51:28 am
The fact that the minister of Transport sees it as an attack on the conservatives instead of a worker / union issue.
But what has that got to do with Brexit.
Well you see... One day I took a hose and soaked my front lawn for days and days during a harsh winter.
One day there was a patch of ice all across my lawn.
But what does ice have anything to do with water?
---
Instead of leaving the post like that (because I learn I have to be overt)
The environment Brexit has created has culminated in a situation where a strike is being insinuated as Anti-Conservative... Not just in general... But that these workers are so distraught over the results of Brexit that they went out of their way to try to hurt conservatives anyway they can including shutting down public transportation.
Now I am sure the transport minister doesn't honestly believe that (because it sound stupid)... But he does believe he can convince other people, other dumb people, that this is indeed a anti-conservative effort. Especially because people, unfortunately, tend to side against strikers if it affects them even slightly.
And thus a juicy narrative on so many levels.
Post by: scriver on December 13, 2016, 09:19:07 am
The environment Brexit has created has culminated in a situation where a strike is being insinuated as Anti-Conservative...
This is an assertion. Please provide a basis for it.
Post by: wobbly on December 13, 2016, 09:26:17 am
Post by: scriver on December 13, 2016, 09:53:35 am
Post by: Starver on December 13, 2016, 11:55:28 am
Chris Greyling is a party attack-dog who turned Brexit into the kind of return of political advantage that is only rivaled by Boris's rise to Chief Foreigner-Botherer. If he can't 'sort things out' (or at the very least move the blame onto the bolshy liberal-left, as obstructing the well-organised centre-right policies that he needs everyone to trust to get the best-of-all-worlds Brexit through) then a domino falls (and certainly he might do) and it might count dearly in the future battle of one swing or another away from the delicately balanced party/Brexit centreground.
It's just an excuse, though. Everyone should know that it's workers (left leaning as they may be) vs bosses (right wing as they might be), both of whose demographics are shown to be ambivalent about Brexit.
If it wasn't this, it might be mumble muble something something junior doctors again from Jeremy C Hunt or May's old foes the Police Federation, if it could be swung (though May is probably not wanting to spark that latter one off again, if she can help it, at least until she can be sure she won't lose out, sitting on the see-saw balancing atop the greasy pole).
And this is not to say that it wouldn't happen (given its prior history) if Brexit had not happened, but the Brexit spin/curse is upon it in time this universe.
Post by: scriver on December 13, 2016, 01:16:44 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 29, 2016, 04:20:57 pm
Honestly I feel like LW is closer to the truth here but in the same way that we're closer to Djibouti than Cape Horn.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
On the one hand screaming and giggling about Keks and saying the EU is an evil empire is not helping LW at all, but the other side implying/imagining that it doesn't have some fairly deep systemic flaws is just as bad.When did I say the EU is an evil empire? It's a costly hegemony. An evil empire would at the very least be sexy
*EDIT
Corbyn: Labour won't block Brexit, I understand why people don't trust the EU or politicians (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38459140)
We're all set to go
Post by: martinuzz on January 08, 2017, 06:59:57 am
One woman died of a heart attack after waiting in the reception hall for 35 hours, and a man died of an aneurism while waiting.
Must be said that this happened on new year, with the hospital being overcrowded with people who lost eyes and hands to fireworks.
The hospital has not denied that the people died beause of the long waiting times, and says it's due to understaffing and chaos that has followed the NHS budget cuts.
One third of all hospital groups raised the alarm, and said more deaths will follow unless the NHS budget cuts are reversed.
Post by: Starver on January 08, 2017, 07:44:20 am
I feel I must point out that when there's a lot of people using a service, even an admirably low rate of 'falling through the cracks' or otherwise succumbing to random unforseen events can manifest itself in notable examples. But this makes it no less a tragedy for anyone who finds their relative becoming such a notable outlier.
I also must point out that at least one hospital in the region (not quite neighbouring ours) is scheduled to lose its A&E department later this year. The time it would take to get from their closed doors to the nearest alternative (by comparable private transport) is about half what it took is to get to our A&E from the relative's home, but then this closing one and its neighbours serve far denser populations, and presumably are scaled accordingly, so the loss might be on volume more be ven than time to initial triage.
Not entirely sure what precise threads of the Brexit issue this is supposed to be linked to, but it demonstrates that the stupid "£350m for the NHS!" thing was a despitically genius piece of PR, damn them, such that it seems Leave had no chance of plucking at the heartstrings so attractively, despite so easy a set of refutations.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 08, 2017, 08:06:34 am
Post by: hector13 on January 08, 2017, 10:38:41 am
Post by: tonnot98 on January 10, 2017, 12:44:42 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: hector13 on January 10, 2017, 01:06:22 am
Britain's EU ambassador resigns, mixed messages regarding why. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38498839)
A letter to his former colleagues, with some analysis (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38503504).
News on his replacement, former ambassador to Moscow (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38512901), including a ridiculous comment from good ol' Nige:
Quote from: Good ol' Nige
Good to see that the government have replaced a knighted career diplomat with... a knighted career diplomat.
The implication being that having someone who knows what they're doing in an unprecedented political move is a bad thing.
Post by: Starver on January 10, 2017, 03:13:05 am
The implication being that having someone who knows what they're doing in an unprecedented political move is a bad thing.Don't worry, 'Merica is trying the opposite approach, big stylee, so notes can be compared afterwards... ;)
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 10, 2017, 09:14:37 am
No, the implication being that having national interests decided by the self-interested in unprecedented political moves is a bad thing. It is the battle of career politicians interested in advancing their own careers regardless of national interest that got us with such unprecedented political moves as Brexit in the first place XDQuote from: Good ol' NigeGood to see that the government have replaced a knighted career diplomat with... a knighted career diplomat.
The implication being that having someone who knows what they're doing in an unprecedented political move is a bad thing.
Also Russia is sending Theresa May Pepes. I am not making this up, MEME WAR NOW
Post by: martinuzz on January 10, 2017, 10:18:41 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 10, 2017, 10:53:58 am
I didn't know she fancied Latino old men(http://www.laturca.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/laturca-mujica-2.jpg)
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2017, 11:01:15 am
No, the implication being that having national interests decided by the self-interested in unprecedented political moves is a bad thing. It is the battle of career politicians interested in advancing their own careers regardless of national interest that got us with such unprecedented political moves as Brexit in the first place XDQuote from: Good ol' NigeGood to see that the government have replaced a knighted career diplomat with... a knighted career diplomat.
The implication being that having someone who knows what they're doing in an unprecedented political move is a bad thing.
Also Russia is sending Theresa May Pepes. I am not making this up, MEME WAR NOW
Dang people who make politics their career! Don't they know that experience isn't necessary in politics? Worse yet their self-interest will do terrible things such as... forcing them to do a good job.
Thankfully Faraday is only a politician for a short period of time and then he is planning to retire. Notice how he isn't doing a good job? That is how you know. *joke... because I need this apparently*
To be honest I don't see how it is in a politician's best interest to screw over the country... I guess it could be like that one president who basically screwed over his country in a way that looked good (Because it caused a very brief golden age... Selling everything will do that)...
Can someone explain that?
Post by: martinuzz on January 10, 2017, 01:09:12 pm
Pepe, best president ever.I didn't know she fancied Latino old menSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 10, 2017, 01:53:44 pm
Dang people who make politics their career! Don't they know that experience isn't necessary in politics? Worse yet their self-interest will do terrible things such as... forcing them to do a good job.Neo, sometimes it's wise to at least make an attempt at understanding what is being discussed before declaring your own opinion
Thankfully Faraday is only a politician for a short period of time and then he is planning to retire. Notice how he isn't doing a good job? That is how you know. *joke... because I need this apparently*Some words are prudent here, they are the words of are basel Nyjal Faraday. A young man asked him a question, I can't remember the exact wording, however it can be paraphrased as thus:
To be honest I don't see how it is in a politician's best interest to screw over the country... I guess it could be like that one president who basically screwed over his country in a way that looked good (Because it caused a very brief golden age... Selling everything will do that)...
Can someone explain that?
"I am very interested in politics and would be interested in becoming a politician so I can represent my country; how do I get into politics? How do I get work experience with MPs or Lords?"
The advice Nigel Farage gave him was profound: Get a job, make his own money, learn how the world works, and I mean in every sense of the word works. Only after all that, consider going into politics.
The alternative is become yet another career politician.
The reasoning is simple; I have talked to a great many workers who say that in a lot of cases there is a discord between what is taught and what is reality, particularly in business and finance. I personally too have seen insane cases in the education system where though it is broken, though solutions are readily available, it is impossible to push meaningful reform because of the ideological positions of the teachers. Couple that with the insular nature of Western Universities that enforces homogeneous ideology and broaches no dissent, you get a dangerous situation where the leaders we can choose have no understanding whatsoever of how the people they represent think, belief or work. They cannot solve the problems of people they know nothing of, they cannot be relatable to people they know nothing of, they cannot represent the people they were elected to represent, thereby violating the only legitimacy they have to exist on taxpayer funds.
However the problem goes deeper than that.
As we entered the post-war era the House of Commons stopped being dominated by workers and tradesmen and started being dominated by career politicians. The typical trajectory of the career politician begins with a child under private tutorship to meet the demanding requirements of accessing elite private secondary schools. Upon entering these schools whose funds are far beyond the means of normal people to pay, they emerge with the highest odds possible for entering an Oxbridge or Russel league Uni at a minimum. Upon graduation they are able to secure work placements with Lords, MPs and civil servants whom they have already known since they were a teenager, whom they have potentially already been given work experience given that these secondary schools and Unis coordinate work placements for their students and alumni. Then they must pick which borough to be their seat; note, I did not say pick which party - the party doesn't matter, what matters is your electoral odds of winning in that borough, that decides what party you're in. Gain favour in the party, you get given a safe seat to represent. From then on it's upwards, accepting gifts, job placements, speeches, promotions, earning enough lucrative sums to fund the next generation's tutorship, and the process begins anew - if they're even spending their own money, and not spending donations or state expenses.
Consider this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32692789). A third of MPs in the House of Commons went to private school and a tenth went to Eton. The average salary of a person in the UK is £26,500 a year, British families need to make around £25,000 a year just to survive, a single year's worth of school fees for one pupil at say Eton or Westminster is £33,000 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/9680091/British-families-need-25000-just-to-survive.html). This is not just for MPs, 71% of senior judges, 62% of senior armed forces officers, 55% of top civil servants, 36% of the Cabinet, 43% of newspaper columnists (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28953881) all being from privately educated backgrounds. If you want to push an agenda onto the entire country, decide the curriculum for its future leaders in a handful of schools. Normal people cannot afford anywhere near any of the tools required to access such an elite system. This is an easily abusable system for a select minority of the UK to decide the destiny of the UK; they ignore that their power ultimately rests with the UK's people at their peril. Look at the two principle populists that are threatening in equal measure to destroy the UK or the EU; the SNP and UKIP. Most of SNPs MPs were educated in state schools, most of UKIPs MEPs never went to University, then consider how more Labour and Tory MPs got their degrees from Oxbridge than all other Unis combined, how can MPs say they represent their voters when they resent them and have no understanding whatsoever of their struggles? They live in idealistic worlds where they have spent their whole lives powerful and wealthy from childhood, it's an impossible endeavour. Thus such a system is naturally unstable and liable to extreme revolt.
But it gets worse.
Why does it seem so objectionable to have elite families command the nation, producing career politicians? Well, what is a career politician first and foremost? Well, it's a politician who pursues politics as a permanent profession of theirs. If you ignore my previous criticisms, on paper it can seem wonderful to have an established aristocracy who are raised with all the experience and intellectualism required to be a commander. Trained with excellent rhetoric, multilingualism, musical aptitude, athletics, scientific proficiency and philosophy, with experience and personal training from established politicians - it seems logical that such persons are the best suited to be leaders. I can speak from firsthand experience that their lists of talents are not exaggerations or lies, they truly do possess the skills they claim to possess.
Here it gets worse. A career politician concerned with politics as their profession is first and foremost concerned with maintaining and advancing their career, not the nation. They literally have no other choice, it is what pays their bills and maintains their elite social status. This means they must be willing to use every tool at their disposal, every person at their disposal, every connection at their disposal, the only thing that is indispensable is their career path. To put it in terms you may better empathize with, David Cameron did not campaign on the promise that he would deliver an EU referendum because he wanted the UK to leave the EU, he campaigned on the promise because he believed it would ensure his career would be maintained.
Combined together these factors all produce a horrifying situation, where high ranking officials and supposedly representative elected politicians are all schoolmates and have loyalties to one another regardless of what political aisle they sit on. They promote one another as they naturally trust the people they know already, and on a quid pro quo basis they in turn are promoted. Thus in spite of their elite intellectualism, the system produces ineffable sums of corruption where people are rewarded by corporations or foreign governments with lucrative jobs after their British career ends, and it produces politicians who are woefully inappropriate for leadership. See such things as Tony Blair become the Middle East peace envoy or Boris Johnson become for the foreign secretary for some extreme examples. Leaders that exist outside of the already established networks made in schooldays must then act ruthlessly and muster their own zealous following, hence why the four principle movers of British politics; Theresa May, Nigel Farage, Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have constantly and immediately sought about purging and removing from power the elite in their ranks. For the elite career politician their loyalties are to their friends and themselves, not the countrymen they can scarcely empathize with. Contrast this with a working citizen who stands for election in their county, not because their county is a safe seat, but because it's their county. They represent their country not because they got the best advice from spin doctors and future colleagues but because it is their country, and they really do represent it. They want to serve, not command, and as we all know the greatest leaders are born from those who first learned how to follow.
It's been an overdue purge and it's still a long way from being completed. Democratic leaders must be selected without nepotism, corruption, favoritism, and represent the country and stand on their own merits - when they finish and their merits are exhausted, or their loyalties conflicted, retire or return to their career. Having a small boy's club of elite children control the future is liable to end in worse political fiascos than the ones we have already witnessed. As it stands the weaknesses in the system are obvious, if you have enough capital at your disposal you need only lavish a select few with gifts, donations and job placements to buy their loyalty, and with it the whole political system. Thus the option for those left who do not want to merely vote for the lesser of two corruptions must vote for any alternative available - and given how liberals reacted to the uprisings of populists, communists, nationalists and conservatives all over Yurop, it would be prudent to stop trying to make more Blairs and Clintons.
Thus when you hear are based Nige sneering at our government replacing a knighted career diplomat with a knighted career diplomat, you hear such noble titles; Knighthood awarded for gallant service, a career professional with in depth expertise in international diplomacy - we just hear "some bloke who is a family member, friend or fundraiser for the party" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/30/remain-supporters-and-cameron-aides-in-line-for-honours-in-leake/). We no longer see anything professional in the conduct of the professional politician. The British public's relations with Whitehall mandarins is strained to say the least; Sir Ivan is yet more proof of the dubious loyalties of professional politicians, it is fortunate that our negotiations were in the end, not to be conducted by a pro-EU unelected official
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2017, 02:56:24 pm
Neo, sometimes it's wise to at least make an attempt at understanding what is being discussed before declaring your own opinion
Sorry let me fix that
Dang people who make politics their career! Don't they know that experience isn't necessary in politics? Worse yet their self-interest will do terrible things such as... forcing them to do a good job *Joke, because this was apparently REALLY REALLY needed.*
O_o
But thanks for answering my question. I'll sift through it later, there is just so much here.
Initial thoughts:
Though I will say that at the least end... You need political experience and understanding... Or else you end up with a bunch of nincompoops. So this hostility still perplexes me because how do you even get a middle ground between "Career Politician" and "Not a politician"... There isn't exactly part time politicianing except at the low end town councils.
Though it seems less like "career politicians" are bad... So much that, that particular brand of them are bad... a sort of self-perpetuating corruption.
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2017, 03:19:01 pm
His point isn't that the people in politics should have no political experience, but that the current route of "career politicians" from birth to death leaves them entirely removed from the realities of the countrymen they claim to represent.
It isn't that. It is, as I said... where is the middle ground realistically?
It almost feels like Career Politician is a buzz word... So I suspect it isn't so much an opposition to the idea of someone either choosing, being indoctrinated, or becoming a politician for their career... But rather a specific flavor or clique of politicians.
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2017, 03:25:37 pm
Well, the way he defined it is a person whose sole source of income is from political jobs, and always has been since they've been needing to provide for themselves.
Someone who isn't a career politician is a person where, say, keeping their job as MP isn't a matter of putting bread on the table.
So... someone who isn't independently wealthy or has supporters who can pay for their needs.
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2017, 03:32:29 pm
Or someone who has another career path they can fall back on.
We aren't talking about Pro Sports stars who left their education and leave sports battered and bruised only to find they don't really have any viable career.
We are talking about educated, sometimes highly educated, people whose jobs often require deep knowledge of demographics, economics, business, and other aspects.
A Career Politician seems like a kind of person who could have another career if they wanted to.
So I don't think it is the whole "another career path to fall back on" aspect... If anything that is probably considered a knock against them... because if they mess up, messing up the country, they can just take another job. (it is often the criticism presented to similar people, that this is another job and they will just get another one after)
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2017, 03:45:44 pm
When I say "alternate career path" I mean one outside of the job of corporate executive or other job usually given to former politicians for the sake of them being politicians. A career path that they worked towards before they attained their political position.
I know that is what you meant, I stand by what I said. I don't mean careers in other countries, I just mean careers outside of politics.
So I don't QUITE think "Ability to fall back into a new career" is something included in the definition at least not as written. Unless I am mistaken and there is actually a tendency for career politicians to be unable to get a job after their careers are over.
---
Also why do I keep calling Nigel... Mike Faraday?
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2017, 04:03:30 pm
To me there is one quote that says more about the issue the UK has with career politicians more then "They don't care about the EU, they care about their careers" (which honestly... Meh...)
Quote
They promote one another as they naturally trust the people they know already, and on a quid pro quo basis they in turn are promoted
That there is a sort of intellectual/political imbreeding among the career politician path, that actively prevents people who attempt to become politicians through other paths.
A politician's club.
It speaks more about the folly in what it has become
Post by: AntRib on January 10, 2017, 05:23:16 pm
I believe Brexit is another opportunity to see the rest of the world for the british pensioners. The June 2016 referendum has both short-term and long-term implications for current and future British retirees. UK pensioners have oft opted for acquiring property and spending their days in Spain, Portugal or Malta, which have unquestionably comprised the top three EU retirement destinations among British citizens for years.
Keeping in mind the UK’s two-year severance with the EU, British pensioners may entertain plans to travel farther afield to seek out more affordable accommodation with less paperwork. In fact, those Brits who are looking to travel to warmer climes while still using their stored sterling may find a retiree’s respite in such British Overseas Territories as the British Virgin Islands or Gibraltar (https://tranio.com/ (https://tranio.com/)). For those current or future wanderlust-filled pensioners who are still keen to capitalise on sterling’s strength, however, it becomes ever clearer that international travel to non-EU countries is the most strategic recourse to a weakening pound in a post-referendum economy.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 10, 2017, 07:04:47 pm
Dang people who make politics their career! Don't they know that experience isn't necessary in politics? Worse yet their self-interest will do terrible things such as... forcing them to do a good job *Joke, because this was apparently REALLY REALLY needed.*Experience is necessary to do well in most things, politics is no exception. Your mistake is in assuming the only people in the world who have experience are elite families, which is evidently false, especially in light of the innumerable aeons the UK has been run as a great power without the existence of intellectual elite commanders. I would have no issue with their self-interest if their self-interest forced them to do a good job - as it stands, it doesn't. Perhaps you missed my reference to Tony Blair and Boris Johnson, or was unaware of why they were extreme examples. Tony Blair is responsible for much of the destruction of the Middle East on the falsified grounds that they had developed WMDs, and was rewarded with a £500,000 salary in the private sector and appointment to the UN as the Middle East peace envoy. No one would deny that Tony Blair lacks talent or education, but he is woefully inappropriate for the job. Boris Johnson likewise is talented and well-educated, but is diplomatic toxin; no more is this clearer than with how one week he was writing poems about Erdogan fucking goats and the next week he was in Istanbul discussing Anglo-Turkish relations. This whole network of interconnected elite families of great talent may produce great people, but they are so often woefully inappropriate for leadership. As explained before their self-interest does not force them to do a good job, it does the opposite, forcing them to abuse the system they are supposed to uphold and work towards neutralizing the people they are meant to serve. A great example would be the Labour party for example trying to do their best to destroy the influence of Labour unions (the trade unions) within the Labour party. I'll repeat that: Labour MPs, working to destroy the influence of the Labour Unions, in the Labour Party. The Conservative party was not any better, doing its best to marginalize the Tory backbenchers who were actually conservatives. The whole EU referendum is easily the most illustrative example on this whole affair.
David Cameron believed that leaving the European Union would introduce a £40B black hole in our public spending budget, that pensions for the elderly would have to be abandoned, that the NHS would have to be privatized, the defence budget would have to be cut by a billion sterling, that a new recession would permanently cripple the British economy, that the decision would be irreversible and the UK would have to accept EU law with no say, that Jihadists would have open access to the UK, that three million jobs would expire immediately upon exit, that trade deals would be stagnant and nonexistent, that the UK would be torn apart by separatists, that Russia would invade all of Eastern Europe, that leaving the EU could allow it to be taken over by Nazis and incur genocide and WWIII - and despite believing all this, chose to run on the basis of delivering an EU referendum to the British public.
Why? Because in all his intellectual mastery, he determined that this was the method that would ensure his career advancement. He analyzed all the scientific polls, they all said the pro-EU side would win. He orchestrated a campaign using all the paralegal methods and established connections he had available to him, he exploited the psychological fears averse to change, averse to the unknown, and all to ensure his career advancement even though he was sure if he lost, the country would be destroyed. Not ruined, destroyed.
Still, he did it because all of his expert advisers told him it was a safe victory, all evidence pointed to how on paper, there was simply no way Leave could win. Thus we see the perils in effectiveness of politicians who do not live in reality and have never lived in reality, where they do not understand how the people they represent think, behave or believe - both in Labour and Conservative parties. It is ludicrous to argue that this system forces politicians to be good at their job when they're willing to gamble with the very existence of our civilization just to advance their career, and they fail miserably because their education and connections are no substitute for actual work experience.
Though I will say that at the least end... You need political experience and understanding... Or else you end up with a bunch of nincompoops. So this hostility still perplexes me because how do you even get a middle ground between "Career Politician" and "Not a politician"... There isn't exactly part time politicianing except at the low end town councils.The middle ground between "career politician" and "not a politician" is an MP. Someone whose experience and expertise comes not from reading and talking about the subject matter but living and applying it in reality. Thus, it is very sage advice those seeking to become politicians, to first seek their own career.
Though it seems less like "career politicians" are bad... So much that, that particular brand of them are bad... a sort of self-perpetuating corruption.The system creates the brand, excising the current brands of career politicians whilst ignoring the process that creates them would merely bring you back to square one at a later date. It's a massive vulnerability that is currently in the process of being exploited, if you do not see this as bad, I would like to know why.
It isn't that. It is, as I said... where is the middle ground realistically?MPs who are not career politicians.
It almost feels like Career Politician is a buzz word... So I suspect it isn't so much an opposition to the idea of someone either choosing, being indoctrinated, or becoming a politician for their career... But rather a specific flavor or clique of politicians.Less feelings, more facts. I put a lot of effort into explaining clearly everything, it's very rude to ignore it all in favour of your own unfounded feelings :|
This really says it all. Please read a post before responding to it Neonivek, otherwise discussion is literally impossible. Highly educated does not equal highly knowledgeable, because they have been insulated to such an immense extent so many have fallen afoul because they are detached from reality. Which is a shame. As to the repercussions of failing, no. If you read my post you would see, and the likes of Blair for example prove you can destroy continents and still be rewarded with voluminous bounties of money and job posts.We aren't talking about Pro Sports stars who left their education and leave sports battered and bruised only to find they don't really have any viable career.
We are talking about educated, sometimes highly educated, people whose jobs often require deep knowledge of demographics, economics, business, and other aspects.
A Career Politician seems like a kind of person who could have another career if they wanted to.
So I don't think it is the whole "another career path to fall back on" aspect... If anything that is probably considered a knock against them... because if they mess up, messing up the country, they can just take another job. (it is often the criticism presented to similar people, that this is another job and they will just get another one after)Thus in spite of their elite intellectualism, the system produces ineffable sums of corruption where people are rewarded by corporations or foreign governments with lucrative jobs after their British career ends, and it produces politicians who are woefully inappropriate for leadership.
To note, in the US (since it does work differently here) I do support term limits for most, if not all positions in the entire government (had to rethink single-term limits across the board, since there is benefit to seniority in politics). Hence, I don't really see the issue of a "fall-back job". Hell, I see it more as a benefit- they won't compromise the ideals that they were voted in on just to keep their job.Term limits I find can often make things worse; instead of an elite class of politician families you just end up massively empowering an elite class of donor families who have an easier time buying politicians who can't stay long enough to effect any long term agendas, only short term crowd pleasing and corporate service
To me there is one quote that says more about the issue the UK has with career politicians more then "They don't care about the EU, they care about their careers" (which honestly... Meh...)I agree with you but the minimal amount of effort you put into your posts is making me give up. Just, meh.
That there is a sort of intellectual/political imbreeding among the career politician path, that actively prevents people who attempt to become politicians through other paths.It's like I'm talking to Rogal Dorn
A politician's club.
It speaks more about the folly in what it has become
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 10, 2017, 07:16:33 pm
Lol didn't expect seeing this thread here.
I believe Brexit is another opportunity to see the rest of the world for the british pensioners. The June 2016 referendum has both short-term and long-term implications for current and future British retirees. UK pensioners have oft opted for acquiring property and spending their days in Spain, Portugal or Malta, which have unquestionably comprised the top three EU retirement destinations among British citizens for years.
Keeping in mind the UK’s two-year severance with the EU, British pensioners may entertain plans to travel farther afield to seek out more affordable accommodation with less paperwork. In fact, those Brits who are looking to travel to warmer climes while still using their stored sterling may find a retiree’s respite in such British Overseas Territories as the British Virgin Islands or Gibraltar. For those current or future wanderlust-filled pensioners who are still keen to capitalise on sterling’s strength, however, it becomes ever clearer that international travel to non-EU countries is the most strategic recourse to a weakening pound in a post-referendum economy.
Am I the only one who was puzzled by the lack of ads in AntRib's post?
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 10, 2017, 07:23:32 pm
Post by: AntRib on January 11, 2017, 07:30:19 am
Post by: hector13 on January 11, 2017, 08:46:19 am
No, the implication being that having national interests decided by the self-interested in unprecedented political moves is a bad thing. It is the battle of career politicians interested in advancing their own careers regardless of national interest that got us with such unprecedented political moves as Brexit in the first place XDQuote from: Good ol' NigeGood to see that the government have replaced a knighted career diplomat with... a knighted career diplomat.
The implication being that having someone who knows what they're doing in an unprecedented political move is a bad thing.
Would rather like to suggest the unprecedented situation was brought up 'cause of populist politics from UKIP, which forced Cameron to say he was going to do the referendum in the first place for fear of splitting the conservative vote. I do agree that he wouldn't have called for it if he didn't think he was going to win, but he also wouldn't have called it if he really didn't have to. He didn't necessarily do it for his own career, but to eliminate issues that would threaten the Tories in the election.
Cammy then - though this is my biased speculation - refused to plan for a potential Leave vote 'cause he was intending all along to quit if he lost.
Fakeedit: having read over the preceding paragraphs, I can certainly see why you say he did it for his career, rather than the good of the country. Will have to change my mind without editing anything since I'm using my phone and can't be bothered :p with the exception of the initial point on why the EU referendum came up. It was Nige :o
As an aside: are diplomats/other civil servants considered politicians? Based purely on the letter from Sir Ivan, he seemed to be a dude who took the job seriously. I don't think the U.K. is going to be able to negotiate the terms of its exit from the EU and a trade deal in two years. It took Canada six years to negotiate its trade deal with the EU, and that's without having to unravel 40 years of politics at the same time.
I also have to disagree with your assertion the SNP are populist :p but, again, I'm biased like that. They did win a majority in the Scottish parliament in a system designed to make majorities difficult to achieve. They also received the most votes in both the seat and list votes in the last Scottish election.
It may be too early to say if their Westminster romp was a populist thing or that Scotland thinks that the British parties don't have a clue wtf Scotland wants from politics. The EU referendum makes me think/hope it's the former.
Post by: Sheb on January 11, 2017, 12:02:38 pm
Post by: Neonivek on January 11, 2017, 12:41:10 pm
Quote
the minimal amount of effort you put into your posts
I could pretty it up with sugar and honey but it would still end up the same. Do you really want my school writing style?
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 11, 2017, 06:58:50 pm
But then, wouldn't Hameron calling the EU referendum a perfect exemple of the system working as intended? He didn't want to do it, but he anyway gave the option to the Brits to decide: the system gave him incentives to do the democratic thing.You could certainly make an argument for that, though that will not make liberals any happier that UKIP were able to take advantage of such a perfect system without an inkling of power to their name. My argument rests on that Cameron's decision process was that he only chose to conduct the referendum because back then all the scientific prediction models guaranteed his victory, which is why it was not democratic, and he believed that the event of a Brexit would invite disaster and destroy much of the world; the one time leaders are completely justified in exercising their executive power without any mandate is the simple case of survival.
It is very confusing why giving a referendum could occur would invite any criticism whatsoever amongst Remain and Leave (not now, but back then, before the result), but it was only recently that elections were made to occur on fixed timetables. Previously the Prime Minister could simply wait for/engineer the conditions to ensure their victory and then call an election to guarantee victory, thus the British have hefty skepticism with Prime Ministers calling important elections on their whims - inevitably, they call them in such times as to guarantee victory, as they always have done. No politician calls for a referendum when they believe they're unpopular :]
Would rather like to suggest the unprecedented situation was brought up 'cause of populist politics from UKIP, which forced Cameron to say he was going to do the referendum in the first place for fear of splitting the conservative vote. I do agree that he wouldn't have called for it if he didn't think he was going to win, but he also wouldn't have called it if he really didn't have to. He didn't necessarily do it for his own career, but to eliminate issues that would threaten the Tories in the election.Quite right, my point was both - he promised the referendum because he believed he would win, and he called it because he believed without the promise he would lose the GE. Lose the GE, he'd have to resign, career over. UKIP just took advantage of this, they won't be the last the longer we keep this system
Cammy then - though this is my biased speculation - refused to plan for a potential Leave vote 'cause he was intending all along to quit if he lost.I agree yeah, seeing the empty victor's lobby of the Remain camp so early in the morning was a sight to behold. Also I suppose from a practical point of view, he wasn't an impartial leader - he wanted Remain to win. If he came up with a functional plan for Leave, that would increase the chance of Leave winning. His whole campaign rested on Leave being scary unknown, thus to make a known plan would be self-defeating
As an aside: are diplomats/other civil servants considered politicians?Nope. But there's more to it, because they're brought up a lot in the same context and scrutiny. I suppose it's worth bringing up judges, officers and intelligence officials too. The way I understand it is that politicians propose legislation which becomes policy or law. So for example, foreign policy is going to be enforced by a mix of diplomats, military officers, civil servants and police officers. Proposed legislation gets turned into law by judges, law enforcement officers and civil servants. Ideally, and as part of their job, all the officers, civil servants and judges are supposed to be impartial, loyal to country and not allow political partisanship to take hold (and indeed, not to take part in politics). In most all cases civil servants, judges, officers, officials and so on all occupy incredibly vital roles and thus must be selected by merit and not by public, and cannot be removed on a whim - they will make unpopular decisions in carrying out their duties, and the continuity and experience their permanency provides is of high value. It also inevitably makes them powerful, which is why political neutrality is so important - MPs can't just get rid of them if they disagree, but this is only good on the basis that all the various unelected leaders are not forcing their own agenda through. Scrambled Clegg and Hameron were the vanguard to ending impartiality (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-plot-end-to-civil-service-neutrality-7995033.html), I don't think they made much headway.
I suppose my tl;dr is that a civil servant who is a politician had no integrity, because as long as they retain their impartiality then they're doing their job. I suppose this also ties into general skepticism and scrutiny of whitehall mandarins, as naturally people are suspicious of the permanent bureaucrats; MPs come and go, they're always there, thus have many opportunities to abuse their influence if left unchecked.
Based purely on the letter from Sir Ivan, he seemed to be a dude who took the job seriously. I don't think the U.K. is going to be able to negotiate the terms of its exit from the EU and a trade deal in two years. It took Canada six years to negotiate its trade deal with the EU, and that's without having to unravel 40 years of politics at the same time.That's cos the EU's useless at negotiations; I'm unconcerned, trade requires no trade deal. I'm more concerned for nations like Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa, they could potentially be screwed in the times to come, with falling export prices, potentially lower British demand and the EU restricting their trade with Europe without the UK to serve as their access point. I did not consider their export markets before all this
I also have to disagree with your assertion the SNP are populist :p but, again, I'm biased like that. They did win a majority in the Scottish parliament in a system designed to make majorities difficult to achieve. They also received the most votes in both the seat and list votes in the last Scottish election.I'm using the definition of populist to mean someone who wants to represent ordinary people, SNP use a lot of that rhetoric in their speeches and particularly emphasize how Labour stopped being populist
It may be too early to say if their Westminster romp was a populist thing or that Scotland thinks that the British parties don't have a clue wtf Scotland wants from politics. The EU referendum makes me think/hope it's the former.I'd be more concerned that the Scots don't see themselves as a part of the British
I could pretty it up with sugar and honey but it would still end up the same. Do you really want my school writing style?Anything of substance regardless of style would be appreciated, less sugar and honey, more ham
Post by: martinuzz on January 14, 2017, 05:14:24 pm
She has responded furiously, and, with her husband being terminally ill, will not leave.
She had applied for permanent residence immediatly after the Brexit referendum, which is now mandatory only for immigrants from non-EU countries.
The accusation of 'not paying private health insurance' is subject to debate. Contrary to other EU states, the UK does not have premium insurance, but rather healthcare costs are paid from public means. Brits do pay something called 'National Insurance'. Cooper pays this as well. According to the EU commission, this is a health insurance, but according to the UK, it is not. The UK has found it to be a convenient means of denying residence. A trial on whether it can be considered health insurance or not is still ongoing in Luxemburg.
In a reaction to the Cooper case, the ministry of foreign affairs has said that "ms. Cooper can most certainly stay until the Brexit. What happens after that is completely unclear".
It appears that rights of EU residents are going to be used as ammunition in the Brexit negotiations
Ms. Cooper isn't the only EU citizen living in the UK being confronted with letters of goodbye, now please go away from the State Secretary. It is a nightmare that 3 million people living in the UK will have to live.
The Brits themselves aren't proud of it either. Actor Simon West said "this is disgusting. What kind of horrible nation are we turning into?"
Former leader of the Greens, Natalie Bennett says "these tactics by Theresa May are undefendable".
inb4 the British national anthem becomes "ausländer rauss, England für die Englander! Heil Frau May"
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 14, 2017, 05:22:43 pm
Post by: hector13 on January 14, 2017, 05:40:26 pm
Not really sure what the point is. Maybe the Tories don't care about the Brits living and working in the rest of Europe who will be bearing the brunt of this, 'cause the EU is going to do exactly the same to them as whatever the U.K. does to the yooros in t'uk.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2017, 07:20:34 pm
inb4 the British national anthem becomes "ausländer rauss, England für die Englander! Heil Frau May"Europeans deporting asylum seekers is enlightened, pragmatic and progressive, Britons deporting white immigrants is German, Nazi and literal Hitler
Are Europeans really so arrogant that they believe themselves above British law, when living in Britain? As it stands now Europeans have been privileged above everyone else, even above Commonwealth citizens who have had family members in the UK for generations. Now you're not yet even in the same immigrant boat as us and I see such furor - brex your privilege mates; negotiations will probably cement European privileges for time to come and still all this crying. Makes me considerably more sympathetic to activists trying to stop the Dutch from having a policed border
I was under the impression national insurance in the U.K. was used mostly to fund the general welfare state... part of which is health. It does come from wages though, so I guess technically it's a tax.It's legally a tax
Not really sure what the point is.
Quote
Hawkins, who is a software developer and the daughter of a former oil company executive, lived in several countries as a child and says the UK is the only place she feels she can call home. She studied maths at Cambridge University and settled in the UK in 1992. She lives in Surrey and has two children, aged 15 and 17. “I always used to feel I had no roots. Because of my dad’s background we used to move every five years. This is the first time I’ve laid down roots,” she said.Sad violins at oil money Oxbridge elite having to do paperwork now. Rootless whites are unused to being treated like immigrants, they always want to be treated like expatriates where their money and media connections are above the law. Now you have to deal with the same shit bureaucracy we all live with ahahaha
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/28/dutch-woman-with-two-british-children-told-to-leave-uk-after-24-years
Maybe the Tories don't care about the Brits living and working in the rest of Europe who will be bearing the brunt of this, 'cause the EU is going to do exactly the same to them as whatever the U.K. does to the yooros in t'uk.Nah, you're just running off of biased and unsourced information so you got put on the ruse cruise
Most are gonna stay, but May's not gonna pledge that in order to secure reciprocal rights for British citizens (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/07/every-eu-migrant-can-stay-after-brexit-600000-will-be-given-amne/). If May pledged to give all EU migrants amnesty then the EU would just deport all Britons whilst EU migrants stay here, this way in negotiations reciprocal rights can be secured, cos if the EU deports all Brits, then all EU migrants are deported.
Post by: scriver on January 14, 2017, 07:31:21 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on January 14, 2017, 07:34:20 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 14, 2017, 07:48:02 pm
If she is married to a Brit, can't she just apply for citizenship-by-marriage?She could if she was here on permanent residency or indefinite leave to remain, but she stayed the whole time without applying for any of that or British citizenship, so the whole last minute scramble works against her favour
Quote
Hawkins had considered applying for citizenship before but decided not to as it did not confer any rights beyond her current EU rights. However, after the referendum she changed her mind, fearful that those rights would be diminished after Britain leaves the EU.Very last minute scramble
Quote
European citizens marrying Britons do not automatically qualify for UK citizenship under current rules and Hawkins was concerned that if she did not apply she would be forced “to join a US-style two-hour immigration queue” while the rest of her family “sail through the UK passport lane”.Speaking from personal experience, this is not the case
Moreover the whole thing is a misrepresentation from the Guardian
Quote
However, the department not only rejected her application but sent her a letter which took no account of her right to be in the country irrespective of their decision. “As you appear to have no alternative basis of stay in the United Kingdom you should now make arrangements to leave,” the letter said.The Home Office is not sending letters to Europeans telling them to gtfo, she failed the process to apply for permanent residency which for everyone else means they have to gtfo. It's a basic template they send because they process hundreds of thousands of immigrants, Home Office couldn't deport her if they wanted, and they clearly don't. Why they haven't bothered to make a template for European applicants? I don't know, bureaucrats are often the best and brightest of us all, i.e., very tired, overworked and after the first thousand applicants stop caring about life. It is of great amusement to see only one year ago the Guardian mocking those who criticized bureaucrats (https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2016/jun/21/eu-refrendum-british-traditions-under-threat-brexit-leave-remain) now rushing to defend against the dazzling competency of bureaucrats. Karmic justice is swift and blind
It's worth stressing too that the UK has not suspended her right to stay but hey, who cares about facts >_>
Post by: scriver on January 14, 2017, 08:05:13 pm
Post by: hector13 on January 14, 2017, 08:23:03 pm
Applying for citizenship is stressful, expensive, and time-consuming, and is a bit pointless when you don't have to.
Post by: scriver on January 14, 2017, 09:18:19 pm
Post by: Sheb on January 15, 2017, 05:56:42 am
Post by: martinuzz on January 15, 2017, 05:59:59 am
Also Belgium, if you can do that to an Italian, why haven't you deported the entire district of Molenbeek to the Sahara yet?
Post by: Sheb on January 15, 2017, 06:06:35 am
Does that mean it's okay if we extradite the 2 million Turks and Moroccans whose grandparents came to work in the factories in the 60s?
Also Belgium, if you can do that to an Italian, why haven't you deported the entire district of Molenbeek to the Sahara yet?
They're Belgian citizens.
Post by: Neonivek on January 15, 2017, 06:08:27 am
Does that mean it's okay if we extradite the 2 million Turks and Moroccans whose grandparents came to work in the factories in the 60s?
Also Belgium, if you can do that to an Italian, why haven't you deported the entire district of Molenbeek to the Sahara yet?
They're Belgian citizens.
Belgian? But that is a non-country!
At least that is what Nigel says.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 15, 2017, 11:13:16 am
Belgian? But that is a non-country!Thank you for this insightful and witty addition to the discussion
At least that is what Nigel says.
Post by: Neonivek on January 15, 2017, 02:02:55 pm
Belgian? But that is a non-country!Thank you for this insightful and witty addition to the discussion
At least that is what Nigel says.
Remember Nigel "IS" one of the faces of Brexit and has control over a portion of the UK.
I might joke, but it is highly relevant to understanding the political environment surrounding it. That her issues with citizenship might not be met with sympathy.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 15, 2017, 05:46:40 pm
Remember Nigel "IS" one of the faces of Brexit and has control over a portion of the UK.Wow, you actually thought I forgot who are based Nige was o_O
That's like trying to remind democrats that Obama is their face. However unlike Obama, Nigel has never had control over a portion of the UK. You may not be aware, but political control of the country is firmly in the hands of the Conservatives, Labour and various Celtic Nationalist parties. Nigel has never held any form of control in the UK (not for lack of trying mind you, it's simply the case that our electoral system presents a difficult challenge for parties like UKIP), and is not even leader of UKIP anymore. I don't even know what a face of Brexit is, that is a vapid statement that doesn't really mean much ~o.O~
I might joke, but it is highly relevant to understanding the political environment surrounding it. That her issues with citizenship might not be met with sympathy.You might joke, yet where is the joke? All you did was make a an out of context reference in substitution of humour.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
"Il n'y a pas de Belges," said the Walloon politician Jules Destree in 1912. Belgium is a state created to serve the purposes of Empires that don't even exist anymore, to what extent it could even be said to be a state is debatable.
That wasn't his joke however.
Quote
Nigel Farage to President van Rompuy: You have the charisma of a damp rag, and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk. And the question that I want to ask, that we're all going to ask, is who are you?This was in the European parliament and was sparked by the appointment of Herman van Rompuy to President of the European Council unanimously in a secret meeting at Brussels. Nigel Farage makes fun of the fact that nobody knows who van Rompuy is and the fact that he looks like a low-grade bank clerk, which is probably because he rose to power after working in the Belgian central bank, yet in spite of this was now in charge of directing the political agenda for an entire continent of peoples. The main crux of the issue is that secret meetings do not a President make, and its ridiculous to have unelected Presidents appointed in secret meetings by elite councils supposedly representing democratic nation states, hence why he's the quiet assassin working to take away sovereignty from democracy.
I've never heard of you. Nobody in Europe's ever heard of you.
I would like to ask you President, who voted for you? And what mechanism? Oh I know democracy is not popular with you lot.
And what mechanism do the people of Europe have to remove you? Is this European democracy? Well I, well I said so, that you're competent, and capable, and dangerous, and I have no doubt that it's your intention to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of the European nation states. You appear to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states, perhaps that is because you come from Belgium, which of course, is pretty much, a non-country. But since you've took over, we've seen Greece reduced to nothing more than a protectorate, sir, you have no legitimacy in this job at all, and I can say with confidence, that I can speak on behalf of the majority of the British people in saying; we don't know you, we don't want you, and the sooner you're put out to grass - the better.
As a reward for destroying so much of Europe he was well compensated, his money persisting long after he stopped doing anything (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11266362/Herman-Van-Rompuy-will-be-paid-over-500000-by-the-EU-to-do-nothing.html). It is symbolic really that Greece, the cradle of Western civilization and democracy, is now today synonymous with destitution, decay and hegemony.
To understand the political environment as to why her citizenship issues are not met with block-headed sympathy, it's because there is little to nothing to sympathize with. What's wrong with her life? Is she poor? No, she's a cambridge grad software engineer born into the world with oil money. Is she alone? Nope, happily married and her kids have already spread their wings well into the world. Is she being deported from her home? Nope, her fear is she'll have to wait in a longer queue at the airport, a fear that isn't even founded.
How did she land in such a devastating dilemma? She never applied in the entirety of her 23 years stay in the only place she calls home for citizenship. I would have more sympathy if she was not already so wealthy and well-connected that even an MP is working on her behalf to sort out the shitfest of bureaucracy normal people deal with without recourse. Her issues also have nothing to do with Belgium, she is from the Netherlands, which is a real country.
Sheb is referring to a different case regarding how Belgium obviously can't deport Belgian citizens, because you can't deport your own citizens unless you're Stalin or have a penal colony. I'm pretty certain both Stalin and penal colonies no longer exist.
Post by: Sheb on January 15, 2017, 06:24:00 pm
I might joke, but it is highly relevant to understanding the political environment surrounding it. That her issues with citizenship might not be met with sympathy.You might joke, yet where is the joke? All you did was make a an out of context reference in substitution of humour.Belgium is a non-country, that is a joke. For the brief centuries in which Belgium has existed it has been accepted and the brunt of jokes for not being a real country, Belgium is a state, but not a nation - thus, all nation-states ridicule it. There is no such thing as a "Belgian," rather Belgians are Flems, Walloons, Germans and Arabs. The Flems in the north, the Walloons in the south, the Germans in the east and the Arabs in the cities, the whole thing is an artificial state constructed as a buffer state between France, the Netherlands and Germany whose sole existence renders it a meme country.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
"Il n'y a pas de Belges," said the Walloon politician Jules Destree in 1912. Belgium is a state created to serve the purposes of Empires that don't even exist anymore, to what extent it could even be said to be a state is debatable.
That wasn't his joke however.
Well, Destrée was a Walloon nationalist, so it's hardly surprising. It also date from right before WWI, which was really the start of both a Belgian consciousness, and paradoxically of the raise of the Flemish movement. Nothing temper a people like a big war. As for waloons, the fun fact is that the Walloon movement kinda flopped, the party that my great-grandfather founded is now only present in a few communes around Brussels. Walloons nowadays think of themselves as Belgians, despite being the minority in the country.
Post by: Neonivek on January 15, 2017, 06:51:02 pm
*Checks*
WOW!!! Ok... Ignoring the unfair stuff that doesn't apply.
Also dear goodness!
So she needs to pass two tests (a test any UK citizen can pass, and another that a typical UK citizen won't). Practice tests are only available at the test center and only can be done the day of the test apperantly.
Uhh... let me see... She is from Belgium. So she isn't going to pass the English test immediately (likely)... I think Belgium doesn't have a requirement so she can apply for citizenship in 12 months instead of 5 years (DEAR STUPID GOODNESS Official government website... I am confused)... However that is only if she has the right papers for that and it is something she has to apply for.
And uhhh... goodness...
Ok so... so far she has to do two tests and write out at least two forms and wait for a response.
I just know that just from the amount of loops involved in citizenship... That there must be agencies dedicated JUST to helping you with this citizenship thing.
Post by: Baffler on January 15, 2017, 07:18:03 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 15, 2017, 07:48:28 pm
Well, Destrée was a Walloon nationalist, so it's hardly surprising. It also date from right before WWI, which was really the start of both a Belgian consciousness, and paradoxically of the raise of the Flemish movement. Nothing temper a people like a big war. As for waloons, the fun fact is that the Walloon movement kinda flopped, the party that my great-grandfather founded is now only present in a few communes around Brussels. Walloons nowadays think of themselves as Belgians, despite being the minority in the country.
Quote from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/belgium-s-separatists-reawaken-as-nationalism-stalks-europe
As Europe was growing together with the euro and open borders, Belgium was drifting apart, cleaved between the wealthier, trade-intensive north and the more rural, industrially outdated French-speaking south, known as Wallonia. Six overhauls of the constitution since 1970 gradually gave the Flemings more control of their affairs.That's great, but don't grow complacent. In the UK one day everyone was British and the next politicians were campaigning for secession, these things change dramatically quickly and constantly require adaptation or else things fall apart :P
Now that the European Union’s unifying achievements are under threat, there is even less glue to hold Belgium together. Flemish government chief Geert Bourgeois, one of De Wever’s right-hand men, spoke in a Jan. 16 De Standaard interview of a “two-country country.”
Spain is another great example. All of them were Spanish but now they are Catalonians and other Spaniards
Considering her profession and how long she's been in the UK she had damn well better be able to pass an English test, and if the actual civics test is anything like this practice test, (https://www.indy100.com/article/can-you-pass-a-uk-citizenship-test-most-young-people-cannot--gJ0v-H6BQx) she'll probably be fine. You only need a 75% to pass, and I managed to only miss two (15 and 20) while knowing basically nothing about modern British politics.I got 20/24, I didn't know that magistrates worked unpaid, don't know how EU driving law works, got the patron saint of Wales wrong and haven't read much of Jane Austen. Almost got the holidays in November question wrong until I remembered to remember remember, the 5th of November. This is all stuff you'd know from reading the papers, going to a British school or spending 3 years pub quizzing in Leeds
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 15, 2017, 08:39:31 pm
Post by: Starver on January 15, 2017, 09:22:37 pm
this practice test, (https://www.indy100.com/article/can-you-pass-a-uk-citizenship-test-most-young-people-cannot--gJ0v-H6BQx)The second attempt1, what I got wrong:
A silly error, but I thought "The main political parties actively look for members" was false. (I was comparing with the US system of wanting to register the 'brand' of voter when the voter registers to be a voter. Really, major parties find memberships more of a problem, IMO, than anything else. Big donors (businessmen/unions/etc) fill their coffers, and see what a fuss Labour has had...)
I thought the "textile and engineering" question was a trick one. Pakistan wasn't yet a country at the end of WW2, and I knew of Canadians who came over as engineers, so I chose that.
...and that's all I got wrong, it seems.
PS: I would additionally ask How do you spell "center/centre", "through"/"thru", "ur"/"your", "you're"/"your" and "anglicisation"/"anglicization". That would fail more Brits (and Yanks that I wouldn't worry about) than the kind of immigrants I would judge as worthwhile.
1 Three questions in, the first time, it took a scrolling touch as an answering touch, and refresh to give me a legotimate clean sheet gave me different starting questions. Not sure if it just re-ordered them. The original first three featured later in the new set, so probably.
Post by: smjjames on January 15, 2017, 09:35:36 pm
So she lived in the UK for 30 years and feels it is the only place she can call home, but didn't even bother to apply for citizenship. My sympathies are not very hearty.
I see irony here. Change the womans nationality from Dutch to Mexican and bam, you have the same sort of illegal immigrant problem here in the US. Well, not exactly the same, but it's the same 'not applying for citizenship and staying illegally'.
Post by: Sheb on January 16, 2017, 04:55:08 am
Quote from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/belgium-s-separatists-reawaken-as-nationalism-stalks-europeAs Europe was growing together with the euro and open borders, Belgium was drifting apart, cleaved between the wealthier, trade-intensive north and the more rural, industrially outdated French-speaking south, known as Wallonia. Six overhauls of the constitution since 1970 gradually gave the Flemings more control of their affairs.That's great, but don't grow complacent. In the UK one day everyone was British and the next politicians were campaigning for secession, these things change dramatically quickly and constantly require adaptation or else things fall apart :P
Now that the European Union’s unifying achievements are under threat, there is even less glue to hold Belgium together. Flemish government chief Geert Bourgeois, one of De Wever’s right-hand men, spoke in a Jan. 16 De Standaard interview of a “two-country country.”
Spain is another great example. All of them were Spanish but now they are Catalonians and other Spaniards
Don't get me wrong, the country IS falling apart. The Flemish separatists know that there is no support for independence yet in Flanders so they refuse to call for a referendum, but in the meantime they're pursuing a highly effective tactic of making country an ineffective mess so that independence look better. Hell, I find myself wishing for a split so we can have sane institutions sometimes.
Post by: martinuzz on January 16, 2017, 04:59:52 am
No it isn't. EU residents could always stay legally without citizenship. There was absolutely no need to apply for it, because Schengen.So she lived in the UK for 30 years and feels it is the only place she can call home, but didn't even bother to apply for citizenship. My sympathies are not very hearty.
I see irony here. Change the womans nationality from Dutch to Mexican and bam, you have the same sort of illegal immigrant problem here in the US. Well, not exactly the same, but it's the same 'not applying for citizenship and staying illegally'.
It'd be more like if Hawaii would suddenly declare independance, and all US citizens would have to leave because they don't have Hawaiian citizenship.
Post by: Starver on January 16, 2017, 06:10:23 am
Don't get me wrong, the country IS falling apart. The Flemish separatists know that there is no support for independence yet in Flanders so they refuse to call for a referendum, but in the meantime they're pursuing a highly effective tactic of making country an ineffective mess so that independence look better. Hell, I find myself wishing for a split so we can have sane institutions sometimes.Flanders is being cloyingly nice about it all, but that's just annoying Homer even more...
(Don't look at me like thaf, the chances are that you were thinking the same... :))
Post by: Sheb on January 16, 2017, 06:33:58 am
Post by: Starver on January 16, 2017, 07:39:46 am
Ironic that I didn't write "the chances are that y'all were thinking the same", like I was going to, to make it clear I was invoking everyone in my statistical prediction, to allow for obviousanomolies like yourself. ;)
1 Until and unless they cut Alaska into two equal halves, at which pount it'll be the third largest state... ;)
2 When I was young, I used to keep a list of all the different fuel brands I saw on forecourt signs. (Ironically, mostly while cycling.) There must have been nearly 100, way back then. I wonder where that notebook is now? *wanders off into memory lane, as a shortcut over to rcollection avenue that avoids that tricky stretch via lethology boulevard...*
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 16, 2017, 01:20:21 pm
Don't get me wrong, the country IS falling apart. The Flemish separatists know that there is no support for independence yet in Flanders so they refuse to call for a referendum, but in the meantime they're pursuing a highly effective tactic of making country an ineffective mess so that independence look better. Hell, I find myself wishing for a split so we can have sane institutions sometimes.If it's any consolation, Belgium falling apart is not an anomaly, most of the West exists in a twilight perpetual state of innovation and decline
Nah, when I think about the part of my country which account for 60% of my population, the first thing that comes to mind is not some TV show character. I mean, when I say Texas, the first thing in your mind ain't a pornstar, is it?Is Texas famed for porn?
Post by: martinuzz on January 16, 2017, 01:31:52 pm
Is Texas famed for porn?Must be corn.
Fakeedit: Do not google Texas corn on the cob
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 16, 2017, 03:22:22 pm
It's far more complex than that. Spain started off as many different kingdoms and the cultural differences from one region to another are rather big. As such regionalism, and regional culture, customs, and laws, have been a big thing in Spain for centuries.
Spain is another great example. All of them were Spanish but now they are Catalonians and other Spaniards
That being said, I think the main driving factor behind the current crisis in Catalonia has been driven by the ruling PP (conservative) party, which has harassed the catalonians badly during the last four years. The situation would not be anywhere near as tense if the PP hadn't insisted in escalating the crisis over and over.
BTW I scored 23 out of 24 in the test. Do I get a cookie?
Post by: TD1 on January 16, 2017, 03:26:24 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 16, 2017, 03:28:10 pm
I'm going to regret posting here.Too late.
Post by: Neonivek on January 16, 2017, 03:30:02 pm
I'm going to regret posting here.Too late.
Yeah, you really are.
This thread has a serious problem with police and intolerance.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 16, 2017, 03:31:56 pm
And with people who regret posting here. Desertors will be shot! Not one step backwards!I'm going to regret posting here.Too late.
Yeah, you really are.
This thread has a serious problem with police and intolerance.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Voennaia_marka_Ni_shagu_nazad!.jpg/220px-Voennaia_marka_Ni_shagu_nazad!.jpg)
Post by: Neonivek on January 16, 2017, 03:34:24 pm
I am *does dubious research* Albania, everyone hates me.
---
I still kind of laugh that they made a videogame called "Orwell" that is about a Orwellian government program...
And it is significantly less sophisticated and far reaching then the surveillance methods then the UK... and the US.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 16, 2017, 03:42:19 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 16, 2017, 04:27:06 pm
Yeah, you really are.Examples please
This thread has a serious problem with police and intolerance.
If you get in trouble, just attack me and you will be fine.When people ask you to post sources for your beliefs or actually say anything of substance they're just requesting the basic decency required to have a conversation. If all you do is post your opinions, devoid of any factual basis, leaving only vague platitudes and condemnations as replies, there is literally nothing to talk about and no exchange of information. I truly have no idea what you are seeking from your discussions other than an affirmation of your opinions, you must know that a disagreement of opinion is no measure of hostility surely o_O
I am *does dubious research* Albania, everyone hates me.
Like this whole nonsense where you make reference to research and not only avoid posting your sources, you actively refuse to post sources. I probably wouldn't care so much if you didn't have express such strong opinions on topics you know little about, it is simply annoying for example when you condemn entire countries whilst refusing to justify your condemnations with argumentation or evidence.
I still have no idea why you do this. Repeatedly I and others have asked that you post sources or add anything substantive to discussion and you've declined on the basis that you feel to actually engage in honest argumentation is somehow a hostile attack, yet by being so elusive and sarcastic you are actively stunting discussion and causing people to just start ignoring you. I'm completely sincere in my statements (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159257.msg7309803#msg7309803), I have no idea if you're aware you're actively antagonizing other people in your efforts to be "peaceful." In what world is "does dubious research" serve as a proper justification for an argument of any sort? I'm not referring to your Albania joke, I'm referring to your earlier arguments. Why do you do this instead of posting your found knowledge? I really have no idea. If you think people like myself have attacked you for levying this criticism, I can speak for myself in saying I bear you no ill-will, and hold you in high esteem. I however cannot but help feel my patience withered away when you invoke an image of villains to represent my nation without any justification, and when I spend great effort to engage you on this, to challenge and learn your opinion's foundations - I am met with empty sarcasm. It leaves me feeling that I could have better spent my time productively talking to fish
It's far more complex than that. Spain started off as many different kingdoms and the cultural differences from one region to another are rather big. As such regionalism, and regional culture, customs, and laws, have been a big thing in Spain for centuries.It's also far more complex in the UK than what I said, there is no eternal UK or eternal Spain. What I mean to say is in regards to Sheb's earlier post, where Belgian identity is strong - I am simply referencing how one day nations like Spain and Britain had strong unifying identities, the next day no longer
That being said, I think the main driving factor behind the current crisis in Catalonia has been driven by the ruling PP (conservative) party, which has harassed the catalonians badly during the last four years. The situation would not be anywhere near as tense if the PP hadn't insisted in escalating the crisis over and over.Sounds pretty grim, how have the Catalonians been harassed? Stuff like disenfranchisement or cultural suppression?
BTW I scored 23 out of 24 in the test. Do I get a cookie?You are become eternal Anglo, destroyer of worlds
I still kind of laugh that they made a videogame called "Orwell" that is about a Orwellian government program...Yes and no. A lot of it is on a par with the UK in that it is trawling through security and publicly available records to determine where people are and who their relationships are, where they go, what they do and so on to create a profile with which to incriminate them or eliminate them from a list of suspects. The main hook of the Orwell game is that you also have access to the real time conversations of everyone. This is a tool intelligence agencies do not possess, at least not without legal and technical difficulty, and not without the suspect having methods to circumvent surveillance to varying degrees of success. As it stands western security bureaus have access to everyone's metadata, can attempt to target individual communications, have access to everyone's publicly available information and also basic humint; they do not have the ability to monitor all communications at all times - there is simply too much data for humans or machines to process for now.
And it is significantly less sophisticated and far reaching then the surveillance methods then the UK... and the US.
Data retention has replaced mass surveillance as the foremost privacy issue. It is impossible to fight against mass surveillance when everyone willingly gives away all their information, carries on them smart products recording and transmitting information ranging from their location to their meetings and contacts, even to those who wear gym aides with which companies can determine everything down to their daily mood. With data retention, operators can gleam through all the information you have accrued, your digital footprint, over time - and read your life's story down to a T. Orwell is less subtle, but that is by design; it is intended to be a warning against overreaching security powers. Also in Orwell the system of surveillance is imposed by the state, in the UK and especially the USA, most of the tools of surveillance are voluntarily created by individuals. A facebook user will not complain of being an open book to the state, the purpose of their account was to be seen.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 16, 2017, 04:41:20 pm
That being said, I think the main driving factor behind the current crisis in Catalonia has been driven by the ruling PP (conservative) party, which has harassed the catalonians badly during the last four years. The situation would not be anywhere near as tense if the PP hadn't insisted in escalating the crisis over and over.Sounds pretty grim, how have the Catalonians been harassed? Stuff like disenfranchisement or cultural suppression?
First by persecution by politically-friendly media - you see, certain regions in Spain are fair game for scapegoating. It used to be basques, but since ETA has been gone for almost a decade it doesn't quite work as well as it used to - though they still try from time to time-. Now it's the Catalonians. Thing is, this kind of shit backfires because it encourages people who otherwise wouldn't vote nationalist parties to do so out of disenfranchisment.
However, in June something far more alarming took place: The former Spanish Inner Affairs Minister was recorded (while still in office) taking place in a conversation where it was admitted, among other things, that they were persecuting Catalonian nationalist politicians, and sabotaging the Catalonian healthcare system. (Unfortunatedly, most links are in Spanish so I'm guessing this wont be very helpful http://www.redaccionmedica.com/autonomias/cataluna/caso-fernandez-diaz-les-hemos-destrozado-el-sistema-sanitario--5394
The google translate version is fairly coherent, though: https://translate.google.es/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redaccionmedica.com%2Fautonomias%2Fcataluna%2Fcaso-fernandez-diaz-les-hemos-destrozado-el-sistema-sanitario--5394&edit-text=
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 17, 2017, 03:30:26 pm
You'd think politicians wouldn't sabotage their own people's healthcare just to advance their party's personal agenda but in the UK that retarded shit happens too. How the best educated turn out so rotten is beyond me
Post by: Baffler on January 17, 2017, 03:33:19 pm
How the best educated turn out so rotten is beyond me
Often sacrifices must be made to advance the cause of the Greater Good.
Or if you're less generous, "what does it matter what happens to a few of the peasants? We've got plenty of them as it is."
Post by: Neonivek on January 17, 2017, 03:38:25 pm
How the best educated turn out so rotten is beyond me
Often sacrifices must be made to advance the cause of the Greater Good.
Or if you're less generous, "what does it matter what happens to the peasants? We've got plenty of them as it is."
There is a book that provides a possible answer... a Lawyer written it and is about the corruption within Lawyer ranks and not the typical "Lawyers defense the guilty" swill but things like Lawyers sleeping with their clients.
Basically you are training you entire life for a prestigious position, being told of the riches and accolades of even reaching that pinnacle. Then you FINALLY reach it and...
It is nothing like what you thought it was. Politics SUCKS! By its very nature it is gridlocked to hell and back.
Which not only kind of crushes spirits but... think of it... They were offered something... and they will get it! even if they have to bend a few rules to do it.
THAT and well... Lawyers and politicians have genuine power over people.
At least that is what I think the book talks about >_<... basically the problem with politicians can be seen with other "Top tier" jobs (Ignoring CEOs... that is another beast)
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 17, 2017, 04:06:04 pm
Often sacrifices must be made to advance the cause of the Greater Good.There's always moments in warfare when an army officer has to order one of his men to make an action that will in all likelihood result in his death, and this soldier will go forth and follow this command with the full knowledge that they'll not see the next day. Why does the officer give this command, why does the soldier follow it? Because their sacrifice will bring the war closer to its end and closer to victory.
Or if you're less generous, "what does it matter what happens to a few of the peasants? We've got plenty of them as it is."
In Western militaries the whole force consists of well-trained and elite volunteers, who follow their commanders because they want to. If they stop wanting to follow their leaders, the whole structure falls apart as a fighting force. Thus one cannot treat their soldiers like a Chinese warlord treated his peasant conscripts, or they will soon cease to be your soldiers.
That is the practicality of sacrificing for the greater good. There is an objective to work towards, and self-sacrifice is not enough - a leader must sacrifice others to advance to this goal, using all means possible to inspire their followers to achieve this good regardless of their own interests. It just so happens to be fortunate that was is pragmatic is also morally righteous, you're not going to want to follow a leader that is in plain terms a complete bellend.
Looking at the actions of Spanish or British leaders who sabotaged their own people's healthcares in order to advance their goals, it fails to be seen through this lens as advancing towards a greater good. These leaders are responsible for providing (in one of the most direct ways possible) for the welfare of their citizens, yet are actively willing to sabotage the welfare and destroy the lives of their own citizens just to discredit their political opponents' arguments. When the debates are over and they are reviewing their political careers, their citizens who had their lives ruined in such squabbling will have little consolation that any greater good was achieved in their sacrifice, all that was achieved was one bloke got to score more political points on the polling charts.
That is what separates those who are ruthless from those who are merely rotten. It is why I also believe the defeated leaders of last year, as distant as that year feels, failed so miserably - looking at how to destroy their opponents, not how to inspire their followers.
Post by: Baffler on January 17, 2017, 05:04:13 pm
Often sacrifices must be made to advance the cause of the Greater Good.There's always moments in warfare when an army officer has to order one of his men to make an action that will in all likelihood result in his death, and this soldier will go forth and follow this command with the full knowledge that they'll not see the next day. Why does the officer give this command, why does the soldier follow it? Because their sacrifice will bring the war closer to its end and closer to victory.
Or if you're less generous, "what does it matter what happens to a few of the peasants? We've got plenty of them as it is."
In Western militaries the whole force consists of well-trained and elite volunteers, who follow their commanders because they want to. If they stop wanting to follow their leaders, the whole structure falls apart as a fighting force. Thus one cannot treat their soldiers like a Chinese warlord treated his peasant conscripts, or they will soon cease to be your soldiers.
That is the practicality of sacrificing for the greater good. There is an objective to work towards, and self-sacrifice is not enough - a leader must sacrifice others to advance to this goal, using all means possible to inspire their followers to achieve this good regardless of their own interests. It just so happens to be fortunate that was is pragmatic is also morally righteous, you're not going to want to follow a leader that is in plain terms a complete bellend.
Looking at the actions of Spanish or British leaders who sabotaged their own people's healthcares in order to advance their goals, it fails to be seen through this lens as advancing towards a greater good. These leaders are responsible for providing (in one of the most direct ways possible) for the welfare of their citizens, yet are actively willing to sabotage the welfare and destroy the lives of their own citizens just to discredit their political opponents' arguments. When the debates are over and they are reviewing their political careers, their citizens who had their lives ruined in such squabbling will have little consolation that any greater good was achieved in their sacrifice, all that was achieved was one bloke got to score more political points on the polling charts.
That is what separates those who are ruthless from those who are merely rotten. It is why I also believe the defeated leaders of last year, as distant as that year feels, failed so miserably - looking at how to destroy their opponents, not how to inspire their followers.
I hate to do devil's advocate like this, but discrediting their political opponents, from the perspective of a politician, is for the greater good. Higher polling numbers, however they got there, mean stronger public support and a stronger mandate, which means in turn a stronger majority in government, meaning that (their) ideology can be turned into policy more quickly and more purely. There's a reason the Golden Mean is considered a logical fallacy. Compromising with someone who is just plain wrong only dilutes the effectiveness of the end result. People are comfortable with the current system, and even though there's a better one available they're not willing to change out a known good for an unknown regardless of its promise. They needed a shakeup to get moving, so it was delivered to them in the best way they know how.
All that assumes, I guess, that the politician really does believe Neoliberal policy (which I pick because that's what these in particular believe) is the best way to prosperity for everyone and aren't just indulging some sort of sociopathic streak and using their office to get more money and power over others. It might seem petty but I personally think that it's important to separate Knights Templar from run of the mill narcissists. They act in the same way and deserve the same consequences (and I definitely can't tell one from the other from my office chair let alone do anything about it, heh) but one is misguided or perhaps corrupted by a toxic political landscape, while the other has a personality disorder.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 17, 2017, 05:04:38 pm
Post by: TD1 on January 17, 2017, 05:05:09 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 17, 2017, 05:20:02 pm
Maintaining common travel with ROI, very good, very good
Intrigued that she's thrown her support for MPs voting on final deal but Lib dems are opposing it now, complete reversal of positions in the span of weeks for them all
Pound looking good, markets found her speech sexy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38650529)
6/10, better than expected
Post by: TD1 on January 17, 2017, 05:32:24 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 17, 2017, 05:49:25 pm
Quote
I know that this, and the other reasons that Britain took such a decision are not always well understood by our friends and allies in Europe. And I know many fear that this might herald the beginning of a greater unraveling of the EU. But let me be clear, I do not want that to happen. It would not be in the best interest of Britain. It remains overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain's national interest that the EU should succeed. And that is why I hope in the months and years ahead, we will all reflect on the lessons of Britain's decision to leave. So let me take this opportunity to set out the reasons for our decision, and to address the people of Europe directly.Mfw she gets the L O C A L P O L I T I C S
It's not simply because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist, important though that is, many in Britain have always felt that the United Kingdom's place in the European Union came at the expense of our global ties, and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world. There are other important reasons too.
Our political traditions our different, unlike other European countries we have no written constitution. But the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is the basis of our unwritten constitutional settlement. We have only a recent history of devolved governance, though it has rapidly embedded itself, and we have little history of coalition government. The public expect to be able to hold their governments to account very directly. As a result, supranational institutions as strong as those created by the European Union, sit very uneasily in relation to our political history, and way of life.
Quote
And while I know Britain might at times have been seen as an awkward member state, the European Union has struggled to deal with the diversity of its members and their interests. It bends towards uniformity, not flexibility. David Cameron's negotiation was a valiant final attempt at making it work for Britain, and I want to thank all those elsewhere who helped him to reach an agreement. But the blunt truth as we know, is that there was not enough flexibility on many important matters for a majority of British voters. Now I do not think these things uniquely apply to Britain, Britain is not the only member-state where there is a strong attachment to accountable and democratic government, such a strong internationalist mindset, or a belief that diversity in Europe should be celebrated. So I believe there is a lesson in Brexit, not just for Britain, but if it wants to succeed for the EU to ask itself, because our continent's great strength has always been its diversity. And there are two ways of dealing with different interests, you can respond by trying to hold things together by force, tightening a vice-like grip that ends up crushing into tiny pieces the very things you want to protect, or you can respect difference, cherish it even, and reform the EU so that it deals better with the wonderful diversity of its member states. So to our friends across Europe, let me say this, our vote to leave the European Union was no rejection of the values we share. The decision to leave the EU represents no desire to become more distant to you, our friends and neighbours. It was no attempt to harm the EU itself, or to any of its remaining member-states. We do not want to turn the clock back, to the days when Europe was less peaceful, less secure and less able to trade freely. It was a vote to restore as we see it, our parliamentary democracy, national self-determination and to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.Cheeky lesson to yurop, do not crush that you love
Quote
We will continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends. We want to buy your goods and services, sell you ours, trade with you as freely as possible, and work with one another to make sure we are all safer, more secure and more prosperous through continued friendship. You will still be welcome in our country as we hope our citizens will be welcome in yours, at a time when together we face a serious threat from our enemies. Britain's unique intelligence capabilities will continue to help to keep people in Europe safe from terrorism.007 BONGLAND SAVE YUROP
Quote
At a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain's servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty.Knocked it out the park
We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.
Full speech here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb14pyIqosk)
Indeed. I'm quite pleased with her for the first time, though I have a friend who is very worried about science - he's looking for an Israel type deal, and believes this approach is dangerous to that.This kind of deal? (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.597705)
Post by: TD1 on January 17, 2017, 06:22:48 pm
Guess which epistemological pursuit he wishes to follow - hint: It's not the arts :P
Post by: Sergarr on January 18, 2017, 02:52:46 am
Post by: LoSboccacc on January 18, 2017, 03:04:56 am
Right?
Post by: Sergarr on January 18, 2017, 03:50:21 am
That's because it's an objectively dumb move in the lieu of Trump's "let's put a 35% import tariff on anything that's not produced in USA" ultra-protectionist proposal that hurts everyone and benefits no one.
Post by: Neonivek on January 18, 2017, 03:53:23 am
Last time I've heard not even Brexiteers themselves have campaigned for Hard "Leave the single market completely" Brexit
That's because it's an objectively dumb move in the lieu of Trump's "let's put a 35% import tariff on anything that's not produced in USA" ultra-protectionist proposal that hurts everyone and benefits no one.
In fairness to Trump I don't think it is meant to benefit anyone. It is patriotic/nationalist diatribe.
Post by: Sheb on January 18, 2017, 04:52:11 am
Post by: Sheb on January 18, 2017, 06:38:12 am
Post by: scriver on January 18, 2017, 06:40:09 am
Peter Chase of the GMF has a nice idea: the US, UK and rEU could use the TTIP as a vehicle to negotiate the new trade relationships of the UK. (http://www.gmfus.org/blog/2017/01/17/squaring-circle-uk-eu-trade-relations-triangle)
Have you really gone so far right that you actuallythink TTIP is a good idea, or was that a sarcastic 'see what you get for leaving, Britain' jab, Sheb? I can't tell any more.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 18, 2017, 07:55:20 am
Last time I've heard not even Brexiteers themselves have campaigned for Hard "Leave the single market completely" BrexitI'd like to know where you heard this from because it's objectively wrong; there is no hard or soft Brexit, there is leaving the European Union or remaining in the European Union. Do you read nothing but fake news? The only people campaigning to remain in the single market are the people who campaigned to remain in the European Union, because the economic union is the basis of the political union and would be a British exit of the Union in name only. Unless of course people voted to leave the European Union expecting the European Union to still control who we trade with or give total control of our border to the EU ::)
[Citation needed]Perhaps after two years I'm losing patience with the expectation that only Leave supporters have to actually provide facts, that supporting Remain is an instant indicator of intelligence and is factually true because only morons don't support Remain. Too much smug.
Where is this prime leave promise, hmm? I'm getting flashbacks to the ez bait (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYdht0hg1ik)
The people who promised the UK would remain a member of the single market if the UK left the EU were the Remain campaign, unsurprisingly. Boris, Gove, even the unofficial Farage - all promised the UK would leave the single market, and even Osborne on the Remain campaign said we'd leave the single market if we voted to Leave. No issues there
Straight from the Leave campaign's frameworkQuote from: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/a_framework_for_taking_back_control_and_establishing_a_new_uk_eu_deal_after_23_june.htmlFree Trade Bill. This would require that by the next election, the UK leaves the EU’s ‘common commercial policy’. That would restore the UK Government’s power to control its own trade policy. That would create jobs. The UK would take back its seat on the World Trade Organization, becoming a more influential force for free trade and friendly cooperation. After we Vote Leave, we would immediately be able to start negotiating new trade deals with emerging economies and the world’s biggest economies (the US, China and Japan, as well as Canada, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, and so on), which could enter into force immediately after the UK leaves the EU.
That's because it's an objectively dumb move in the lieu of Trump's "let's put a 35% import tariff on anything that's not produced in USA" ultra-protectionist proposal that hurts everyone and benefits no one.You'll have to explain why it's objectively dumb then. How it hurts everyone and benefits no one. Does anyone even bother justifying their beliefs anymore?
Here's the factual basis for leaving the single market. If we remain in the single market, the UK must accept free movement of people, the supremacy of EU law and the supremacy of EU governance. With the free movement of people the UK would lose its sovereign status in foreign relations regarding immigration, with dire consequences for our desired policy for selective migration and our desire to contain and quell European jihadism. EU law would remain supreme as our economy would be regulated in accordance with EU legislation, made worse in that we would have no say at all - resulting in even more sovereign power being lost, our economic capital used to bolster the power of Brussels with no self-determination gained. Standardisation and harmonization would still occur, still attempting to force the UK to become another European state via regulation and assumption of regulatory authority over British industry, and worse of all the UK would not be able to represent itself on the world stage. It would not be able to conduct its own trade deals, having all of them conducted by a European Commission that went from before having no legal obligation to represent Britain to after, having an incentive to damage Britain. Our external tariff rates would be set by the European Union even though we are seeking free trade with the world - whilst the Europeans are seeking to block out the rest of the world with high external tariff rates, which as you say, are stupid, hurts everyone, and benefits no one. It would mean leaving the European Union whilst maintaining all of the
actual mechanisms which enforce the EU's supremacy, which is not a situation that benefits the UK, and is very much one-sided in favour of the EU - under such an agreement, the EU would only increase what it benefits from the UK whilst increasing its authority, the UK becoming more integrated into the EU, with the UK losing even more self-determination.
There's not a citizen alive who voted to Leave the European Union expecting to become further entrenched into the European Union, there's not a person alive who voted to Leave the European Union so that the UK could represent itself, only to have the European Union nevertheless represent the unrepresented UK.
Leaving the European Union means leaving the European Union; it is not only the wisest thing to do, it is the only course of action available. The trade deal promised to us by President Trump for example, would never materialize if we were a member of the European Union or its market. Free trade is guaranteed only internally in the EU, coming at the cost of all border control and control over your own customs and commerce, which is no great incentive for the UK - the majority of our trade is with the rest of the world, which at a time where Europe is trying to shut out the world, is dangerous to the UK. Given how inflexible the EU is, there is simply no way for the UK to seek the international trade it wants within the EU, not without opening the entirety of the EU to free trade. When we were a member of the EU the UK, Germany and Sweden led the case for free trade versus France, Italy and most of the Med nations. With Germany having become the leader of EU protectionism, there's not a chance, especially with the UK leaving.
Waddap have (https://www.ft.com/content/834f83a8-aa5f-11e6-a0bb-97f42551dbf4) some news (https://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/opinion/regulation-then-protectionism-is-europe-going-the-way-of-its-aluminium-sector/)
Fuck no. TTIP is a poison pill; trying to spice it up a bit with some sexy Brexit trade doesn't make it any more appealing.On the bright side the TTIP is more loathed than Ed Miliband in the UK. Few words are so fatal in politics as "privatize the NHS"
Thank god Trump got in and put paid to TTP, at the very least.
Post by: Sheb on January 18, 2017, 08:42:36 am
Peter Chase of the GMF has a nice idea: the US, UK and rEU could use the TTIP as a vehicle to negotiate the new trade relationships of the UK. (http://www.gmfus.org/blog/2017/01/17/squaring-circle-uk-eu-trade-relations-triangle)
Have you really gone so far right that you actuallythink TTIP is a good idea, or was that a sarcastic 'see what you get for leaving, Britain' jab, Sheb? I can't tell any more.
Bit of both really, my opposition to these kind of investment deal softened after researching CETA in more details (and the ton of crap said on them). I'm still not a fan, especially for as long as ISDS remains a thing in its current form, but you have to consider the alternatives: breakdown of trade relations between the UK and rEU would hurt them more than us, but it'd hurt us too. I'd rather have them stay in the custom union, but if they don't want that, well, a trade deal negoatiated that way seems like the less worse world.
Post by: Sergarr on January 18, 2017, 08:43:24 am
I'm pretty sure that this is a thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association), but whatever, you know better.Last time I've heard not even Brexiteers themselves have campaigned for Hard "Leave the single market completely" BrexitI'd like to know where you heard this from because it's objectively wrong; there is no hard or soft Brexit, there is leaving the European Union or remaining in the European Union. Do you read nothing but fake news? The only people campaigning to remain in the single market are the people who campaigned to remain in the European Union, because the economic union is the basis of the political union and would be a British exit of the Union in name only. Unless of course people voted to leave the European Union expecting the European Union to still control who we trade with or give total control of our border to the EU ::
Perhaps after two years I'm losing patience with the expectation that only Leave supporters have to actually provide facts, that supporting Remain is an instant indicator of intelligence and is factually true because only morons don't support Remain. Too much smug.Radical status-quo changing proposals tend to require higher standards of evidence.
[Citation needed]First, UK had the right of veto in the EU and in fact was using it quite extensively, so I don't quite understand all your "enforced without the ability to object" complaints.
Here's the factual basis for leaving the single market. If we remain in the single market, the UK must accept free movement of people, the supremacy of EU law and the supremacy of EU governance. With the free movement of people the UK would lose its sovereign status in foreign relations regarding immigration, with dire consequences for our desired policy for selective migration and our desire to contain and quell European jihadism. EU law would remain supreme as our economy would be regulated in accordance with EU legislation, made worse in that we would have no say at all - resulting in even more sovereign power being lost, our economic capital used to bolster the power of Brussels with no self-determination gained. Standardisation and harmonization would still occur, still attempting to force the UK to become another European state via regulation and assumption of regulatory authority over British industry, and worse of all the UK would not be able to represent itself on the world stage. It would not be able to conduct its own trade deals, having all of them conducted by a European Commission that went from before having no legal obligation to represent Britain to after, having an incentive to damage Britain. Our external tariff rates would be set by the European Union even though we are seeking free trade with the world - whilst the Europeans are seeking to block out the rest of the world with high external tariff rates, which as you say, are stupid, hurts everyone, and benefits no one. It would mean leaving the European Union whilst maintaining all of the
actual mechanisms which enforce the EU's supremacy, which is not a situation that benefits the UK, and is very much one-sided in favour of the EU - under such an agreement, the EU would only increase what it benefits from the UK whilst increasing its authority, the UK becoming more integrated into the EU, with the UK losing even more self-determination.
There's not a citizen alive who voted to Leave the European Union expecting to become further entrenched into the European Union, there's not a person alive who voted to Leave the European Union so that the UK could represent itself, only to have the European Union nevertheless represent the unrepresented UK.Second, does UK really trade with the rest of the world more than with EU, despite these high tariffs? I thought that it was otherwise, since UK exports are supposed to be high-tech, consumed mostly by highly developed markets like the ones in EU, and that the cheap Chinese labor would prevent its exports from making their way elsewhere. What and with whom UK does trade?
Leaving the European Union means leaving the European Union; it is not only the wisest thing to do, it is the only course of action available. The trade deal promised to us by President Trump for example, would never materialize if we were a member of the European Union or its market. Free trade is guaranteed only internally in the EU, coming at the cost of all border control and control over your own customs and commerce, which is no great incentive for the UK - the majority of our trade is with the rest of the world, which at a time where Europe is trying to shut out the world, is dangerous to the UK. Given how inflexible the EU is, there is simply no way for the UK to seek the international trade it wants within the EU, not without opening the entirety of the EU to free trade. When we were a member of the EU the UK, Germany and Sweden led the case for free trade versus France, Italy and most of the Med nations. With Germany having become the leader of EU protectionism, there's not a chance, especially with the UK leaving.
Third, is EU really that protectionist? That's something I've never heard before about, and it doesn't make sense - why would all these economists talk about the benefits of "free trade" and the dangers of protectionism, if the supposedly driven-by-technocrats/experts EU is embracing all these protectionist policies?
Come to think of it, it's not all that surprising to see EU doing the retarded thing, after Greece and austerity-enforcing crisis-prolonging measures, but still. Are the EU proponents doing the Hillary Democrat thing, with their "99% victory everything is fine it will be a glorious landslide" circlejerk?
Few words are so fatal in politics as "privatize the NHS"Yet, isn't that what is currently happening? I've been led to believe that there's been this ongoing cycle of "defund NHS => NHS failing more => argument towards NHS ineffectiveness => defund NHS more", and that this cycle is currently entering its final iterations, as NHS is starting to fail completely.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 18, 2017, 10:08:22 am
I'm pretty sure that this is a thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association), but whatever, you know better.Everything I said is right there in the first paragraph:
Quote
To participate in the EU's single market, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are party to the Agreement on a European Economic Area (EEA), with compliance regulated by the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court.Those nations are entirely party to the obligations of the EU with no say as to how or what these obligations are except with the threat of complete withdrawal from their agreements.
Radical status-quo changing proposals tend to require higher standards of evidence.I call complete bullshit on that, any proposal, any belief requires a grounding foundation in reality otherwise it's just arrogance and ideology. The European Union is not an axiom that requires no evidence, and those who support it are not above having to prove their arguments have any merit. Elsewise, why break the status quo of nation states to found a supranational world hegemon? Why should anyone listen to a single thing you say if you're unwilling to do the absolute minimum and provide the factual basis for your beliefs? It should go without saying that merely expecting everyone to believe in what you believe because you say they should believe in the undisclosed merits of your argument is doomed to total failure; the UK will not be the last if European leaders act as you do.
The moment you stop believing that you require evidence for your beliefs is the moment you start believing in your own innate goodness, that you are inherently right because you hold those beliefs. That's how you get leaders stuck up their own arses pursuing their own self-destruction, because they stopped looking for what is good, and instead started looking for what made them look good. Arrogance, it kills things dead - the old leaders who once ruled the UK were so completely caught off guard by radical status-quo changing proposals because they refused to see what was so obviously looming before them, refused to see the possibility that they were wrong. This is an obvious flaw - if you don't know yourself, your enemies will defeat you, if you don't know why you believe what you do, you don't know yourself
First, UK had the right of veto in the EU and in fact was using it quite extensively, so I don't quite understand all your "enforced without the ability to object" complaints.Oi no spreading fake news, secondly I have already explained rather clearly that being a member of the single market but outside the European Union is the worst possible deal for the UK; beholden to more obligations to the EU, having lost more sovereignty, whilst remaining in all the effective mechanisms of the EU.
Second, does UK really trade with the rest of the world more than with EU, despite these high tariffs?Yeah (https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/EU_and_Non-EU_Data.aspx)
I thought that it was otherwise, since UK exports are supposed to be high-tech, consumed mostly by highly developed markets like the ones in EU, and that the cheap Chinese labor would prevent its exports from making their way elsewhere. What and with whom UK does trade?The Americas, BRICs and the Commonwealth mostly. High EU tariffs raise the prices of imports from our American, African and Asian trading partners, with consequent effects on consumer and retail prices as well as increasing the cost of production for British industries relying on foreign resources; through EU tariffs often we must buy German electronics when otherwise we could buy cheaper from Japan, USA or China, lowering competition for German industry.
www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/PublishingImages/Nov16_Import.gif
This is especially relevant for automobile industries. Export wise the tariffs do not work like that, but we are severely hindered in exporting to our trading partners in developing and developed economies abroad in that for as long as we are a member of the EU we cannot negotiate our own trade deals that are suited to the UK. There is one significant industry which I will draw exception to, and it is that of pharmaceuticals. Many foreign companies from India use the UK as a launching pad into Europe, bypassing the external tariff by manufacturing their drugs in the UK under UK regulatory standards, with the EU's pharmaceutical regulations set by regulators in Canary Wharf, London. This would not be an issue for India if the EU was not hesitant to give India a free trade deal, as the EU does not want to allow Indians to have freer movement in Europe and want the Indians to lower alcohol and automobile tariffs. If the UK is not able to secure a drugs deal with the EU early, many Indian pharmaceutical companies could be hurt, which in turn would hurt the UK's pharmaceutical industry, which at the moment is so attractive because of the density of expertise and industry - such expertise and industry obviously cannot be maintained without money. European continentals may rejoice that big pharmas does not decide their continent's healthcare supply but they'll still find a way, or else be replaced by bigger fish.
Next 3 years are going to be busy ones for the UK, electric energy in all senses of the word will be required to succeed :D, better than slow decline in a decaying bloc.
Third, is EU really that protectionist? That's something I've never heard before about, and it doesn't make sense - why would all these economists talk about the benefits of "free trade" and the dangers of protectionism, if the supposedly driven-by-technocrats/experts EU is embracing all these protectionist policies?Because these economists have a conflict of interest; when the UK entered into the EEC, it was sold back then as a free trade union by many economists, even our own, despite it ultimately turning into a protectionist political union by design - such designs, known and planned for from the start. It's just the same line again, the EU is about free trade, and imagine if you are one such person capable of influencing public opinion. You're an "economist," you're an expert, people trust in you because they trust your professional expertise. People want an authoritative person to tell them how to value things, but they don't choose this authority on facts or results, they choose this authority on what is familiar, what seems authoritative.
Thus if you have a white man in a grey business suit sitting on the television news talking about how the EU is for free trade, people take his word for it until someone provides a rival white man in a grey business suit. Few have the time nor interest to check, or even validate their own beliefs, which perhaps explains why in the era where experts and MSM have no credibility, there has not been a surge in the individual drive for truth - rather, the grip experts lost, was picked up by demagogues. That's a disheartening derail for later though, the point is, a generic unnamed band of "economist" need not tell the truth anymore than someone reporting that "scientists say".
Part of my great fear with the EU is that it has sold the Europeans a lie - promising them that the greater trade between European nations has created a great blooming of trade and cooperation, when I suspect it has only managed to divert trade, not create new trade. Thus the UK for example must buy more from European industries than in countries where there is more innovation, quality, lower energy and labour costs, probably the biggest cost to the UK for European membership is simply that we pay far more for agricultural produce from NAmerica, SAmerica and Africa than we need to, which especially hurts us as we're a net importer of food. This is what I talk about when I talk of trade diversion and not creation, why cannot the UK buy cheaper, better and higher quantity produce just to artificially prop up a few noncompetitive European agriculture industries? I could better sympathize with this cost if it would guarantee those farmers their job security, but it doesn't, merely postponing the problem for a future collapse whilst damaging developing economies and hurting British economic growth. This has also been a great sticking point for the European continentals, who argue that Germany has not done well by creating trade within the EU, it has merely diverted trade and capital from the European states by using its political clout to enforce mercantilism and maintain its large trade deficit using European consumers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11584031/Germanys-record-trade-surplus-is-a-bigger-threat-to-euro-than-Greece.html), which the poorer states obviously can't do shit about because they don't even control their own currency. I do worry sometimes that jihadis will be the least of Germany's concerns, and that it is propping Europe up for inevitable recession, perhaps even - war. To that end the EU must reform or Europe is in for calamity, and none of this bullshit where the EU simply reforms by centralizing even more power and continuing on as normal - it's not working, but the leaders have the ideological conviction that more European Union centralization will fix everything somehow.
Come to think of it, it's not all that surprising to see EU doing the retarded thing, after Greece and austerity-enforcing crisis-prolonging measures, but still. Are the EU proponents doing the Hillary Democrat thing, with their "99% victory everything is fine it will be a glorious landslide" circlejerk?No idea, I wish them the best though, just without the UK
Yet, isn't that what is currently happening? I've been led to believe that there's been this ongoing cycle of "defund NHS => NHS failing more => argument towards NHS ineffectiveness => defund NHS more", and that this cycle is currently entering its final iterations, as NHS is starting to fail completely.They haven't made many cuts (cuts are vehemently unpopular) rather redirected funds towards low-priority reorganization whilst not raising the budget. Factoring in inflation and an increasingly sick populace, sick from age, obesity, smoking, alcohol, drugs and inactivity - the NHS needs drastic increases in budget just to stay afloat. Thus keeping the budget as is is in effect, stealthily dooming it to failure, it simply will not be able to cope without either ignoring a set number of patients or excluding certain patients.
Or the third option - privatization, which the neocons were gunning for. Ostensibly most of the neocon leadership is gone but I still reckon there's a sizeable lobby for that with enough receptive ears in the Tory and Libdem parties. Probably not Corbyn's People party, he purged his party of everyone who wasn't full socialist. So it's technically not a cut, but it's still ensuring the NHS will fail, and using their inevitable failure as an argument for privatization. Deliberate sabotage just to score points and serve their donors, even the Tory party itself is in rebellion over this (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/29/tory-mps-press-philip-hammond-over-nhs-and-social-care) yet little has been done. Somewhat ironically a Tory failure to save the NHS will mostly kill the elderly, who tend to vote for the Conservative party, a terrible betrayal :/
Post by: Leafsnail on January 18, 2017, 10:36:03 am
Post by: Starver on January 18, 2017, 10:36:56 am
I'm sorry, it appears you missed all the "we'll leave the EU [mostly in the sense of 'no Schengen!', which we weren't in to start with] but it won't effect our trade at all" overtures. That it isn't possible (except in Norwegian sense, or whatever other country-type exceptions were being lauded) never bothered the Leave spearheaders who said "it'll be alright, we're just doing this to stop Syrians entering Britain/cod from leaving British waters" and spouted all sorts of tinpot promises (amongst, admitedly tinpot promises from the other side - and tinpot threats in both directions way as well) that can't be delivered upon.Last time I've heard not even Brexiteers themselves have campaigned for Hard "Leave the single market completely" BrexitI'd like to know where you heard this from because it's objectively wrong; there is no hard or soft Brexit, there is leaving the European Union or remaining in the European Union. Do you read nothing but fake news? The only people campaigning to remain in the single market are the people who campaigned to remain in the European Union, because the economic union is the basis of the political union and would be a British exit of the Union in name only. Unless of course people voted to leave the European Union expecting the European Union to still control who we trade with or give total control of our border to the EU ::)
And, unlike the tinpot promises being given/broken before/after elections, the public is finding that they can't easily blame a particular party for lying to them and getting the opportunity to make the alternate decision the next time round. (Not this way round, anyway. You could bet your bottom dollar that EuroRef2 would have been on the cards if a minor percentage of the population had scraped Remain.)
But we've been through this already. I read your blurb, every time, and stop myself from replying almost every time, but this time I did not. Sated, I shall hopefully return to read-only on /dev/lw.
Post by: Sheb on January 18, 2017, 12:00:31 pm
Those nations are entirely party to the obligations of the EU with no say as to how or what these obligations are except with the threat of complete withdrawal from their agreements.
Well, yeah. That's the cost of being integrated in the EU Market, and part of the reason that I though it better for the UK to stay in.
Second, does UK really trade with the rest of the world more than with EU, despite these high tariffs?Yeah (https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/EU_and_Non-EU_Data.aspx)
So the EU account for an absolute majority of imports and something like 47% of exports. Out of £ 71.8 billions of total trade, the EU accounted for £36.9 billions in November, or 51,3 % of total trade.
I thought that it was otherwise, since UK exports are supposed to be high-tech, consumed mostly by highly developed markets like the ones in EU, and that the cheap Chinese labor would prevent its exports from making their way elsewhere. What and with whom UK does trade?The Americas, BRICs and the Commonwealth mostly. High EU tariffs raise the prices of imports from our American, African and Asian trading partners, with consequent effects on consumer and retail prices as well as increasing the cost of production for British industries relying on foreign resources; through EU tariffs often we must buy German electronics when otherwise we could buy cheaper from Japan, USA or China, lowering competition for German industry.
www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/PublishingImages/Nov16_Import.gif
Well, 1st no, the EU account for more trade than Americas+BRICS+Commonwealth. Second, much protectionism such wow. (https://www.gov.uk/trade-tariff/commodities/8542900000)
No, seriously, the EU is less protectionist than most major economies. (http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/TM.TAX.MANF.SM.AR.ZS/compare?country=eu#country=cn:eu:jp:ru:us)
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 18, 2017, 04:15:48 pm
I'm sorry, it appears you missed all the "we'll leave the EU [mostly in the sense of 'no Schengen!', which we weren't in to start with] but it won't effect our trade at all" overtures.It appears I have, as I have no such knowledge of these overtures having ever existed. Is there any evidence for the existence for such overtures? If you intend to sell the notion that Britons did not vote to Leave the European Union in any sense other than leaving the European Union, you best be selling it with some compelling evidence in tow.
That it isn't possible (except in Norwegian sense, or whatever other country-type exceptions were being lauded) never bothered the Leave spearheaders who said "it'll be alright, we're just doing this to stop Syrians entering Britain/cod from leaving British waters" and spouted all sorts of tinpot promises (amongst, admitedly tinpot promises from the other side - and tinpot threats in both directions way as well) that can't be delivered upon.Well I don't think I heard anyone say that at all, they were saying we had to regain control over our borders and that foreign fishing trawlers had to respect our waters and preserve our ecosystem, which is altogether more reasonable than the image you present. Unless you are genuinely saying British fishermen hadn't the slightest clue about the fish they caught for generations. Tinpot promises made and tinpot threats made, both side and all, what is gained from it? It's a race downhill to dig up dead politicians claiming WWIII and infinite immigrants. It's a silly place in the tinpot
And, unlike the tinpot promises being given/broken before/after elections, the public is finding that they can't easily blame a particular party for lying to them and getting the opportunity to make the alternate decision the next time round. (Not this way round, anyway. You could bet your bottom dollar that EuroRef2 would have been on the cards if a minor percentage of the population had scraped Remain.)I don't think the doom mongering had all that much of an effect on the outcome; for every leaflet Osborne gave promising economic Armageddon there was a sleuth of common sense pervading all, at least, outside of London
But we've been through this already. I read your blurb, every time, and stop myself from replying almost every time, but this time I did not. Sated, I shall hopefully return to read-only on /dev/lw.Haha, fair enough
May's speech was a bunch of posturing and impossible promises that will look good on headlines but will never happen. The EU has no reason to grant any of her demands.Examples of this are...?
Well, yeah. That's the cost of being integrated in the EU Market, and part of the reason that I though it better for the UK to stay in.I can agree with you on that the UK had two options, complete withdrawal or complete remain, this odd bastard hybridization the libdems are gunning for makes me glad we had Clegg to ruin them
So the EU account for an absolute majority of imports and something like 47% of exports. Out of £ 71.8 billions of total trade, the EU accounted for £36.9 billions in November, or 51,3 % of total trade.You're looking a the total for November, go to the aggregate annual data for 2008-2015, as individual months vary greatly in performance
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
As time has moved on Europe has grown less and less important for the UK and more and more restrictive. Still very important, but not as important as the Americas, BRICS and the Commonwealth - there is simply more opportunities abroad, much larger export markets abroad than in Europe, whose economic growth has been much slower (or in the case of the Med nations, horrendous). Meanwhile the EU nations have increased their share in the British market and with external tariffs as they are, have much reduced competition with our older trading partners, actively making it so that we cannot choose the most efficient and qualitative products and services over the most european products and services. The benefit to British exporters to European markets does not outweigh the twofold cost of Europe's protectionism and the simple fact that we can't negotiate trade deals with our trading partners and the EU has failed to allow us to do so on our own behalf, leading to an obvious question: Why are we better off trading with lesser prospects than with older allies and richer prospects? If we can't negotiate trade deals that take advantage of the Anglosphere, the developing world and the Commonwealth we are terribly wasting the opportunities available to us, abandoning the majority of our trading opportunities to protect European industries that give little to us in service or capital. We're kinda getting fucked by such a system - notably, this system stops being beneficial to the UK after the 08 crash and the eurozone crisis. In review, unchecked derivative trading and a rigid European market had the consequence of the Europeans learned the value of sovereignty once more and European growth stopped being so pleasant.
Our average yearly growth and export rate respectively to the EU was 2.54 and -0.71 whilst for the world it was 1.07 and 5.04, the UK's future is with the world. Maybe this gives hopes to European federalists such as yourself, in that the UK was an anomaly that did not fit within the European Union's model, whilst the rest of the nation states within the EU only have credit and trade deficit issues to surmount?
Well, 1st no, the EU account for more trade than Americas+BRICS+Commonwealth. Second, much protectionism such wow. (https://www.gov.uk/trade-tariff/commodities/8542900000)First, it doesn't, and I do not rejoice in the EU being able to artificially support European industries in British markets through protectionism. Second, you're looking at the tariff rate for Electronic integrated circuits and trying to suggest that's representative of the European Union, not sure if an honest mistake or just dogeposting.
No, seriously, the EU is less protectionist than most major economies. (http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/TM.TAX.MANF.SM.AR.ZS/compare?country=eu#country=cn:eu:jp:ru:us)Ah, you're doing it again. Using tariff rates on manufactured products to represent the entirety of the European Union - manufactured goods are one of the EU's most liberalized industries.
Compare that with agriculture, the other end of the extreme:
Quote
Although barriers to trade between Member States have been removed, agriculture is probably the most protected sector in the European Union in terms of external barriers, through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The costs of protectionism in this sector are possibly the most damaging to economic welfare and provide a good illustration of why the UK should remain a force for more outward-looking reforms in the EU.You may find this report interesting, it was used by our gov and they came to the conclusion that in spite of its flaws, EU membership was worthwhile for as long as the UK was able to push reform through the EU, particularly in regards to non-tariff external barriers and the services sector. This was also before David Cameron renegotiated with the EU and returned to the UK with none of the reforms he requested. (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjnifPKyMzRAhVkLsAKHSSPCaIQFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F220968%2Ffoi_eumembership_trade.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHq7m4LnwsmyYgEh7VTr0ZXgEnLAg&sig2=zE1EhZI0M-8DlRl7qxk6TA&bvm=bv.144224172,d.bGg) They also set the costs of exporting to the EU using a weighted average for the Common External Tariff + Admin costs at 8.7%, excluding any effect from EU subsidizing European companies - thus you can see why the UK is particularly concerned about the EU controlling who is allowed to import to it, whilst in France the sentiment is quite in the opposite direction, and in Germany, very popular.
At the broadest level, it is estimated that the CAP costs EU citizens roughly €100 billion a year: €50 billion to consumers through higher food prices and €50 billion to the taxpayer. The UK, as a net food importer, suffers particularly from higher food prices, impacting both on the consumer and on the food processing industry, which accounts for around 7% of GDP [Philippidis?]. Minford et al (2005) estimated that the CAP costs the UK 0.5% of GDP, and in economic and budgetary terms is probably the most costly factor of EU membership.
These costs arise in a number of different ways, and have different effects. The most significant economic distortion occurs through market price support, in the form of border protection (tariffs and import quotas), keeping cheap imports out and permitting artificially high prices. The results are manifold: welfare losses to consumers who pay a high cost through higher prices, resources diverted to agriculture from more productive sectors of the economy, and losses to third country producers through lack of access to markets and depressed (and volatile) prices.
The second element of protection arises through budgetary transfers (of the order of €30 billion) in the form of direct payments to farmers. Having said this, in June 2003 and April 2004, the EU agreed reforms to break the link between production and receipt of payments for many important products, albeit with some scope for a continuation of the status quo. Surplus produce is subsidised (the third element) and "dumped" on third markets.
There's also this I posted earlier (https://www.ft.com/content/834f83a8-aa5f-11e6-a0bb-97f42551dbf4) which would be interesting to hear your words on (https://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/opinion/regulation-then-protectionism-is-europe-going-the-way-of-its-aluminium-sector/).
I'm tempted to bring up my earlier sources for the case of EU fishing subsidies as yet another example, though for now I'll leave you with this worthless wikipedia quote regarding the CAP
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy
The Treaty of Rome, signed in 1957, established the Common Market. It also defined the general objectives of a CAP. The principles of the CAP were set out at the Stresa Conference in July 1958. The creation of a common agricultural policy was proposed in 1960 by the European Commission, and the CAP mechanisms were adopted by the six founding Member States. In 1962, the CAP came into force.Which is topical
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development in Brussels
The six member states individually strongly intervened in their agricultural sectors, in particular with regard to what was produced, maintaining prices for goods and how farming was organised. The intervention posed an obstacle to free trade in goods while the rules continued to differ from state to state since freedom of trade would interfere with the intervention policies. Some members, particularly France, and all farming professional organisations wanted to maintain strong state intervention in agriculture. That could not only be achieved unless policies were harmonised and transferred to the European Community level.
By 1962, three major principles had been established to guide the CAP: market unity, community preference and financial solidarity. Since then, the CAP has been a central element in the European institutional system.
The CAP is often explained as the result of a political compromise between France and Germany: German industry would have access to the French market; in exchange, Germany would help pay for France's farmers. Germany is still the largest net contributor into the EU budget. However, as of 2005, France is also a net contributor while the more agriculture-focused Spain, Greece, and Portugal are the biggest beneficiaries.
Meanwhile, particularly urbanised member states for which agriculture comprises only a small part of the economy (such as the Netherlands and the United Kingdom), are much smaller beneficiaries and the CAP is often unpopular with their national governments. Transitional rules apply to the newly admitted member states, which limit the subsidies that they currently receive.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 19, 2017, 08:54:25 am
So today's lesson is: Telling a joke should always be prefaced with knowing one's audience. And with a certain audience, don't mention the war (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0)
Scroll down to the Merkel, even the BBC knows not to mention the war (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18645370)
Post by: Sheb on January 19, 2017, 09:02:35 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 19, 2017, 09:16:00 am
I still think that May appointing him FS was a great political move, if a dumb diplomatic one.Yeah, it consolidated the Tory party under her rule, kept her biggest threat under her watch and placated Boris with one of the great offices. I'm wondering if Boris would do more damage as Chancellor than as Foreign secretary or Home secretary. I'm sure Boris could mature in time to be Home secretary and I'm sure Amber Rudd could've done Boris's job without insulting all the leaders we're trying to form friendly relations with. It is possible he could cock up as Chancellor more than as Foreign Secretary though. I think this is yet more definitive proof that well-educated does not go hand in hand with wisdom, or for that matter, common sense
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 19, 2017, 09:20:28 am
Post by: Sheb on January 19, 2017, 10:52:13 am
hrm. I think nowadays people seem anxious to find an excuse to get offended. TBH I saw that stuff about the WW2 guards and didnt' glance twice. It's just a lame comment, come on, it's not like he invaded poland or anything
He's supposed to be Britain's diplomat-in-chief. Not insulting people at random is like, Diplomacy 101.
Post by: Sergarr on January 19, 2017, 12:10:14 pm
That's part 1 of Diplomacy 101. Acting like you're not insulted even when you feel like you're being insulted is part 2 of Diplomacy 101. Back in the days, diplomats often had to venture to lands full of people able to kill them with impunity, and being able to act dignified in the face of perceived slights was a pretty important skill. Most of the times, those weren't even intentional, but rather a product of cultural differences, like in this case.hrm. I think nowadays people seem anxious to find an excuse to get offended. TBH I saw that stuff about the WW2 guards and didnt' glance twice. It's just a lame comment, come on, it's not like he invaded poland or anything
He's supposed to be Britain's diplomat-in-chief. Not insulting people at random is like, Diplomacy 101.
Post by: Sheb on January 20, 2017, 04:46:35 am
That's part 1 of Diplomacy 101. Acting like you're not insulted even when you feel like you're being insulted is part 2 of Diplomacy 101. Back in the days, diplomats often had to venture to lands full of people able to kill them with impunity, and being able to act dignified in the face of perceived slights was a pretty important skill. Most of the times, those weren't even intentional, but rather a product of cultural differences, like in this case.hrm. I think nowadays people seem anxious to find an excuse to get offended. TBH I saw that stuff about the WW2 guards and didnt' glance twice. It's just a lame comment, come on, it's not like he invaded poland or anything
He's supposed to be Britain's diplomat-in-chief. Not insulting people at random is like, Diplomacy 101.
Not really, acting like you're insulted when you don't really give a fuck can be a great too to gain a morale advantage.
Post by: Sheb on January 20, 2017, 05:34:02 am
So the EU account for an absolute majority of imports and something like 47% of
I made a thing (https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/Pages/Annual-Tables.aspx) to illustrate clearly the data behind my point
As time has moved on Europe has grown less and less important for the UK and more and more restrictive. Still very important, but not as important as the Americas, BRICS and the Commonwealth - there is simply more opportunities abroad, much larger export markets abroad than in Europe, whose economic growth has been much slower (or in the case of the Med nations, horrendous). Meanwhile the EU nations have increased their share in the British market and with external tariffs as they are, have much reduced competition with our older trading partners, actively making it so that we cannot choose the most efficient and qualitative products and services over the most european products and services. The benefit to British exporters to European markets does not outweigh the twofold cost of Europe's protectionism and the simple fact that we can't negotiate trade deals with our trading partners and the EU has failed to allow us to do so on our own behalf, leading to an obvious question: Why are we better off trading with lesser prospects than with older allies and richer prospects? If we can't negotiate trade deals that take advantage of the Anglosphere, the developing world and the Commonwealth we are terribly wasting the opportunities available to us, abandoning the majority of our trading opportunities to protect European industries that give little to us in service or capital. We're kinda getting fucked by such a system - notably, this system stops being beneficial to the UK after the 08 crash and the eurozone crisis. In review, unchecked derivative trading and a rigid European market had the consequence of the Europeans learned the value of sovereignty once more and European growth stopped being so pleasant.
Our average yearly growth and export rate respectively to the EU was 2.54 and -0.71 whilst for the world it was 1.07 and 5.04, the UK's future is with the world. Maybe this gives hopes to European federalists such as yourself, in that the UK was an anomaly that did not fit within the European Union's model, whilst the rest of the nation states within the EU only have credit and trade deficit issues to surmount?
Ok, so it's only around 50% if you average the last years. Not that surprising given that the EU only account for 15-20% of world GDP. Still, it's by far your bigger trading partner and unless you guys fuck up Brexit immensely will remain so, even if its importance will diminish as the rest of the world grow richer.
There is enough overlap between BRICS, America and Commonwealth that I'm too lazy to try to come up with that exact figure, but given that trade with the EU accounts for almost 50%, that would mean that the share of your trade with the world outside BRICS/Americas/Commonwealth (including much of SE asia, Japan, Korea, the Arab World...) account for less than a few percents of your total trade.First, it doesn't, and I do not rejoice in the EU being able to artificially support European industries in British markets through protectionism. Second, you're looking at the tariff rate for Electronic integrated circuits and trying to suggest that's representative of the European Union, not sure if an honest mistake or just dogeposting.
As for the electronics, it was an answer to your (unsourced, unfounded) complain that British business were forced to buy more expensive German components because of the terrible EU.
No, seriously, the EU is less protectionist than most major economies. (http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/TM.TAX.MANF.SM.AR.ZS/compare?country=eu#country=cn:eu:jp:ru:us)
Ah, you're doing it again. Using tariff rates on manufactured products to represent the entirety of the European Union - manufactured goods are one of the EU's most liberalized industries.
Manufactured goods tend to be the bulk of trade. Agricultural products are tiny in comparison. Services like finances are bigger for the UK, but with them the probelm is usually more regulatory than tariffs. Anywau, I was playing with different indicators trying to decide which to post, I think I made a mistake, because I wanted to post this one (http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS/compare?country=eu#country=cn:eu:ru:us)for average tariffs, which shows us being one of the best tied with the US instead of overall less protective.
Quote
/snip, because it's a pain to read in the response window
I don't necessarily disagree on some of those but generally: A) Those tariffs are quite small by international standards, the EU is hardly the protectionist monster you make it seems to be. B) It's not clear the UK outside the EU will turns out to be a champion of free-trade. The people that voted to "take back control" probably won't be happy to sign stuff like TTIP (after all, regulatory barriers are much more significants than the tariffs in the low single digits). Lower tarifss on food is very well, but will May be willing to take on the National Farmer Union?
Quote from: Ok, just one more thing
You may find this report interesting, it was used by our gov and they came to the conclusion that in spite of its flaws, EU membership was worthwhile for as long as the UK was able to push reform through the EU, particularly in regards to non-tariff external barriers and the services sector. This was also before David Cameron renegotiated with the EU and returned to the UK with none of the reforms he requested. They also set the costs of exporting to the EU using a weighted average for the Common External Tariff + Admin costs at 8.7%, excluding any effect from EU subsidizing European companies - thus you can see why the UK is particularly concerned about the EU controlling who is allowed to import to it, whilst in France the sentiment is quite in the opposite direction, and in Germany, very popular.
I'm amazed by our ability to read the same sentences and understand them differently. When I read this:
Quote from: summary section of the report
This note considers the impact of EU membership on trade and
consequent welfare effects.
Trade is a key driver of growth, and the reduction of barriers to trade
between Member States would be expected to result in increased trade
and growth. Straightforward high-level observations show an initial
boost from accession to the UK’s trade with the EU as a share of GDP.
However, the impact later on is less obvious, particularly following the
Single Market reforms, where one would expect to observe an increase
in intra-EU trade. Given data constraints and other influencing factors,
it is hard to develop an accurate counterfactual to see what would have
happened to trade had the UK not become a member of the EU. Using
Norway and Switzerland as comparators is also problematic. Instead,
econometric examination of the observable impact of EU membership
shows a significant and positive impact on the UK’s trade – membership
initially boosted UK trade with the EU by 7%, outweighing trade
diversion. The Single Market was seen to boost intra-EU trade by a
further 9% (although this may be an under-estimate).
Further benefits are also likely from reduced trade barriers that would
not be observed looking at trade flows. The threat of greater
competition in a more contestable market impacts firm behaviour, and
there is evidence of reduced price-cost margins following the Single
Market reforms. There is also evidence of some price convergence
between Member States.
However, barriers to trade still remain, in particular in services sectors,
and the EU’s protection of agriculture is also damaging. This implies
that there are still greater trade benefits to be reaped from EU
membership if the UK remains a force for reform in the Union.
I read "the EU is good for the UK and could become even better if they rip service trade barriers", not "the EU is good if we can get reforms done" as you seems to.
(BTW, I didn't read the FT article because paywall, I assume it was about aluminum like the Euractiv one?)
Edit: Sorry, I fucked up my quotes.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 20, 2017, 08:10:10 am
That's part 1 of Diplomacy 101. Acting like you're not insulted even when you feel like you're being insulted is part 2 of Diplomacy 101. Back in the days, diplomats often had to venture to lands full of people able to kill them with impunity, and being able to act dignified in the face of perceived slights was a pretty important skill. Most of the times, those weren't even intentional, but rather a product of cultural differences, like in this case.Not really, acting like you're insulted when you don't really give a fuck can be a great too to gain a morale advantage.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sheb on January 20, 2017, 08:53:28 am
Post by: Baffler on January 20, 2017, 12:33:02 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 20, 2017, 01:13:31 pm
Post by: Neonivek on January 20, 2017, 03:03:55 pm
Nigel Farage signed with Fox news as an analyst, they announced it during the inauguration. (http://thehill.com/homenews/media/315273-fox-news-signs-nigel-farage-backer-of-trump-and-brexit) He starts tomorrow. It seems like a step down from his previous position tbh.
You kidding it sounds like the perfect job for him.
I mean heck it was what he did the majority of the time at his old job.
In fact Fox should give him his own Glenn Beck-esk spot. I'd love a crossover but to my knowledge Glenn Beck doesn't have his show anymore.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 20, 2017, 03:28:49 pm
Post by: Sergarr on January 24, 2017, 04:57:18 am
Quote
During a service at St Mary's Episcopal in Glasgow earlier this month to mark the feast of the Epiphany, there was a reading of a passage from the Koran which said that Jesus was not the son of God.When someone tries to claim that the central tenet of your faith is wrong, in your church, on your holy day, it's an example of not tolerance, but rather, an attack aiming to subjugate your religion and make it subservient to theirs. What the fuck is this shit?
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2017, 05:20:26 am
Post by: martinuzz on January 24, 2017, 05:20:59 am
Post by: martinuzz on January 24, 2017, 05:24:00 am
While technically not Brexit related, I guess there's no better thread to discuss Britain news: Queen's chaplain resigns over cathedral Koran reading row saying he has a 'duty' to defend Christianity (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/queens-chaplain-resigns-cathedral-koran-reading-row-saying-has/), here's the recording of his interview with BBC (https://soundcloud.com/doctor-gav/22117-bbc-radio-4-recording).As an atheist who cares little for faiths, I can still feel this being inappropriate and a hostile thing to do.QuoteDuring a service at St Mary's Episcopal in Glasgow earlier this month to mark the feast of the Epiphany, there was a reading of a passage from the Koran which said that Jesus was not the son of God.When someone tries to claim that the central tenet of your faith is wrong, in your church, on your holy day, it's an example of not tolerance, but rather, an attack aiming to subjugate your religion and make it subservient to theirs. What the fuck is this shit?
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2017, 07:10:03 am
While technically not Brexit related, I guess there's no better thread to discuss Britain news: Queen's chaplain resigns over cathedral Koran reading row saying he has a 'duty' to defend Christianity (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/queens-chaplain-resigns-cathedral-koran-reading-row-saying-has/), here's the recording of his interview with BBC (https://soundcloud.com/doctor-gav/22117-bbc-radio-4-recording).As an atheist who cares little for faiths, I can still feel this being inappropriate and a hostile thing to do.QuoteDuring a service at St Mary's Episcopal in Glasgow earlier this month to mark the feast of the Epiphany, there was a reading of a passage from the Koran which said that Jesus was not the son of God.When someone tries to claim that the central tenet of your faith is wrong, in your church, on your holy day, it's an example of not tolerance, but rather, an attack aiming to subjugate your religion and make it subservient to theirs. What the fuck is this shit?
To be fair, they were invited by the priest, and presumably checked the text with him beforehand (I mean, you don't improvise the Eucharist). I wonder what the text was, was it an explicit thing, or just a text with Jesus that refers to him as "Prophet Jesus", because, well that's the way it is.* If it was an explicit thing, I wonder what the hell is wrong with that priest, but then, Anglicanism.
That Aschend fellow also seems tog o at the deep end. "Dr Ashenden wrote a letter to The Times newspaper earlier this week, where he called on the church to apologise to Christians “suffering dreadful persecution at the hands of Muslims”". Seriously? Remember kids, when you're nice to a muslim, ISIS kills a Christian Baby!
*But not enough to listen to the whole recording, because I got nice work to do.
Post by: hector13 on January 24, 2017, 11:40:18 am
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2017, 11:50:37 am
Now, you can think that allowing people to say thing you disagree with is selling out on stuff you claim to belief. Then I suggest you don't attend that one Church and/or complain to your priest, but why make a huge fuss? It's tiring to see people trying to get offendred on other's behalf for crappy stuff, whether from the left or the right.
Hector13: "Asked if he had known what the Koran verse specifically said about Jesus, Mr Holdsworth declined to comment further." (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38591559) Yeah, it seems he didn't do his proper homework too. I mean, I don't really mind reading of other texts that contradicts but the priest should give proper context and that seems like he didn't do his homework. Or maybe he did and just don't want to get into details with the journalist, but again, I don't feel like listening to the whole thing. Also, it seems the chapter was read in Arabic, which is nice and all, but doesn't seem great for interfaith dialogue, at the very least read it in both English and Arabic or something. Again, that priest needs to work a tad on his organization it seems.
Edit: There is a nice blog post by the provost about the whole thing. (http://thurible.net/2017/01/13/keeping-the-faith/) Seems like it was nice, and the liturgy was well done. Frankly it just look like they do this semi-regularly, and it just went viral when some right-winger noticed some Christians like to dialogue with their muslims neighbours. Then word of mouth and distortion sent everyone in a frenzy. I mean, you can think that readings from other holy text have no place in mass, but others find it interesting (we never had that particular case, but our priest regularly tells us of the point of views of the various religions of the books during his preaches) and you should get out of their churches.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 25, 2017, 08:18:28 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: hector13 on January 25, 2017, 03:27:52 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 25, 2017, 05:48:31 pm
Post by: hector13 on January 25, 2017, 10:59:54 pm
I'll blame it on the fact it's fortnightly.
Post by: Starver on January 26, 2017, 12:54:47 am
Having worked night-shift for two years at Sainsburys and read Private Eye during my breaks, I probably should have known that.Or that you never, ever, paid for it..? ;)
I'll blame it on the fact it's fortnightly.
(@LW, in passing: it's "slew of", not "sleuth of", in the context of whatever post it was that you said that...)
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 26, 2017, 05:07:38 am
Post by: wierd on January 26, 2017, 06:11:58 am
All hail the rise of Oceania!
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 26, 2017, 06:21:25 am
Quote
"The institutions upon which that world relies were so often conceived or inspired by our two nations working together," she is due to say.Explains why the world is so fucked lmao
Post by: wierd on January 26, 2017, 06:34:04 am
Just remind the Brits that they are a very proud people, and ask them if "If you can't beat them, join them" sounds like a good mantra. Throw in some lively imagery of George III, and the Boston tea party. Add a few more cameos of things like 'Here Comes Honey BooBoo' and 'Jackass'.
Americanism-- EVERYWHERE. So long Keeping Up Appearances--- You will be replaced on BBC with some horrible American supernatural romance series.
Post by: martinuzz on January 26, 2017, 07:07:01 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 26, 2017, 12:13:19 pm
I know the PERFECT way to stop this unholy union.Reviving the Spanish Empire?
Just remind the Brits that they are a very proud people, and ask them if "If you can't beat them, join them" sounds like a good mantra.Lmao that's just the remain slogan
Throw in some lively imagery of George III, and the Boston tea party. Add a few more cameos of things like 'Here Comes Honey BooBoo' and 'Jackass'.Those are easily the least offensive things in regards to Americanism tbh
Americanism-- EVERYWHERE. So long Keeping Up Appearances--- You will be replaced on BBC with some horrible American supernatural romance series.
Post by: Radio Controlled on January 26, 2017, 01:39:39 pm
I'd certainly rather follow America's lead than Germany's (or, kek, Sweden's), particularly now that Trump's gotten in and begun improving things.
Though I'd prefer if they kept their guns to themselves.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what Friday's meeting between May and Trump brings.
Yeah, who needs a climate anyway. Let us all follow the US' glorious example and deny scientific consensus and its implications. With some luck we can get a couple more decades of delicious cheap energy going, then when the fallout starts hurting the most vulnerable regions the most we could perhaps throw up some nice border walls and keep the nastier externalities away.
For example:
Quote from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-hastened-the-syrian-war/
Climate Change Hastened Syria's Civil War
Human-induced drying in many societies can push tensions over a threshold that provokes violent conflictSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Perhaps you should look up the term 'lifeboat Britain'. I think you'll like it.
Post by: Starver on January 26, 2017, 07:40:37 pm
Yeah, who needs a climate anyway. Let us all follow the US' glorious example and deny scientific consensus and its implications. With some luck we can get a couple more decades of delicious cheap energy going, then when the fallout starts hurting the most vulnerable regions the most we could perhaps throw up some nice border walls and keep the nastier externalities away.Interestingly: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-38760792
As to "lifeboat britain", I'm mostly being sent to the RNLI (https://rnli.org), although it seems to be a reddit thing that I may peruse later, but I was minded to make a comparison to the fate of HMHS Brittanic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Britannic) in a documemtary not long ago. There's plenty of analagy available for both sides of the argument to exploit, for example the E-deck portals being left open, but my take-home is that most of the deaths were in the first two lifeboats launched (prematurely) with mostly stokers/firemen and got drawn into the rising blades of a propeller, probably because the water had rushed through the supposedly closed-off boilerman's tunnel between boilerooms was left unexpectedly open (and thus also making the E-deck portals an issue that they might not otherwise have been).
Post by: Radio Controlled on January 27, 2017, 05:10:05 am
Yeah, who needs a climate anyway. Let us all follow the US' glorious example and deny scientific consensus and its implications. With some luck we can get a couple more decades of delicious cheap energy going, then when the fallout starts hurting the most vulnerable regions the most we could perhaps throw up some nice border walls and keep the nastier externalities away.Interestingly: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-38760792
As to "lifeboat britain", I'm mostly being sent to the RNLI (https://rnli.org), although it seems to be a reddit thing that I may peruse later, but I was minded to make a comparison to the fate of HMHS Brittanic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Britannic) in a documemtary not long ago. There's plenty of analagy available for both sides of the argument to exploit, for example the E-deck portals being left open, but my take-home is that most of the deaths were in the first two lifeboats launched (prematurely) with mostly stokers/firemen and got drawn into the rising blades of a propeller, probably because the water had rushed through the supposedly closed-off boilerman's tunnel between boilerooms was left unexpectedly open (and thus also making the E-deck portals an issue that they might not otherwise have been).
It's primarily a thing from Gwynne Dyer's book Climate Wars. I could try to look for a video where he explains it if you want or can't find it yourself.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 27, 2017, 10:39:29 am
Yeah, who needs a climate anyway. Let us all follow the US' glorious example and deny scientific consensus and its implications. With some luck we can get a couple more decades of delicious cheap energy going, then when the fallout starts hurting the most vulnerable regions the most we could perhaps throw up some nice border walls and keep the nastier externalities away.I don't think anyone was referring to environmental policy, and I'm sure this is purely a hypothetical as given the choice between following the USA or Germany, we'd all much rather pick none and be the UK. Germany is no example to follow either, we would be replacing lazy Americanism with vapid Merkelism (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/#ca9331114a69). Look at the example Germany sets; instead of humanitarian aid, take selfies with migrants - all to show the world how virtuous and wise you are, without needing to put any of the effort and sacrifice needed to be virtuous and wise. So when things inevitably get cocked up by your ineptitude, you just hide the wounds and allow Europe to bleed - shutting down all Germany's nuclear plants because hurr duur nuclear science scary is as much a detriment to basic common sense as Trump, Germany now has more coal plants operational that it has in two decades. It really is impressive when a green candidate turns out to be blackest coal, suckling on Putin's gas for support. Oh and she's stopped now because her policies put too much strain on Germany's energy grid and raised costs too high. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/01/angela-merkel-signs-deal-with-german-states-to-regulate-green-energy-rollout) What a great success for the world to emulate!
More seriously though the UK cannot follow the USA's steps when it comes to energy policy. We do not have a vast store of coal, gas or oil to exploit, as the Americans do with their Texan friends. We are running along similar tracks in regards to the nation-state versus the Sweden >yes party that has commanded Europe for a few years. Fortunately we're going big with nuclear (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37369786) and I hope succeeding parties in the UK continue this policy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/23/britain-japan-sign-nuclear-energy-cooperation-agreement/). One thing to learn from failed projects in the UK in developing renewable sources of energy (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/16/uk-wave-power-far-too-costly-warns-energy-research-body) is that our failures often go unnoticed because unlike Germany, we did not rush headlong whilst ignoring the simple realities of power generation. There's also something fortunate in our failures in that they show that with time, development of power-storage and rising costs of gas and oil, renewable energy sources can one day become economical, reliable and environmentally responsible. Certain failures like biofuels showcase how green is not always green even when working as intended; you should not kowtow to concensus, it is rather dangerous to believe in whatever consensus is when all it takes is one correct person regardless of consensus to advance scientific research. Seems obvious but it is worth pointing out anyways that scientific breakthroughs often act in spite of scientific consensus, competely changing how we see everything ten times over :P
On the topic of border walls, more BAOs and maritime patrols does the job better for immigration control. We only really have a need for walls in order to control flooding, erosion and land loss from rising sea levels. The French did build an immigration wall with England and they made the English pay for it (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37421525) which I'm sure the Americans would approve, and I think the UK would agree such funds spent helping the French is beneficial to both of our nations. That's nothing compared to the Japanese kaiju wall (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japans-sea-wall-storm-brews-over-plans-to-construct-giant-5bn-barrier-against-tsunamis-a6914781.html)
Perhaps you should look up the term 'lifeboat Britain'. I think you'll like it.~o.o~
Can't find it I'm afraid. From the sounds of the term I'm guessing it has something to do with many of the billions of people who would be displaced in a catastrophic disaster such as a global famine or drought seeking for stable nations to settle, such as the UK, or lifeboat Britain.
Post by: Starver on January 27, 2017, 12:23:16 pm
The French did build an immigration wall with England and they made the English pay for it (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37421525) which I'm sure the Americans would approve, and I think the UK would agree such funds spent helping the French is beneficial to both of our nations.Analogy failure. You're comparing genus malus with genus citrus.
But I agree that the German decision re: nuclear power wasn't a risk/consequence-based decision, so I owe you another rare reply to say I agree with you on this.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 28, 2017, 04:45:58 am
Post by: Neonivek on January 28, 2017, 08:13:44 pm
Sooo... It is like saying you would deal with that feral cat in the alleyway but when you get there it turns out it is a wild tiger.
Post by: martinuzz on January 28, 2017, 08:15:14 pm
Post by: Starver on January 29, 2017, 04:58:47 am
Post by: Neonivek on January 29, 2017, 06:36:47 am
You know the whole: "Yeah, we are leaving... But can we have all the same benefits as before? Well maybe we can stretch it out a bit?"
Wishy washy "We kind of want this, but we don't want to actually have any consequences"
---
Though lets pretend that they are trying to honestly achieve the whole Brexit thing and aren't stretching it out or trying to keep the essential deal.
Pissing off Trump is the worst for the UK financially while they are trying to remake themselves. They need strong trading partners and the US's current "Screw the world! We have money!" means that if they can earn the US's favor they will have exclusive access.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 29, 2017, 06:43:50 am
If she sells the whole country at a loss to the Trump conglomerate (in a metaphorical sense), she might get some kind of (shitty) deal. But I doubt very many brittons would be enthusiastic to embrace the Trumpic way of life.
Post by: Criptfeind on January 29, 2017, 08:02:46 am
Post by: muldrake on January 29, 2017, 04:42:57 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38786576
After seeing how she lost support by not telling Trump that his immigration policy is idiotic, it seems Theresa decided that she was going to try and fix the situation. Leastways, that's how it seems to me. Call me cynical.
She's trying her hardest to be assertive, but seems to show as much spine as a mollusc on the international stage, and flip flops enough to be a regular sight on the beach.
She certainly wouldn't be the first PM to lose face by mindlessly groveling to whoever was in the White House. Yes, I'm talking about Tony Bliar's lapdog relationship with Dubya.
Post by: MorleyDev on January 30, 2017, 06:38:07 am
Post by: martinuzz on January 30, 2017, 06:58:40 am
Post by: Sheb on January 30, 2017, 07:04:16 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 30, 2017, 07:56:10 am
Seems most suitable here. Seems that MPs are becoming upset with May's refusal to do what she said she would. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38784199)
Quote
Challenged about his views on torture, Russia, banning Muslims and punishment for abortion by BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, Mr Trump joked to Mrs May: "This was your choice of a question. There goes that relationship."The threat is palpable; if May publicly humiliates Trump, he will retaliate against our nation. I'm glad she chose the path of tact over the path of Miliband; centipedes trump milipedes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/theresa-may-meets-donald-trump-white-house-live/
She's REALLY beginning to feel like a Thatcher wannabe. Loves the idea, but no actual ability to carry it out...It goes deeper than that, Theresa May is the face of Brexit and Trump is the face of MAGA, together they are leading two of the most vehemently reviled occurrences to have graced the liberal world, and they represent those reviled movements. Today they are in power, thus they must act swiftly or else all attempts to delegitimize them will succeed. Together, their chances of success dramatically increase, divided, diminish rapidly. This is made all the more difficult with the unusual dynamic of the calm and assured spylord dealing with the erratic and proud magnate. The focus is very much on the domestic political theatre, no one for example cared or noticed that Theresa May has continued security arrangements and visits with the likes of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia, but they have very much noticed her visit to the USA - it is clear, people do not care if you sell weapons that will kill many in foreign lands, what they care about is preserving their liberal values in their homelands. Thus the cry is: Protect British values, which is odd, as these are coming from the same progressives who only years ago attacked the very notion of British values existing. Very mercenary world we live in, this is why it is best not to get too invested in politics and instead in morality, because in politics, one must make compromise and fail their own principles in whole.
For those that want a condensed version, May said that she'd be frank with Trump about things that are disagreeable, then basically went 'Well... the ban... That's- that's your thing. We can't concern ourselves with that.'
To that end, I find May has commendably managed to secure all she said in houses of Parliament; she got Trump to back down on torture after her speech to the GOP, and now he has deferred to his intelligence advisers that torture does not work. Most relevant to us, she confirmed that the UK and USA were not going to have the frigid relationship it did under Obama, but the roaring relationship that is UK-US relations. Most relevant to the world, she got Trump to completely U-turn on NATO, going from saying NATO is obsolete to being 100% behind NATO (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/donald-trump-committed-nato-visit-170127183754822.html).
Moreover, there is one additional thing. The EU placed Guy Verhofstadt on the EU-UK negotiating table. He has no respect for the UK and is determined to ensure we get the worse terms possible. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/guy-verhofstadt-chief-brexit-theresa-may-eu-trade-deal-2019-impossible-a7550136.html) Currently most national leaders of Europe are with us in that they want us to leave ASAP and leave amicably, the presence of hardliners like Guy force us to be cautious, and more importantly, remind people like Guy that we have MAD available - unleash the Trump.
Does she feel like a Thatcher wannabe to you? I say ignore your feelings, such things are often too much based on the petty and superficial, i.e. both Thatcher and May are Tory PMs and women. The comparisons are not particularly warranted, given that Thatcher and May do not share much in the way of policy, especially in regards to protecting British workers and globalization - May is not neoliberal. Likewise there is some rather apt symbolism in Thatcher integrating our nation into the European Single Market whilst May is working to uncouple us from the ESM. If this comparison was solely founded on appearances I could perhaps understand that, but in appearances Thatcher was frank whilst May is subtle, one led a nation through war and discontent whilst the other watched and planned before times of discontent.
It is entirely possible he may attempt to screw us over, or in his enthusiasm, accidentally screws us over. One can only wait and see; I'm optimistic on the matter. My main concern is in regards to the NHS alongside most of the country as usual, while Trump killing the TTIP is a good sign, I need the ocular proof before I feel safe to cast judgement. Fortunately, his actions will be overseen by the Congress of the US (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/congress-pushes-donald-trump-form-bilateral-trade-deal-uk/), though perhaps that could be a source of additional concern.Trump is going to be enough of a disaster for the US alone. TBH, hoping that he will help the British out seems to me like wistful thinking. There's no way a protectionist leader bent on trying to bully up every single trading partner he has (to his own detriment) will act any different towards the UK because of some sentiment of anglo-saxon kinship.The thing I've been sitting thinking is that sure, Britain might be at the beginning of the queue all of a sudden, but it's TRUMP. I'd doubt he'd give us a beneficial trade deal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38786576The former fuccboi leadership of the Tory party called Theresa May: Submarine May, based on her habit of disappearing whenever Cameron needed her support in the Remain campaign. Her one appearance was a boon to the Leave campaign, stating it was impossible to control the UK's borders whilst within the EU. It is notable too that before all these Brexit campaigns began and the Tory party were one united victorious front, May was one who stood relatively alone; whereas Gove, Johnson, Osborne and Cameron were all in favour of further market liberalization, immigration and integration, May started talking about the poor Britons who had been left behind by our ambitious globalization. Her speech was not as well received, being that it was in favour of labour voters after all whilst against the Tory leadership grain - joking that she hadn't got the memo. Such decisions show she is either extraordinarily lucky, or she was perspicacious and saw which way the wind blew when all other colleagues of hers saw in a word, London. In nearly everything she says, there is always a reminder to her colleagues (and now her underlings) to be in touch with their constituents, the grass-roots, because it makes the whole system of British democracy more responsive and is ultimately the reason why all of them are where they are now. I was immensely pleased by how much time May spent thanking her constituents to say the least, and especially pleased when she started quietly removing sycophants or reminded civil servants to speak their mind instead of speaking what they thought she wanted to hear.
After seeing how she lost support by not telling Trump that his immigration policy is idiotic, it seems Theresa decided that she was going to try and fix the situation. Leastways, that's how it seems to me. Call me cynical.
She's trying her hardest to be assertive, but seems to show as much spine as a mollusc on the international stage, and flip flops enough to be a regular sight on the beach.
She has her spine but trying hard to be assertive is not something I think accurately describes her. Certain leaders like your Putins, Merkels and Trumps, they are assertive leaders, and only Trump is loudly and forcefully so, with the former two being assertive with even the quietest tones. May, I find, makes little effort to appear assertive, instead making great effort to be sartorial and unthreatening. That is to say, appear weak when you are strong, and be adaptable, tailoring yourself to whomever you seek things from.
Is May strong when she appears weak? She has no opposition in the UK, she emerged as the victor in a leadership contest where no one knew her name, her meteoric rise to power was founded on being the strong home secretary who never seemed to threaten anyone. Submarine May. Particularly interesting is BBC news's decision to, whenever MPs speak in Parliament, to show their names, intentions to vote and how their constituency voted. Thus any MP who votes against their constituency will end their own career - especially prudent given how this divides Labour against Corbyn (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/19/rebel-members-jeremy-corbyns-shadow-cabinet-preparing-vote-against/). Whilst Corbyn had to back down on forcing his MPs to vote in favour of article 50, the Tory party is complying with May. So much has gone on, and May does it unnoticed, which is how she appears to favour acting - I do wonder if she will be any good in public debates in the future. I suppose it will be irrelevant if she delivers a successful Brexit. To conclude, strong or weak? She has principles, which she is yet to betray, for that I am cautiously grateful.
The petition to stop a state visit by Trump has reached 1 million signatories.Who are these people who signed this petition? They are the same people who signed the last one, and have been met with the same response. This is unsurprising for many reasons.
May said that she's refusing to stop it because it would be appealing to populism.
I'm beginning to wonder if she's TRYING to tank the public opinion of her.
The first is that Trump is proud, and will not tolerate such insults. People hypothesize that Trump only decided to become president because Obama roasted him once, and Trump then decided to become President and destroy Obama's entire legacy whilst making everyone who mocked him bow down to him. If there is any truth to this rumour, it is wise not to provoke such a petty, and powerful man.
Secondly, Trump is needed by the UK - more on that later, to add some serious teeth to our negotiations. What would attacking Trump in this moment serve? It would alienate the most powerful nation on the planet, whilst adding us to the score of nations condemning him who already hate us for threatening their globalist project. This would leave us nearly isolated from any powerful nation that isn't run by autocrats who execute apostates for leaving Islam, this is counterproductive for the times ahead in addition to any humanitarian goals.
Third, by ignoring all the progressives who would never in their lives vote for the Mother of Brexit, Theresa May is the only leader of a Western nation to not oppose Trump, at little cost. Far be it, Theresa May is one of the few politicians who focuses on listening to constituents over celebrities, if we listened to the trendy opinion over the popular opinion there wouldn't even be Brexit to begin with. Thus for four years at the least, we are going to be the only ally Trump can rely on in the West. If we joined the ranks of the EU, we would win no favour with the EU for obvious reasons, the USA would not trust us to be beholden to short term passions over national ambitions. She would not be able to live down or allay her voters over the hypocrisy of restoring our national sovereignty to remove foreign control over our democracy only to go and tell foreign citizens how to run their country. Thus this action costs her nothing but nerves, and gains our country much.
I forecast this will end the same way as the last time we considered banning Trump from the UK.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats will talk about how much Trump is antithetical to British values.
Sadiq Khan will offer Trump to come visit a mosque.
One of Theresa May's people will talk about how it's inappropriate to treat international politics on a personal level.
The Tory party will talk about how they disagree with Trump in such a way that Trump wouldn't figure it out.
There will be a protest in London, and upon Trump's visit, many socialists will be in furor.
Fox News will talk about how Theresa May's disagreement is criticism of Trump.
BBC news will talk about how Theresa May is criticized for not criticizing Trump.
Everyone will continue to ignore that Muslims aren't one community, or ignore Merkel's summer of slaughter.
Well, it really depends. He seems to dislike the EU, so it's not impossible that he offers Britain good terms to encourage others. Unlikely, but not impossible.He's going to offer Britain good terms because the UK and USA are inexorably linked, and amicably linked, and already immensely cooperative even on issues of highest concern to world security. The UK married into the EU, but the USA and UK are family.
Clinton and Obama wanted to punish the UK for leaving the EU, because they are not anglophiles and have no interest in the UK. Heck, Obama was the most Anglophobic President since Roosevelt, Trump was a Godsent saviour of the special relationship, supporting our decision when so many liberal leaders of the world dared to tell us how to think.
That doesn't mean the EU is safe however, as Trump does want to destroy the EU (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-eu-ambassador-ted-malloch-tame-european-union-like-brought-down-soviet-union-russia-a7549696.html). It is undemocratic, it is completely allergic to the very notion of the nation-state and probably the greatest bastion of progressivism in the world, by breaking it apart Trump gains more allies. That shouldn't be too hard, the EU is struggling under the weight of the Eurozone crisis, the complete disillusionment of Europeans, the earthquake of mass migration and the vast increase in costs of defence, both against internal islamists and external Russians and more islamists. Trump threatening to pull out of NATO would have meant the European nations could not rely on the USA for protection, which means the EU would have had to foot the cost of protection equivalent to the US military.
Might talks at the end of the day, and as the EU has to increase taxes, as none of its problems get better but instead grow worse, as it centralizes more power and grows less responsive to its people, as attacks repeat its death becomes certain.
Theresa May is working towards ensuring that Trump does not destroy the EU in return for the Germans, French, Dutch and Italians ensuring that the EU does not harm the UK. Hence how valuable Theresa May getting Trump to U-turn on NATO is so valuable, she is now the only foreign leader in the world to have actually changed Trump's mind on something, and to the benefit of Europe. If the EU does not play nice with Theresa May, then she will have to make alternative arrangements. Without Theresa May cautioning Trump against a campaign versus the EU, the only Anglo in Trump's ear will be Nigel Farage.
Are based Nige
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dorsidwarf on January 30, 2017, 09:46:52 am
Post by: Sheb on January 30, 2017, 11:00:36 am
But yeah, I see Trump trying to get opening for American healthcare companies. Food standards could also be a sticking point.
Post by: Sheb on January 30, 2017, 11:58:29 am
'Opening up the door for that', not forcing.
Isn't that an absolutely meaningless statement? Like, AFAIK, nothing is preventing parliament to just privatize the whole NHS this very minute. What exactly would TTIP have changed?
Post by: hector13 on January 30, 2017, 12:09:47 pm
Post by: Sheb on January 30, 2017, 12:28:00 pm
I mean, are you asking me if the idea/expression of opening up the door for something (without doing/forcing that thing itself) is meaningless? Because of course it isn't. I typed up a couple of examples showing that but I had to delete them because it read too much like I was explaining something to a child, and naturally I respect you too much for that.
In terms of specifics, TTIP would have reduced protections governments were allowed to utilise to stop foreign companies competing in the national marketplace. The procurement rules could have forced the NHS to contract out services it wanted to keep in house, for example.
Either way, seems it's dead, so I'm happy.
Well, there has been insurance by the Commission and the British Government that TTIP wouldn't force any change to the NHS. What sections are you referring to that would have changed stuff?
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 30, 2017, 12:52:07 pm
I think you're being over-generous in attributing every about-face Trump has made to Theresa May.No, I'm directly attributing the U-turns he made that Theresa May attained; you can even see the precious moment where May had to goad him into repeating his affirmation for NATO to the public (http://www.itv.com/news/story/2017-01-27/donald-trump-100-behind-nato-says-theresa-may-after-meeting/), as it seems he either preferred to keep his affirmation private to May or forgot. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm being over-generous, I'm being factually correct and wholly accurate, watch it yourself, don't take the word of useless twat- I mean, twitterers.
Criticism to these assertations has been so universal in media, the public, and global opinions you might as well say that it was due to the heroic twitter of James May.I can't think of a single instance where Trump has changed his mind because of a prog on twitter or from the very same people who he is gearing to undermine. He wouldn't even take hard questions from our Beeb seriously, but he likes our politicians which is equally worrying and pleasing. He is not I think, a reliable ally to the UK, but certainly the alliance is very much beneficial in this time to both nations especially.
I dunno, he sees trade as an adversarial relationship where countries struggle to get the better of each others, and he's been pretty consistent that way. It could really go either way.There is a difference between seeing trade as an adversarial relationship, and seeing poor trade deals conducted with adversaries. Thus the endless emphasis on Obama and trade deals with China (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3R06i17lLU). Besides his constant affirmation that trade is about "good trade deals", the only concrete position he has made, is that he favours bilateral trade deals over multilateral trade deals. Hence why he shut down TTIP and would much rather negotiate trade deals with European countries instead of the European Union.
Isn't that an absolutely meaningless statement? Like, AFAIK, nothing is preventing parliament to just privatize the whole NHS this very minute. What exactly would TTIP have changed?If parliament privatized the whole NHS this very minute, heads would roll, and I'm not sure that would be entirely metaphorical.
The TTIP removed state barriers to private competition from foreign corporations. Such barriers would include tariffs, subsidies, public services - it would have mandated the dissolution or privatisation of the NHS, unless an exemption was secured, which as the negotiations were conducted in secret the British public would have no way of knowing until the TTIP either killed the NHS or didn't.
Well, there has been insurance by the Commission and the British Government that TTIP wouldn't force any change to the NHS. What sections are you referring to that would have changed stuff?The EU Commission is as trustworthy as Satan when it comes to listening to the British public and David Cameron fared only slightly better. As you can see, the British got rid of Cameron, and is now trying to rid itself of the Commission. It should come as no surprise then that the Commission and Cameron pinky swearing that the NHS wouldn't be privatised in the secret negotiations was believed by no one, because no one is that gullible.
Post by: Sheb on January 30, 2017, 01:01:59 pm
As for trade deals, why do you think Trump prefers bilateral to multilateral trade deals? (Although I wouldn't rally call TTIP truly multilateral, since the EU is doing the negotiating. It's bilateral with one side having a very complex ratification system) Why do you think China keeps insisting that the South China Sea dispute be resolved by bilateral treaties rather than multilateral one?
IMO, the answer to both these questions is "Because in a bilateral setting they think they can more easily use their bulk to shove better terms through smaller countries's throat". Divide and facefuck if you will. I'm sure he would prefer trade deals with individual countries, because a 18 trillion USD economy got less leverage when negotiating with a 14 trillion economy than with a bunch of smaller economies, none of whom is bigger than 3.5 trillions.
Post by: muldrake on January 30, 2017, 02:18:21 pm
As for trade deals, why do you think Trump prefers bilateral to multilateral trade deals? (Although I wouldn't rally call TTIP truly multilateral, since the EU is doing the negotiating. It's bilateral with one side having a very complex ratification system) Why do you think China keeps insisting that the South China Sea dispute be resolved by bilateral treaties rather than multilateral one?
The U.S. in general prefers bilateral to multilateral agreements, because we are naturally advantaged by having to deal only with a single partner against whom we usually have a strategically superior negotiating position. Even when we must do multilateral trade agreements, we prefer dealing with a region rather than the entire world through a vehicle like the WTO, which has a pesky habit of ruling against us on things.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 30, 2017, 02:28:31 pm
So basically it boils down to "We don't have any reasons to think TTIP would have threatened the NHS, but the Commission is evil so they would probably have done it".No, it boils down to the fact that there was no transparency at all in the whole secret negotiations and there is absolutely no way we can risk something as crucial as the National Health Service on the word of Cameron, who we suspected was seeking to privatise the NHS from the backdoor, and the Commission, whose loyalties are known clearly. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate)
The British people have no blind faith and obedience in powerful men. They are still just human, thus I question why you paint such a cruel caricature for citizens to seem foolish - for wanting oversight upon their leaders? For not trusting that which has done nothing to earn such trust? I would say this is a good sticking point for the UK but even the Europeans recognized the risk (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/17/ttip-protests-see-crowds-take-to-streets-of-seven-german-cities), it seems only Belgium was willing to be so submissive to aloof plutocrats, which is unsurprising. Seems obvious that the centre of the nation-killer would create people who find transparency and accountability evil lmao
As for trade deals, why do you think Trump prefers bilateral to multilateral trade deals?I had the rare privilege of talking to an ambassador of South Africa at a labour party meetup once, a good fellow he was - fought long and hard against apartheid. He lamented how during one conversation with a Scandinavian official, he asked the Scandinavian, what was the point in him even talking to him? What was stopping him from simply talking to a Briton, German or Frenchman and having them effect his nations' interests over the entire continent without regard? The answer of course, was that there was nothing. His point was that the EU and entities like it were killing bilateralism. When dealing with nations like Iceland, a nation of only 300,000 people, countries have to meet with the Icelanders and negotiate with the Icelanders. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9995525/Iceland-first-European-country-to-sign-free-trade-agreement-with-China.html) No one has to give a shit about Sweden, they're just a province.
Why does Trump favour bilateralism over multilateralism? I have no firm idea, all I know is his stated goal for the nation-state to remain superior to the global corporate state.
(Although I wouldn't rally call TTIP truly multilateral, since the EU is doing the negotiating. It's bilateral with one side having a very complex ratification system). Why do you think China keeps insisting that the South China Sea dispute be resolved by bilateral treaties rather than multilateral one? IMO, the answer to both these questions is "Because in a bilateral setting they think they can more easily use their bulk to shove better terms through smaller countries's throat". Divide and facefuck if you will.If the TTIP is bilateral, then the EU is one entity. The EU is not one entity, otherwise diversity is not its strength. A twofold strategy of slow escalation and intimidation with an additional fear of the Taiwan question motivates China, in addition to past fears of foreign nations influencing their nation during their century of humiliation. The EU is in my opinion welcome to divide and facefuck smaller countries, its people will learn the cost was not worth it.
I'm sure he would prefer trade deals with individual countries, because a 18 trillion USD economy got less leverage when negotiating with a 14 trillion economy than with a bunch of smaller economies, none of whom is bigger than 3.5 trillions.That leverage is only as useful as it is in serving its citizens, it's a shame the EU is not interested in serving Europeans, but rather, ensuring corporations have the best competition. Thatcher got what she wanted, and the City of London's financial firms dominated Europe, Kohl got he wanted, and Germany's industry dominated Europe - how many can say they benefited from this? The simple answer is globalists have no kin to care for (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/01/europe-illusions-shatter-as-greek-tragedy-plays-on-austerity). I favour bilateralism because every nation can best determine what they want out of their deal, suited to their country's people and reject if it their terms are not met; with the EU leading you, you must accept these terms whether or not they suit your nation and whether you approve or not, you cannot reject it, that is the obvious price you pay for allowing unelected bureaucrats to decide your trade deals in secret. Gg gj, you leveraged your neck expertly around a noose
Hence why I stand in the opinion it is far better to use one's leverage to benefit one's self, rather than allow someone else to use it to better enrich their self. Thus the EU used its clout to seek a decrease in European food safety standards in direct opposition to what European people want, because it makes things cheaper for corporations, lower environmental regulations for the exact same reason, weaken labour unions for the exact same reason, undermine public services again, for the exact same reason. (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/18/prospect-ttip-deal-undermining-eu-food-standards-gmos)
Quote
“TTIP is already letting big business interests dictate our laws for the worse. This week an EU negotiator has let slip that negotiations on TTIP have helped speed up entry of GMOs and chemically washed beef into the EU market. In our briefing released today we found an example of US officials bullying the EU into dropping plans to ban 31 dangerous pesticides with ingredients that have been shown to cause cancer.The nation state works for the benefit of its nationals, the EU has no nationals, caring only for profit. Oh yeah and then there's that small thing where the EU tried to allow corporations to sue national governments if their profits were threatened. (http://www.politico.eu/article/isds-the-most-toxic-acronym-in-europe/)
“Just imagine what will happen when TTIP actually comes into effect. Even the most optimistic of citizens must surely doubt the EU’s good intentions on TTIP after hearing how TTIP is already letting big business take over our legislative system. TTIP is about forcing governments to see the whole of society from the viewpoint of big business. Every regulation which is important to society, workers’ rights or environmental protection becomes simply an obstacle to profit.”
I really can't think of much the EU has done for the benefit of Europeans. But for the benfit of profit, great, but who profits? Lmao, no country for (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/sweden-asylum-seekers-refugees-policy-reversal)old yuros, gl hf (https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/imf-recommends-paying-refugees-below-the-minimum-wage/), but at least corporations got that cheap labour.
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 30, 2017, 03:06:42 pm
To that end, I find May has commendably managed to secure all she said in houses of Parliament; she got Trump to back down on torture after her speech to the GOP, and now he has deferred to his intelligence advisers that torture does not work. Most relevant to us, she confirmed that the UK and USA were not going to have the frigid relationship it did under Obama, but the roaring relationship that is UK-US relations. Most relevant to the world, she got Trump to completely U-turn on NATO, going from saying NATO is obsolete to being 100% behind NATO (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/donald-trump-committed-nato-visit-170127183754822.html).
Moreover, there is one additional thing. The EU placed Guy Verhofstadt on the EU-UK negotiating table. He has no respect for the UK and is determined to ensure we get the worse terms possible. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/guy-verhofstadt-chief-brexit-theresa-may-eu-trade-deal-2019-impossible-a7550136.html) Currently most national leaders of Europe are with us in that they want us to leave ASAP and leave amicably, the presence of hardliners like Guy force us to be cautious, and more importantly, remind people like Guy that we have MAD available - unleash the Trump.
Quote
Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister and arch European federalist who recently returned from a tour of the US, said that it was now clear that Europe had “fewer friends than ever” in Washington.I fucking nailed it (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/30/donald-trump-steve-bannon-pose-existential-threat-eu-says-chief/)
Quote
On the Brexit deal itself, Mr Verhofstadt struck a small note of conciliation, saying that Britain must face the consequences of leaving the single market and customs union, but that Europe would not seek to punish the UK.Hurrah! May's efforts were not in vain, and thanks must be given to the Anglophile President for his aid. With that sorted the UK is now that much more ready to depart from the EU! Conciliation with hardliners and hardliners, goodness, how swell the future shall be
Post by: MorleyDev on January 30, 2017, 03:25:42 pm
So, I strongly suspect we are in a period that will, in the future, be referred to as the "Automated Revolution", in the same vein as the "Industrial Revolution". That is, just as the Industrial Revolution killed the cottage careers on an unprecedented scale, we are seeing and will continue to see Automation kill current careers on an unprecedented scale. And, depending on when you start counting, we're barely into this time period.
Now, I don't think this, in the long run, is a bad thing. I actually am all for this (why would I work as a computer programmer if I wasn't?). What I'm alarmed by is that the entire Trump/Brexit debacle seems to be fundamentally a platform of protecting and restoring jobs that, quite frankly, cannot be protected or restored. The rust belt will continue to rust, the mines will remain closed, the steelworks will never be unconverted from offices. They are gone, and should remain gone.
The EU has largely seemed to be acting to limit damage done by this, allowing labour to move around where needed and fill jobs that need filling, providing financial support to allow for areas hit by these inevitable job losses to mitigate the damage done by the deindustrialisation of the western world, providing international regulations that benefit industries like the software industry immensely (the EU's data protection stuff is super useful in a global market, and software is inherently a global market), funding international scientific research.... Maybe not as effectively as possible, but they seem to actually be at least doing something other than trying to turn back the hands of a clock that cannot be turned back.
We need something to provide support for people whilst their livelihoods inevitably die, and so far no platform that advocates leaving the EU seems to simultaneously acknowledge what I view as this strong reality. Some of the remain platforms, however, have pushed for ideas like Universal Living Standards that can build on top of existing welfare systems, and will be essential in the inevitable post-industrial future.
So, for someone who thinks industry is dying an inevitable death, and automation is the inevitable future, where amongst the Leave crowd are they presenting effective alternatives to the EU? Because, from that point of view, to me they just look like snake oil salesmen. False promises that cannot be fulfilled, no different from trying to protect/bring back the cottage industries during the industrial revolution.
Even the UK governments talk of focusing on things like automated cars post-EU seems to support this. Such things are career killers in the long term, and seem to be easier to accomplish within the international collaborative scientific network of the EU.
Post by: Neonivek on January 30, 2017, 03:59:51 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 30, 2017, 07:52:22 pm
Spoiler: Too long no one read (click to show/hide)
Tldr; Remain remains behind.
Though for fucks sakes I need to find the contacts of HOL or HOC ppl or anyone, because bloody hell, what is the sense in reducing skilled migrants? The actual fuck, how did Cameron think this was a good idea? Finest argument against having a political ruling class right there, you can send a boy to Oxbridge but that won't give him common sense.
*EDIT
Neo, you got it right the first time. Rich preying on the poor would be them either hunting the poor, or metaphorically, feeding off the poor in the manner of a predator, a hunting beast. The Rich praying on the poor would I imagine be plutocrats being pious on an altar made up of people-furniture.
Post by: martinuzz on January 31, 2017, 05:41:44 am
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/trump-visit-will-hurt-the-queen-may-is-told-n9mtdfgwg
Post by: Loud Whispers on January 31, 2017, 07:16:56 pm
Really makes you think about why people considered it music made with instruments of torture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sLNOhA7C2Q)Neo, you got it right the first time. Rich preying on the poor would be them either hunting the poor, or metaphorically, feeding off the poor in the manner of a predator, a hunting beast. The Rich praying on the poor would I imagine be plutocrats being pious on an altar made up of people-furniture."Didn't you get my piano?" "Pianos aren't supposed to bleed and scream."
In other news it has now come to light that Cameron tried to get a Daily Mail editor sacked for being pro-Brexit. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38816692) Ahahaa get fucked Cameron your only legacy is the Guardian
Quote
The Daily Mail mounted a vociferous campaign for BrexitChrist that is a fantastic word
Quote
vociferous
adjective:
Expressing or characterized by vehement opinions; loud and forceful
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 31, 2017, 07:45:23 pm
I suffer greatly knowing I live in a world where the Daily Mail did at least one thing right.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 02, 2017, 12:15:41 am
MPs have voted by a majority of 384 to allow Prime Minister Theresa May to get Brexit negotiations under way.
Post by: hector13 on February 02, 2017, 12:33:30 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 02, 2017, 12:43:57 am
0/10 doesn't like corbyn and doesn't like brexit, what does the guy like
Post by: Starver on February 02, 2017, 06:41:30 am
(There are good things and bad things about Corbyn, but that three-line whip wasn't a good approach. Better to leave it as a matter of conscience, given he knew there'd be rebels against either position, and to reflect his "new type of politics", with him (the arch-rebel himself) at the helm.)
Post by: TD1 on February 02, 2017, 07:38:38 am
Post by: Starver on February 02, 2017, 07:52:48 am
Right now, I couldn't say who I'd support, but the incumbant isn't as likely to get my vote as before. Probably nobody's loss, but...
* But maybe against. I'll reject UKIP and RESPECT, alike, out of hand, for starters.
Post by: Sheb on February 02, 2017, 08:17:22 am
Post by: martinuzz on February 02, 2017, 08:34:27 am
To inflict more pain and damage, at small metal piece (most often, lead, for it's high weight) would be attached to the end of each tail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_o'_nine_tails
Post by: TD1 on February 02, 2017, 11:29:44 am
He's lost me, possibly. (Given that I never vote for* a leader or a party, anyway, but only upon the candidate, in the hope that the flavour of <insert party here> candidate that I prop up influences the direction of their party, or the party of the others, in a more desired leaning than some false-equivalence due to a 'moderate' being punished for being a member of a party that really needs pulling back...)
Right now, I couldn't say who I'd support, but the incumbant isn't as likely to get my vote as before. Probably nobody's loss, but...
* But maybe against. I'll reject UKIP and RESPECT, alike, out of hand, for starters.
Oh? Why UKIP? Is it something about Farage, or the new guy?
Post by: MorleyDev on February 02, 2017, 01:32:14 pm
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1256644634412341&id=191335640943251
Quote
Unless we change where we're heading in the next few weeks on Brexit we're stuffed. We're potentially heading to bargain basement Britain, where the NHS is sold off to the highest bidder, in order to beg for trade agreements with people like Trump. We will have 'taken back control' only to see it handed over to corporate elites across the globe behind closed doors.
When Theresa may said getting 'no deal' with the EU is an acceptable outcome, she waved the white flag and effectively told corporate interests to 'come and get us and do with us what you will'. No one has any faith the Tories are willing or able to protect workers rights,environmental protections or even our NHS.
Sadly Remain lost the referendum. That means the govt will now begin negotiations (via Article 50) to leave the EU. However, the shape of that departure, the negotiations and the end relationship is not up to the govt. Instead Parliament must have a say. The Supreme Court reinforced this opinion and now Parliament is about to debate the degree of say and influence it has in the process.
This is what is called the 2nd Reading of the A50 bill. It is not a trigger vote, but a vote to begin the debate and scrutiny of the Govt's negotiating position. Some of you are arguing that Labour and other opposition parties should ignore the referendum result, not attempt to shape the negotiation process and simply block A50.
Alas the vast majority of Tories in Parliament, even Remainers, will not stop or block the triggering of Article 50. They will just obey Theresa May and do what she says irrespective of the arguments. Some however will vote to change (amend some of the conditions limiting the government's version of brexit. Labour has tabled a series of amendments to this end (see below). That's because a majority of all party's MPs believe Parliament should be allowed to shape the A50 process and negotiations.They also have profound concerns about the kind of Brexit we are being forced to accept
The difficulty now lies in getting all the changes/amendments passed. Labour's amendments (below) attempt to ensure we have the closest relationship to Europe and the Single Market as is possible, protect worker rights, have proper report-back mechanisms on the negotiations and have final say over the eventual negotiated deal.
IF THE GOVT DOES NOT ACCEPT THESE AMENDMENTS, I WILL VOTE AGAINST TRIGGERING ARTICLE 50 AT THE THIRD AND FINAL VOTE.
Bottom line is I'll always do what I think is right for all of the people in our constituency. Not just bits of it - ALL of it. Too many people want to stick two fingers up at the decision made in part by people who'd been forgotten for 40 years.
Whilst middle England revelled in Cool Britannia and an asset bubble boom - these poor souls were being quietly forgotten. Many of them were my friends and family who also voted Leave. I understand why they did it. I don't agree with them but I get it.
And whilst I wont help them pull the trigger of the gun they're holding to their own head I will do my best to coax it down. I wont tell them they're ignorant or stupid and should know better and just let them pull the trigger.
It's grown-up, compassionate politics and I'll stand by it. And if after all of the debate in Parliament we still end up with Tory Hard Brexit I'll vote against.
Labour’s amendments will:
i) Allow a meaningful vote in Parliament on the final Brexit deal. Labour’s amendment would ensure that the House of Commons has the first say on any proposed deal and that the consent of Parliament would be required before the deal is referred to the European Council and Parliament.
ii) Establish a number of key principles the Government must seek to negotiate during the process, including protecting workers’ rights, securing full tariff and impediment free access to the Single Market.
iii) Ensure there is robust and regular Parliamentary scrutiny by requiring the Secretary of State to report to the House at least every two months on the progress being made on negotiations throughout the Brexit process
iv) Guarantee legal rights for EU nationals living in the UK. Labour has repeatedly called for the Government to take this step, and this amendment would ensure EU citizens’ rights are not part of the Brexit negotiations.
v) Require the Government to consult regularly with the governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland throughout Brexit negotiations. Labour’s amendment would put the Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) on a statutory footing and require the UK Government to consult the JMC at least every two months.
vi) Require the Government to publish impact assessments conducted since the referendum of any new proposed trading relationship with the EU. This amendment seeks to ensure there is much greater clarity on the likely impact of the Government’s decision to exit the Single Market and seek new relationship with the Customs Union
vii) Ensure the Government must seek to retain all existing EU tax avoidance and evasion measures post-Brexit
He also has some good comments in the comments section about how big of a cock-up the referendum was from a start, mixing plebian democracy with representative democracy in a country that doesn't have a system for plebian democracy.
Post by: TD1 on February 02, 2017, 02:01:46 pm
Post by: Starver on February 02, 2017, 05:08:20 pm
While I never liked Farage (he's also too much of a "great orator" in the way that Trump is too little, but I don't vote for party leaders, like I said), I quickly learnt that every UKIP candidate that I encountered were frankly never going to satisfy my politics, even the most 'moderate' ones. It has saved time to just skip over them. I've got enough problems dealing with UKIPpy friends (who I try to stay off various subjects, with) and certain forumites of such an (apparent, maybe in part trolling) bent, who know who they are already.* But maybe against. I'll reject UKIP and RESPECT, alike, out of hand, for starters.
Oh? Why UKIP? Is it something about Farage, or the new guy?
Other than that, I do try to do my research before voting.
Post by: TD1 on February 02, 2017, 07:01:57 pm
As an aside, I voted UKIP and Leave. I can assure you that trolling had nothing to do with it.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 02, 2017, 08:26:41 pm
Rationality.Acting like one side has the sole claim to rationality is the kinda smug that got liblab in this mess to begin with
(There are good things and bad things about Corbyn, but that three-line whip wasn't a good approach. Better to leave it as a matter of conscience, given he knew there'd be rebels against either position, and to reflect his "new type of politics", with him (the arch-rebel himself) at the helm.)Three-line whip was the best approach exactly because he knew party rebels were gonna conscientiously divide the country. Corbyn just did the country a proper virtue by ensuring we go forwards united; all those Labour voters who voted to Leave in Labour strongholds are not gonna forget that. Corbyn putting the country ahead of naughty MPs, being so humble as to work hand in hand with his opponents, it's simply the kinda shit I would not expect possible except with such strong-spined leaders. Moreover from a practical point of view Corbyn now knows exactly who he can't count on to follow him, all according to keikaku
You said you'd never vote for a party because of the leader, but you would vote against. You cited UKIP as one of the parties this applies to. You then mentioned something about the past holder of the UKIP leadership being an orator type, then preceded to talk people rather than policies. It just doesn't sound like leadership is your issue.Tbh I'd vote for UKIP because of the leader not in spite of it, whilst I'd vote in spite of the party not for it. The party has not produced a lot of skilled statesmen or stateswomen and is still in sore need of some maturity. If for example, UKIP had been pro-EU, I do not think so many would have exactly been inspired to lend their full support to the endless Farage barrage upon Brussels
As an aside, I voted UKIP and Leave. I can assure you that trolling had nothing to do with it.You disagree with me you trolling fam
Post by: Leafsnail on February 02, 2017, 08:38:17 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-38847939
Honestly I haven't seen very much of Nuttall otherwise, he seems fairly invisible on the national stage.
Post by: Starver on February 02, 2017, 08:45:35 pm
You said you'd never vote for a party because of the leader, but you would vote against.I might vote against (by "not voting for") a party for the reasons given. I have otherwise voted for candidates across the political spectrum because I liked that candidate's approach to their party's nuanced viewpoint on the world.
The incumbant in the seat (given being otherwise favourable, and I've been 'lucky' enough to have had incumbants that are rebellious (in the right way) within the not-so-perfect party) gets a little extra credit, as a known factor compared with their various challengers who might say things but have no track record.
Quote
You cited UKIP as one of the parties this applies to.UKIP has had nothing to offer me, as a party-whole, and it appears that no candidate has had anything they thought worth saying that gives them the 'right side of the UKIP spectrum' aspect to them.
Quote
You then mentioned something about the past holder of the UKIP leadership being an orator type,It's how I tend to experience him, mostly. He toned down a bit by the time of the referendum, but he seemed to always be doing a "soapbox, unplugged" speech-pattern, out-shouting the others, throughout the decade before that. Someone needed to tell him when he had a microphone active, and get him to stop trying to out-project the 'regular' politicians on Question Time, or whatever.
My opinion of him (in this way!) mostly changed when I saw him alongside Trump at that Trump rally. He stuck to his style, totally mismatched to the 'Merkin Hoo-Yah crowd, and for me that put him into perspective. (Trump's style was just so much worse, no matter how many times I watched his and his opponents' rallies. I was a glutton for punishment for so many months!)
Quote
then preceded to talk people rather than policies. It just doesn't sound like leadership is your issue.I'm not sure what you're saying, really, but I suppose I do set more store in what I have against the party, in this exceptional case.
Quote
As an aside, I voted UKIP and Leave. I can assure you that trolling had nothing to do with it.You're not the kind of person using "kekekek" and "fam", especially when it is suggested in private that these are annoyingly distracting, and other memes with variously uninteligable/distracting natures. You may not be "my kind of person", but you at least seem to be trying not to obfuscate everything you say in a neo-elitist manner, just for the 'lulz'.
Post by: Reelya on February 03, 2017, 02:36:03 am
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/uks-brexit-white-paper-accidentally-states-brits-are-entitled-to-14-weeks-leave/news-story/5f157ba1468442aa48dcdc662bfec468
Post by: martinuzz on February 03, 2017, 03:33:13 am
Sorry fellas your 14 week leave is over.
Post by: TD1 on February 03, 2017, 03:42:45 am
I can agree with that. However, you don't have the (simply marvellous) choice of political parties that I have. Between DUP and UKIP, I choose the kippers.Rationality.Acting like one side has the sole claim to rationality is the kinda smug that got liblab in this mess to begin with(There are good things and bad things about Corbyn, but that three-line whip wasn't a good approach. Better to leave it as a matter of conscience, given he knew there'd be rebels against either position, and to reflect his "new type of politics", with him (the arch-rebel himself) at the helm.)Three-line whip was the best approach exactly because he knew party rebels were gonna conscientiously divide the country. Corbyn just did the country a proper virtue by ensuring we go forwards united; all those Labour voters who voted to Leave in Labour strongholds are not gonna forget that. Corbyn putting the country ahead of naughty MPs, being so humble as to work hand in hand with his opponents, it's simply the kinda shit I would not expect possible except with such strong-spined leaders. Moreover from a practical point of view Corbyn now knows exactly who he can't count on to follow him, all according to keikakuYou said you'd never vote for a party because of the leader, but you would vote against. You cited UKIP as one of the parties this applies to. You then mentioned something about the past holder of the UKIP leadership being an orator type, then preceded to talk people rather than policies. It just doesn't sound like leadership is your issue.Tbh I'd vote for UKIP because of the leader not in spite of it, whilst I'd vote in spite of the party not for it. The party has not produced a lot of skilled statesmen or stateswomen and is still in sore need of some maturity. If for example, UKIP had been pro-EU, I do not think so many would have exactly been inspired to lend their full support to the endless Farage barrage upon Brussels
Starver: I was just pointing out that you claimed leadership alone would make you not vote UKIP, then said nothing to that effect again.
Post by: Sheb on February 03, 2017, 04:03:28 am
Post by: martinuzz on February 03, 2017, 04:57:31 am
LW, do you know what's up with the BBC?
Whenever I google a hot news item, Google always presents the Guardian, Daily Mail and Telegraph articles as 'top stories'. There's dozens of smaller news sites in the list below it, but the BBC is never shown.
Only if I manually add 'BBC' to the search term, will goggle stuff some old BBC articles in the search results, usually of unrelated, years old news.
Did the BBC forget to pay Google? Or does the BBC just fail to catch the breaking news most of the time?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It's really starting to annoy me. I'd like to have BBC as one of my main news sources, but I can't find any breaking news from the BBC for quite a few weeks now.
EDIT: Ofcourse, Murphy had to twitch from his grave. The example topic above did turn up a hot BBC item when I added BBC to the search term, instead of some random unrelated BBC article.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38853841
Post by: Starver on February 03, 2017, 06:40:11 am
Starver: I was just pointing out that you claimed leadership alone would make you not vote UKIP, then said nothing to that effect again.No. I said that leadership or party were not what I voted for, and yet qualified that in some circumstances I might 'vote against'1 a party's camdidate because of a decade of experience with the party being a provably useful shortcut to my opinion.
1 I'm running with it, but there' s really no such thing. I 'vote against' all but one candidate only because I'm voting for that one that I do. Or I vote against them all by not voting at all, but it doesn't count, just like the third of people who didn't even use their vote in the referendum are being ignored in the 'landslide result' misnomer.
Post by: Sergarr on February 03, 2017, 06:49:09 am
1 I'm running with it, but there' s really no such thing. I 'vote against' all but one candidate only because I'm voting for that one that I do. Or I vote against them all by not voting at all, but it doesn't count, just like the third of people who didn't even use their vote in the referendum are being ignored in the 'landslide result' misnomer.This is why I think all important elections should have the "Against everyone" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above) option.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 03, 2017, 01:50:17 pm
I can agree with that. However, you don't have the (simply marvellous) choice of political parties that I have. Between DUP and UKIP, I choose the kippers.When I say choose, I mean the winning choice is between voting for Labour or Liberal Democrat, since they're the only two parties that can win in my borough. Votes for UKIP, Greens, Tories or Monster Raving Looneys are more statements than real attempts at deciding political agenda, so my individual vote carries relatively fewer political capital other than an expressing of intent. Whether to vote for the party you want or the party that wins, I go vote for the one I want to see, makes much more sense that way
LW, do you know what's up with the BBC?I can only guess that the Guardian, Daily Mail and Telegraph all have top notch SEO whilst the Beeb doesn't. It is possible that since Guardian, Daily Mail and Telegraph all run adverts and the BBC doesn't run adverts, google is directing traffic towards private online news and away from public online news, so as to maximize ad revenue. That's all I can think of, really it could be anything
Whenever I google a hot news item, Google always presents the Guardian, Daily Mail and Telegraph articles as 'top stories'. There's dozens of smaller news sites in the list below it, but the BBC is never shown.
Only if I manually add 'BBC' to the search term, will goggle stuff some old BBC articles in the search results, usually of unrelated, years old news.
Did the BBC forget to pay Google? Or does the BBC just fail to catch the breaking news most of the time?
You're not the kind of person using "kekekek" and "fam", especially when it is suggested in private that these are annoyingly distracting, and other memes with variously uninteligable/distracting natures. You may not be "my kind of person", but you at least seem to be trying not to obfuscate everything you say in a neo-elitist manner, just for the 'lulz'."Kekekek" is a zerg rush, "fam" does not deserve to be in quotes any more than "mate" does because it's just the English language, gods be good I've never even seen "lulz" been used unironically in aeons, and jesu christo a sense of humour is neo-elitist ahahaha
Gl in life
Speaking of Sinn Fein, I saw an article yesterday (from an entirely unreliable source) saying that secretly, the Queen was unhappy about having to meet Trump. And it made me think, were it true; bitch, you shook Martin McGuinness's hand, the man who led the terrorists who killed your bloody cousin. I don't care if Trump swaggers in, gives you the up-and-down and drawls out 'Howdy Lizzie' before reaching around to pinch your arse, you can smile, shake his hand, and go back to your life of luxury.In Brexit, sources said the Queen supported Leave and Remain
The Queen is plausible deniability incarnate, with exactly no opinion about everything so as to ensure people don't see monarchs influencing policy in the current century
Post by: MorleyDev on February 03, 2017, 03:02:56 pm
The Queen is plausible deniability incarnate, with exactly no opinion about everything so as to ensure people don't see monarchs influencing policy in the current century
I'm curious what will happen when she eventually passes away. Assuming she doesn't outlive him (which remains a possibility given both their ages), Prince Charles is a lot less quiet and I can't imagine him stopping that. (Honestly, the best thought of a state visit from Trump is that it could involve him and Trump in the same room. I swear, they'd probably have to gag the both of them to stop an international incident. And a twitter war between Trump and Charles would be just delightful to watch)
Post by: wierd on February 03, 2017, 03:06:27 pm
Post by: Dorsidwarf on February 03, 2017, 03:11:17 pm
It was my understanding that Charles was to be passed over, and prince Harry(?) was to be coronated instead upon the queen's passing.Thats what
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 03, 2017, 03:15:36 pm
Post by: MorleyDev on February 03, 2017, 03:34:01 pm
Post by: Helgoland on February 04, 2017, 05:22:23 pm
Post by: hector13 on February 06, 2017, 10:39:06 am
Post by: Starver on February 06, 2017, 11:07:50 am
BBC(?) analysis of the results (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38762034), if you're interested.Saw that earlier. Pretty much says what has previously been said in less fine-grained polling.
Just going to upset everyone, I think. I wouldn't say that its untrue that low education matches well with Leave, but that's just anecdotal for my experience. And, anyway, it's low achievement (perhaps because of lack of enablement) not low intelligence. (Ironically, those that European funds end up going to more than national ones, for various intertwined factors.)
Right this moment, I happen to be sitting looking at soa prime location to act as an analogy of my own views, but I can't be bothered to extemporise. It seems the Elites of the current flavour are stiffing the People of all kinds, in the name of the People who thought (or at least were told) they were getting rid of any such system of Elites. Sorry, a bit morose, but it feels like its about to rain, so I'll set off home shortly and have a more considered opinion than that which I've been pondering about most of the day...
Post by: Starver on February 06, 2017, 01:21:45 pm
(Yeah, it's tittle-tattle, but I thought the mood needed lightening up a bit, after the above. Ah, Covenant, you just saved me from doubleposting...)
Post by: martinuzz on February 06, 2017, 01:34:48 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 06, 2017, 01:59:16 pm
It was my understanding that Charles was to be passed over, and prince Harry(?) was to be coronated instead upon the queen's passing.
All I know is that the Queen is basically the only thing keeping the Royal Family afloat right now in the public eye.
Given that to my knowledge, and I may be wrong, NO ONE likes Prince Charles or Prince Harry... and find them both to be twats.
Unlike the Queen who is famous for charming the pants off of even the most stone hearted royalty haters.
Ohh Prince William? Well... hmmm... ok he has a bit better of a chance... Though... Still... not looking good.
Post by: Sergarr on February 06, 2017, 05:00:19 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Even BBC agrees - smart people vote "Remain" /shots_fired
Post by: martinuzz on February 06, 2017, 05:04:29 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 06, 2017, 05:08:16 pm
You could also argue that it is proof that education makes you more ignorant. /moreshots
Or that the people who voted Leave were more in favor of the Status Quo being maintained than anything else... and even when changes didn't occur because of the EU or would have happened anyway, it was blamed on the EU.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on February 06, 2017, 05:15:09 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 06, 2017, 05:57:45 pm
Sure... the people who are typically in favor of the Status Quo did vote Leave... But that doesn't mean leave didn't have merit, nor does that mean that remain had merit.
I am still a Remain guy and while I didn't like the Brexit politics ("Multiculturalism gone wrong!" -_-), I shouldn't judge the people by the advocates.
Post by: hector13 on February 06, 2017, 06:00:25 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 06, 2017, 06:02:44 pm
The problem with that thinking is that the status quo was being in the EU.
It was certainly a long time, but I don't think it ever became the established status quo.
At least the narrative was that the EU was an imposition... Rather then "The UK can do much better, lets break away".
Post by: hector13 on February 06, 2017, 06:09:22 pm
There was a fairly constant waxing and waning of euroscepticism in the conservative party, but I don't think leaving the EU was ever truly considered possible until the morning after the night before.
Even Farage said on the night that "Remain might just nick it (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-farage-sky-idUKKCN0Z92RN)".
Post by: Starver on February 06, 2017, 06:16:24 pm
The problem with the Remain message was that "our plan is to entrench ourselves in our hard-fought position on the edge of Europe" seemed too unexciting, and there are just too many nihilists in the world as well. As can be seen elsewhere in the world.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 06, 2017, 08:01:02 pm
All I know is that the Queen is basically the only thing keeping the Royal Family afloat right now in the public eye.What are you smoking mate
Given that to my knowledge, and I may be wrong, NO ONE likes Prince Charles or Prince Harry... and find them both to be twats.
Unlike the Queen who is famous for charming the pants off of even the most stone hearted royalty haters.
Ohh Prince William? Well... hmmm... ok he has a bit better of a chance... Though... Still... not looking good.
This is why people want you to post sources for such statements because they're honestly confusing at times. Where did you get the idea that the UK thinks Charles and Harry are complete twats, it's the exact opposite and FFS Harry is the only royal more popular than the Queen
Can you post a single thing, anything? It is so much harder to prove a negative wrong than for you to prove your argument true. Ditto for William, if people listened to you they'd think the UK is one step away from dragging out the guillotines o_O
Post by: Dorsidwarf on February 06, 2017, 08:47:43 pm
Post by: hector13 on February 06, 2017, 09:31:03 pm
Post by: Grim Portent on February 06, 2017, 09:37:07 pm
I would want access to a video of it's dissection and the findings of whatever research was conducted on it before that mind you. I'd be genuinely curious about such a creature's biology.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 06, 2017, 10:21:44 pm
Post by: Neonivek on February 07, 2017, 05:13:09 am
Quote
Can you post a single thing, anything?
What the heck sort of source would be acceptable for this? Prince Harry approval ratings?
Post by: muldrake on February 07, 2017, 05:36:38 am
QuoteCan you post a single thing, anything?
What the heck sort of source would be acceptable for this? Prince Harry approval ratings?
Not to defend worthless parasite royals, but didn't you say literally nobody liked Prince Harry?
How about a poll where literally nobody liked that guy?
Post by: Neonivek on February 07, 2017, 06:01:00 am
Post by: Sheb on February 07, 2017, 06:07:23 am
I also said "I may be wrong"
I think you're a pedophile, but I may be wrong.
Post by: Neonivek on February 07, 2017, 06:10:23 am
I also said "I may be wrong"
I think you're a pedophile, but I may be wrong.
It wasn't QUITE that. Though yes you are wrong :P
It is that the names are so similar to eachother in "Princelyness" that I can't keep them straight. I know the least popular one, who miiight be dead, was secretly a Nazi sympathizer.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 07, 2017, 07:07:08 am
"Secretly" :pI also said "I may be wrong"
I think you're a pedophile, but I may be wrong.
It wasn't QUITE that. Though yes you are wrong :P
It is that the names are so similar to eachother in "Princelyness" that I can't keep them straight. I know the least popular one, who miiight be dead, was secretly a Nazi sympathizer.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MorleyDev on February 07, 2017, 07:51:49 am
No other reason, really. Practically they don't do much that can't be done by a non-monarch, the tourism argument is shaky, I don't give two shits about it being a "proud British tradition" or whatever nonsense reason people use to justify not changing something that's not actually that useful (traditional is just a synonym for pointless). But above all, it's just daft.
Post by: Sheb on February 07, 2017, 08:08:55 am
Personally, I'm a 'republican' (as in I think we should get rid of the monarchy) mostly on the unassaultable position that having a royal family in 2017 is just kinda daft.
No other reason, really. Practically they don't do much that can't be done by a non-monarch, the tourism argument is shaky, I don't give two shits about it being a "proud British tradition" or whatever nonsense reason people use to justify not changing something that's not actually that useful (traditional is just a synonym for pointless). But above all, it's just daft.
Given the number of people that visits Versaille, what you should really do to drive the tourist trade is some public beheadings.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 07, 2017, 10:45:27 am
As far as popularity goes, I'd say Harry's possibly the most popular one. That sentiment often quickly gets followed with a 'Because he's not Charles's', though I don't know if that particular theory has made it past the isle.Probably helps he's the least royal royal lol
Though LW, I may need surgery to get my eyebrow to unraise after I read you implying that Charles was one of the two most popular royals. Let's be honest, he's shit-tier at best.Harry is popular =/= Charles is popular
Charles is acceptable
Tbh we should just pass to George, keep the whole momentum going with minimum succession
Personally, I'm a 'republican' (as in I think we should get rid of the monarchy) mostly on the unassaultable position that having a royal family in 2017 is just kinda daft.Counterpoint, mostly on the unassaultable position that republicans in a constitutional monarchy in 2017 is just kinda dandy
No other reason, really. Practically they don't do much that can't be done by a non-monarch, the tourism argument is shaky, I don't give two shits about it being a "proud British tradition" or whatever nonsense reason people use to justify not changing something that's not actually that useful (traditional is just a synonym for pointless). But above all, it's just daft.Their existence itself can't be done by a non-monarch, you are either born into it, marry into it or kill your way into it to be the one true monarchTM. They're the only form of gov that has near complete tenure with any sense of legitimacy since they're the embodied continuity of British tradition in a very direct lineage sort of way, foreigners, fools and the disinterested all understand their general symbolism in ways that excite them where civil bureaucrats bore them to tears. It's a status that no American celebrity can ever reach; attack, emulate, but never have. That's useful in the same way a medal is just a ribbon with metal, but the distance between the medal and what it takes to get it makes it so much more than just ribbon and metal.
Helps remind our leaders that at the end of the day their authority derives from an old lady in a chair and not their own talent, lest they get any ideas thinking they're rulers themselves, and not public servants. To that end they serve as very useful long term memory for our governments, which tend to be much too much focused to short term popularity - no Minister has ever given a shit about architecture or birds :P
The crown revenue stuff is always brought up, but I don't think money should always be the focus of all such matters, especially in such case as this. This is much more about deciding what possible utility one has for maintaining a royal dynasty, if there really is little case except crown revenues, tourism from royalaboos and media bonanza, it's a very commercial world we live in. I tend to shy away from sticking monarchs on selfie poles for social shekels and look at how valuable it is to have all officers civil and military loyal to one person who exercises no policy. The monarch is the supreme authority from which all levels of governance devolve, but they lack any power to use their authority, thus abuse is impossible to occur. This is highly useful and avoids us having to do such things as have people swear allegiance to flags or constitutions, which naturally do not breed nearly the same level of cohesion given how words and flags carry such different meanings to all.
Likewise I'm intrigued why tradition holds to be pointless to you? My experience is rather the opposite, in that the passing down of customs, beliefs and ideas from one generation to the next is the fundamental basis of human advancement, the fundamental basis for British culture itself existing. I for example do not find it at all surprising that peoples who have replaced tradition with material consumerism are in turn, peoples being replaced by those who have retained their traditions. Plants that have broken their roots cannot grow higher :D
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Then their culture is going to die
rip in babylon, rip in berlin, rip in britain?
Post by: MorleyDev on February 07, 2017, 11:34:16 am
The monarchy was held to have divine right to rule. Power in Parliament comes from Power in Monarchy comes from God. That notion, in 2017, in a decreasingly Christian, increasingly Atheistic/Agnostic society, is being robbed of all meaning: The supports that sustain the idea are gone or are going. The idea can't last much longer without them without becoming something ugly.
For me, I think we're at the point where the monarchy meme has lost it's foundations. Or at least, for me the foundations aren't there. Eventually, enough people come to regard the meme as irrelevant and it drifts out of the "social consciousness". That's how human ideas advance, have always advanced. On the monarchy, I'm not going to be out campaigning anytime soon. I don't care that much. But, I am content to sit back and watch and see if it will die a quiet, natural death.
Some other ideas adapt and survive, Christmas hasn't been about Christ in a long time and that fighting to sustain that notion as the heart of the tradition is ridiculous in an increasingly atheistic society is pointless. But the tradition of Christmas, families gathering once a year and exchanging gifts and having a big meal, manages to persist.
Basically, Gott ist tot.
Post by: Starver on February 07, 2017, 11:48:11 am
- Elizabeth II - incumbant, popular through proven reliability
(Misunderstanding about flags after Diana's death, excepted. Borderline republicans tend to support her staying.) - Prince Charles - heir apparent; Marmite, but established
(Outspoken, in leiu of any current practical and official 'power', which polarises people, but there's not much else he could really do and staying quiet would probably have not helped; Diana/Camilla business might sway some (either way); possible he'll not survive his mother, 'solving' that problem) - Prince William - From bereaved son of Diana has developed into a Statesmanlike figure
('Practical Prince', trained helicopter pilot, performed as Search & Rescue and Helicopter Ambulance, but just announced cutting back (in advanced preparation of moving up a place?), generally positive opinions from those that are open to positive opinions) - Prince George - 3 year-old "heir to the heir to the heir"
(Not much can be said about him, yet. Time will tell whether it even becomes relevent.) - Princess Charlotte - <2yo
(Ditto) - Prince 'Harry' (Henry) - the spare-to-the-heir(-to-the-heir), had his wild times and bad publicity, but not done badly overall
(Party Prince, fancy dress as Nazi, leaked nude photos, questions about parentage; but that might be a natural counterpart to his Squaddie nature, having apparently done rather well in the military and active service in ground and air roles. He'd probably get support from significant parts of the military if there was ever civil war.) - Prince Andrew - brother of Charles
(Dignified, for an original heir-spare; Also militarily-trained (Falklands War helicopter pilot for the navy, acted as missile-bait!); most controversy regarding his failed marriage with Lady Sarah Ferguson, who turned out to be a bit too much Party Girl, so probably came out of the split "more sinned-against than sinning". Unlikely to succeed, but not so often talked about as a waste of space - perhaps because forgotten?) - Princess Beatrice - Andy/Fergie's first daughter (28?)
- Princess Eugenie - Andy/Fergie's second daughter (26?)
(Both considered Party Princesses, much lampooned, but only when even considered; stereotyped as much more Fergie-like than Royal, but that probably comes more from public charactures than their actual private actions as 'minor royals') - Prince Edward - spare-spare-heir (4th and last child, but 3rd son, of the Queen)
(Known mostly for his attempts to go into the field of Entertainment, having quit from the Military track (Royal Marines, I think) ; You don't hear much about him, but I he seems to do his Patronage duties as a 'major minor royal') - Viscount James - 9?yo younger son of Edward
- Lady Louise - 13?yo elder daughter of Edward
(No real impressions available) - Princess Anne - second child of the Queen; but 4th effective, before other heir-heirs, due to the primagenita only recently revoked
(Dignified but possibly unconsidered mature member of the Windsor; alongside general royal duties, is accomplished in the world of Equestrianism (and characatured thus, for her pains))
Then it's the Queen's late sister's descendents (18 to 23), with titular nobility arising somewhat from their original nearness to succession, as per tradition, but beyond the Snowden and Linley names, the Armstrong-Jones branch doesn't really get talked about.
After that the branch arising from the two (now deceased) uncles of the Queen. At 24th place is actually Prince Richard, Duke Of Gloucester (for those who know their Shakespeare!), who I've met (in passing; his passing by me, that is) at a charity thing. His descendents reach to 33rd place (by some counts; but no Counts, that I see), the other uncle's son (Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) starts the 34-56th placed successions (but might depend upon various conditions, if it ever becomes necessary to resolve such fragile links to the line of succession, for example through Roman Catholicism exclusions) most of whom you likely will never hear of, and are well off the Civil List and earning their way through 'normal' upper-crust privileges as directors or owners of businesses.
I think everyone up to and including Andrew definitely have enough support to (assuming it suddenly came to that) take upon the mantle of Monarch, but there'd be heartache about those voluntarily/involuntarily removing themself from earlier in the lists. And George/Charlotte, at their current age, would be an emotional thing and the big problem would be what to do about the Regent (but Uncle Harry, if still around, could step up to that, I think). Beatrice and Eugenie don't have good press (because of being easy targets for lampooning) and once it gets to the Armstrong-Joneses there's going to be a lot of national ambivalance, and it would depend a lot about whatever it is that caused this eventuality.
(If Richard, Duke Of Gloucester succeeds... The para (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_(play))llel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_(1995_film))s would be scrutinised. I doubt he'd be chosen as Regent for any infant Monarch further up the line just to sidestep the gossip... ;)
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 07, 2017, 06:54:08 pm
Successions and impressions, as badly summarised by me:Pretty good summary
-snip-
I like the heir to the heir to the heir, especially since for a while everyone went crazy with the Princely baby. Saw some ludicrous stuff where people went on and on about how majestic and regal the baby was, even though it just seemed they were doing regular baby stuff
I'd argue that the value is in how ideas change, mutate and adapt. The Dawkin's notion of a "meme". These ideas exist to help the society that holds them, and need to change and adapt as such. By the time you're having to fall back on "it's traditional" to defend the persistence of a meme, the foundation that sustains that meme is already long gone, and as such the meme is already effectively dead, or at least on life support.Ah, I get it. Thanks for the explanation, the defence of tradition on the basis that tradition is tradition is cheap. I agree there, I'm just arguing against attacking tradition on the basis that tradition is tradition. We're faces on the same coin xD
I honestly don't think you need to attack tradition to force necessary or desirable change amongst a populace or culture, even a race that upholds its culture fiercely will find the culture mutates and evolves with time as generations come and go in new world conditions. That is why I see no fear in upholding tradition transforming into upholding static dogma that has long outlived its usefulness - even in the most fundamentalist doctrines, interpretations change to effect change whilst maintaining the appearance of the unchanging, and change indeed occurs regardless of their consent owing to the simple cycle of life and death. Dogmas do not live forever, cultures do not remain static, that is why I don't like the name "conservative" for the conservative party, because the image it conjures is not one of cultivating culture, but merely preserving it. This is not only insufficient, but doomed to failure, whereas cultivating it maintains its appeal and relevancy - Westerners abandoned their roots and cultures for many reasons, one chief reason I reckon is that they see little appealing to them in their own roots.
On the flip-side I argue that actively going the route of denouncing tradition as pointless does not effect mutation or evolution, merely deletion, the death of the culture. Migrant cultures would not be taking over if Western cultures had not already done their best to attain self-destruction
The monarchy was held to have divine right to rule. Power in Parliament comes from Power in Monarchy comes from God. That notion, in 2017, in a decreasingly Christian, increasingly Atheistic/Agnostic society, is being robbed of all meaning: The supports that sustain the idea are gone or are going. The idea can't last much longer without them without becoming something ugly.The monarchy was held to have divine right to rule, that notion did not even make it close to surviving anywhere up to the current year in the United Kingdom; ending in the early 17th century with the execution of the King. Thus it is unwise to destroy one's own foundations based on conceptions regarding French monarchs two centuries ago in another world, as even before the time the French were executing absolute monarchs, the UK was already a constitutional monarchy. We can only discuss the merits of abolishing British traditions when looking at the British tradition, elsewise we're talking past ourselves
For me, I think we're at the point where the monarchy meme has lost it's foundations. Or at least, for me the foundations aren't there. Eventually, enough people come to regard the meme as irrelevant and it drifts out of the "social consciousness". That's how human ideas advance, have always advanced. On the monarchy, I'm not going to be out campaigning anytime soon. I don't care that much. But, I am content to sit back and watch and see if it will die a quiet, natural death.I think an argument could have been made if the UK had remained within the EU for the Westminster tradition and its assembled bodies of state and governance decreasing in relevance, most especially the monarchy, which would have forfeited even its nominal role as head of state and sovereign. Will it die slowly and shrivel into nothingness? Nah, if it dies, it'll be because some monarch did something absolutely-fucking-atrocious or got in the way of an exceptionally powerful Prime Minister-turned-Lord Protector, both leading towards a significant rise in ardent Republicanism cross-country. An interesting question in regards to the maintenance of the whole crown is indeed why it hasn't died already.
We killed the King, but once more filled the throne with another. We have no issue with forcing Monarchs to abdicate, but will never allow them to dissolve the Monarchy. When the King is dead, long live the King, long may they reign over us - but we will give them no power to reign. For these reasons (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159095.msg7353653#msg7353653) (though not limited to them) which I'll spare you the boredom of repeating we keep them as continuity to the British tradition of governance.
Some other ideas adapt and survive, Christmas hasn't been about Christ in a long time and that fighting to sustain that notion as the heart of the tradition is ridiculous in an increasingly atheistic society is pointless. But the tradition of Christmas, families gathering once a year and exchanging gifts and having a big meal, manages to persist.Ideas only survive in implementation for as long as their adherents well... Adhere to them. Ideas don't survive because they adapt, ideas adapt because they are survived by future generations. Even the things you would expect to remain constant such as meanings told through religious canon, literary canon, philosophical canon, empirical observation and such change via changing interpretations, amendments, compromises, new information or models and even the very fact that language and meaning does not remain constant.
Basically, Gott ist tot.
Take Christmas for example. 60% of the country is Christian, the vast majority practice Christian custom, beliefs or traditions, yet because the trendy bourgeoisie think it's about spending money on Bond Street sales, they are assumed to be more important than the sum total of all British tradition or the majority of the nation. Marx was right when he said they decide ideology, they are where the capital lies, thus advertising and mass media caters to them. I see the attempt to make Christmas pointless by not only stripping it of everything but commercial value, but going one step further and divorcing it entirely from its religious roots, part of a rather disturbing trend in which city-dwelling Westerners not only reject their roots, but find the very concept of allowing others to learn them as offensive. I had a rather amusing anecdote - just an anecdote, in which I was talking to this irascible vegan and a suave film student. Vegan was pure Anglo, Film student hailed from Japan, we talked of many things and one such thing was how different the West and East held the virtue of self-knowledge in different lights. To my surprise, the Anglo found this virtue as offensive, whilst I and the student held onto Taoist tradition. To my greater surprise, upon learning more of Western philosophy I found that the Western civilization itself had many philosophers who discovered these virtues, and they were learned and lived by Westerners until the 21st century, where students started rejecting them because they were white people. How can one generation that speaks so vehemently against ignorance, prize ignorance of the self? It confuses me to this day
I wasn't surprised to say the least lol. I've seen funny things, Anglo children given gifts on Christmas, complaining that they didn't get enough money - whilst in Malaysia, living in a Muslim country where there never was snow, they celebrated Christmas better than London. The only thing they didn't do better was mulled wine, which is forgivable haha. Yet in the UK, there is a severe hatred for British tradition amongst many prog circles and indifference amongst many tory circles, and this makes me sad
To avoid running off on a tangent, my point is that I don't think attacking tradition gives meaning to anything we do, I think it actually just makes it more pointless. Moreover, it actively kills your culture, ensuring you become a declining people, ripe for replacement by those on the ascension who cultivate their own culture where your people do not. I don't like that because it's unnecessary deletion, setting the British people backwards. I fear the British are dealing with their own red guard who in one cultural revolution do more damage than centuries of humiliation and invasion to the nation's people
Covenant brings up a good point too in that once you strip people of all the depth of their roots and you give them the freedom to do whatever, paradoxically they seek to bind themselves in fanatic movements that eagerly seek to dictate their lives in accordance with their own agenda. It's no surprise that fundamentalists were born in the enlightenment, or that in such times of cultural decline the far left and far right gain such large following, or even Swedes are becoming Al-Swedis
Thanks for this really well-done reply btw it was a great joy to read
Post by: Helgoland on February 07, 2017, 08:17:59 pm
*Yeah, I'll refer to Brexiteers like that from now on. Sue me.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on February 07, 2017, 08:24:44 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 07, 2017, 08:55:59 pm
I find myself nodding along to the seccessionists'*posts. It is disturbing.I can totally imagine that if the EU successfully saves itself and becomes one state, a few hundred years from now the UK-EU successors could be in the same boat as Taiwan #1 and PRC
*Yeah, I'll refer to Brexiteers like that from now on. Sue me.
Unlikely though. I reckon far future relations would resemble more Canada-USA, with one nation maintaining a separate foreign policy from their superpower neighbour. Still, pls no sealions
LW is an excellent read bevause I agree with you on so many things and disagree on so many other. I do think we've become too anti-traditionalist in the west, with the rebel culture of the mid-late 20th spilling over into the rest of society.One of the thing that really surprises me is that discussions on the internet ar a really unproductive waste of time. Turns out the free flow of information can be a deluge of irony and sewage, but if that's surprising, it's also surprising that discussion on bay12 can be very productive. (When there's not an election cycle in progress :D ). Rather hilarious is the notion that historians will say the West was "2 edgy u wouldn't get it" when they explain why they stopped caring
Post by: Neonivek on February 07, 2017, 08:59:04 pm
Quote
One of the thing that really surprises me is that discussions on the internet ar a really unproductive waste of time.
You've never been in Academia have you? :P
But no, seriously... Discussions are a unproductive waste of time everywhere.
Though it would help if we had... you know... discussions.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 07, 2017, 09:38:26 pm
You've never been in Academia have you? :P
But no, seriously... Discussions are a unproductive waste of time everywhere.
Though it would help if we had... you know... discussions.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on February 07, 2017, 09:38:54 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on February 07, 2017, 09:41:45 pm
and napalm apparently.You've never been in Academia have you? :P
But no, seriously... Discussions are a unproductive waste of time everywhere.
Though it would help if we had... you know... discussions.I studied literatureSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 07, 2017, 09:44:17 pm
and napalm apparently.many productive literature discussions were had
Post by: Neonivek on February 07, 2017, 09:44:36 pm
It is the lamest academic ability.
"I can build a engine"
"I can memorize Pi to the 43rd letter"
"I know what anyone is thinking at all times"
"I can read a book and understand its concepts, ideas, and metaplot"
Though I'll be damned if that isn't an oddly rare ability... But then again I blame English class... The thing in school I swear was made to make you hate reading.
Though you wouldn't likely think that with my oddly minimalistic free thinking writing style on the internet and my frequent inability to make people understand what I mean.
Post by: wierd on February 07, 2017, 09:46:35 pm
Too expensive you know. Most that was produced was created using potasium based liquid soap and diesel fuel. Just as effective, at a fraction of the price.
:P
Neo:
Me too, sadly. I blame that ability for that, actually. When you know who the killer is in the Agatha Christie novel before you get into the 3rd chapter, your brain just lets all the remaining narrative bits fall into place. However, other people havent gotten there yet, so when you discuss how FOO is the killer, they go "Lul, wut?". Happens with other subjects too. You have to walk them through the whole remaining narrative so they get to the reveal and THEN go "Ohh... that's what you meant!"
But I have other super powers. Like being a bastard. THats a great one. :P
Post by: Helgoland on February 07, 2017, 09:49:26 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 07, 2017, 09:55:07 pm
Post by: wierd on February 07, 2017, 09:55:34 pm
I was fairly sure that they used palmitic acid as the main combustible, due to its long chain structure, with the aluminum napthalate as the gelling agent. However, that much palm kernel oil was expensive, and the gelling agent was exotic.
Diesel fuel was far cheaper, and liquid soap far more abundant, with more supply line distributors.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 08, 2017, 09:49:14 am
Yeah, I misread that. Still disagree though, Charles is awful.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
-snip-I don't think cowardice or bravery is much at all to be concerned with in such matters, it's already bad enough to be hacking away at one's own roots. There are curious things though where one standard isn't applied to all people, though that's another hell entirely. It is always saddening to see how apostates are thrown under the bus in the West
I learned it by watching you, okay!? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Elr5K2Vuo)AYyyy lmao
Post by: TD1 on February 08, 2017, 10:00:29 am
Also, I do English and History. I watched Star Wars for the first time a week or so ago, and knew the moment I saw screen time being devoted to the maid cleaning R2D2 that she was the princess.
Post by: Starver on February 08, 2017, 10:49:41 am
I watched Star Wars for the first time a week or so ago, and knew the moment I saw screen time being devoted to the maid cleaning R2D2 that she was the princess.They both died last year... Three of them, in fact, if you count Tony Dyson, who built the prop (himself predeceased by the designer and developer in previous years).
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 08, 2017, 10:53:42 am
Post by: Starver on February 08, 2017, 11:02:33 am
I think he means The Phantom Menace
Oh, right Thought it was a reference to leaning down and doing something with R2's frontage piece.
But as it's the other one, the news about her is that she's having twins, IRL. A boy and a girl, apparently....
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 08, 2017, 12:34:42 pm
Post by: Starver on February 08, 2017, 03:11:47 pm
Who? Natalie Portman or Keira Knightley?Portman, given that ?Sabae? (Knightley) was the decoy Queen (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0053.html)1 when Portman the 'maid' was left to clean R2 (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0055.html).
(Hearing about this on another forum, I went looking for verification. The source I'm most confident of, i.e. a news site that mentions it and that I'm can actually tell isn't a spoof-news site a la The Onion, is this article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38892322), under number 5 in the list.)
I'm sure all this is a great analogy for Brexit. Otherwise I wouldn't be posting this stuff here, surely...
1 Another reason why I didn't think "Phantom Menace" when talking of Princesses. But then it doesn't make much sense anyway (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0021.html)...
Post by: Radio Controlled on February 09, 2017, 12:39:57 pm
Quote
I don't think anyone was referring to environmental policy, and I'm sure this is purely a hypothetical as given the choice between following the USA or Germany, we'd all much rather pick none and be the UK. Germany is no example to follow either, we would be replacing lazy Americanism with vapid Merkelism. Look at the example Germany sets; instead of humanitarian aid, take selfies with migrants - all to show the world how virtuous and wise you are, without needing to put any of the effort and sacrifice needed to be virtuous and wise. So when things inevitably get cocked up by your ineptitude, you just hide the wounds and allow Europe to bleed - shutting down all Germany's nuclear plants because hurr duur nuclear science scary is as much a detriment to basic common sense as Trump, Germany now has more coal plants operational that it has in two decades. It really is impressive when a green candidate turns out to be blackest coal, suckling on Putin's gas for support. Oh and she's stopped now because her policies put too much strain on Germany's energy grid and raised costs too high. What a great success for the world to emulate!
More seriously though the UK cannot follow the USA's steps when it comes to energy policy. We do not have a vast store of coal, gas or oil to exploit, as the Americans do with their Texan friends. We are running along similar tracks in regards to the nation-state versus the Sweden >yes party that has commanded Europe for a few years. Fortunately we're going big with nuclear and I hope succeeding parties in the UK continue this policy. One thing to learn from failed projects in the UK in developing renewable sources of energy is that our failures often go unnoticed because unlike Germany, we did not rush headlong whilst ignoring the simple realities of power generation. There's also something fortunate in our failures in that they show that with time, development of power-storage and rising costs of gas and oil, renewable energy sources can one day become economical, reliable and environmentally responsible.
A lot of this post seemed like a non-sequitur. The post I responded to specifically said:
Quote
I'd certainly rather follow America's lead than Germany's (or, kek, Sweden's), particularly now that Trump's gotten in and begun improving things.
Though I'd prefer if they kept their guns to themselves.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what Friday's meeting between May and Trump brings.
Aka a rather blanket endorsement of Trump's America and his policies, except for the guns. It's to that where I pointed out that this seems like a disastrous idea: even though I can acknowledge other people placing different importance to certain values or proposing different solutions to issues, I have trouble taking serious people like Trump who literally denounce the entire climate change problem as 'a Chinese hoax' (though admittedly he has softened his stance a little recently (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/17/trump-warming-to-reality-of-climate-change-says-senior-chinese-official). Not nearly enough given the urgency and scope of the problem, but it's -something-).
So, even if the UK right now was literally carbon neutral (it's not, but for the sake of argument), that still would mean following the US' example (what Covenant proposed) is a bad idea.
For the record, yes, it is sad how nuclear has been demonized as much as it has been, it can play an important role during the transition to a greener (energy) economy, but that does require government to at the very least acknowledge the problem.
Also, I kind of find you sometimes play fast and loose with some of those sources, for example, this: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/01/angela-merkel-signs-deal-with-german-states-to-regulate-green-energy-rollout
Gets solely reported by you as this:
Quote
Oh and she's stopped now because her policies put too much strain on Germany's energy grid and raised costs too high.While the article also mentions things like:
Quote
"The latest reforms are aimed at slowing the growth in renewables, which accounted for around a third of Germany’s electricity last year, up from 28% in 2014. With the government sticking to its target for an increase in the share of renewable sources to 40-45% of total electricity production by 2025, it will have to put the brakes on growth to avoid overshooting."aka the program, while certainly not perfect, is still is helping along its intended goal: promoting renewable energy. I'm sure this was not your intention, but to me it does come off as disingenuous.
Quote
Certain failures like biofuels showcase how green is not always green even when working as intended; you should not kowtow to concensus, it is rather dangerous to believe in whatever consensus is when all it takes is one correct person regardless of consensus to advance scientific research. Seems obvious but it is worth pointing out anyways that scientific breakthroughs often act in spite of scientific consensus, competely changing how we see everything ten times over :P
This as well seems to come out of left field. Are you trying to make an epistemological point here? Because at the end of the day, if an administration has to come up with policy, I'd rather they follow the current scientific consensus instead of just ignoring it or pining their hopes that one 'correct person' (correct by what metric?) will save them.
This is part of how science is supposed to go after all: if you can come up with a new hypothesis that better fits the available data, it'll get adopted. If there's a large body of evidence you'll have to come up with a very strong argument to overturn it. But until that happens, we go with the current explanation instead of just ignoring it because we don't like what it says.
Quote
On the topic of border walls, more BAOs and maritime patrols does the job better for immigration control. We only really have a need for walls in order to control flooding, erosion and land loss from rising sea levels. The French did build an immigration wall with England and they made the English pay for it which I'm sure the Americans would approve, and I think the UK would agree such funds spent helping the French is beneficial to both of our nations. That's nothing compared to the Japanese kaiju wall
Even if walls were completely useless, that is exactly what Trump is planning on building, and thus apparently the example to follow. Next to that, the border walls can also be taken in a more metaphorical sense, in that once climate refugees start coming we'll be forced between the options of either taking them in (with all the problems that entails) or refusing them and letting them suffer from a problem that we (the industrialized rich nations) carry the lions' share of the responsibility for.
So, if one is against taking in Middle Eastern immigrants and refugees (to whatever extend), he should endorse policies that prevent them from existing in the first place. That means drastic reduction in emissions and not, as Donald Trump's America is planning, propping up the coal industry (even though renewables are rapidly dropping in costs: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels).
Welp, out of time for this. Would like to further go into some of the walls that have been posted since, but that'd take literal days. But to at least give another example of 'playing fast and loose with sources':
This is the source you gave: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/guy-verhofstadt-chief-brexit-theresa-may-eu-trade-deal-2019-impossible-a7550136.html
This is what you claimed:
Quote
Moreover, there is one additional thing. The EU placed Guy Verhofstadt on the EU-UK negotiating table. He has no respect for the UK and is determined to ensure we get the worse terms possible. Currently most national leaders of Europe are with us in that they want us to leave ASAP and leave amicably, the presence of hardliners like Guy force us to be cautious, and more importantly, remind people like Guy that we have MAD available - unleash the Trump.
This is what the source actually said:
Quote
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I guess you could claim he sort of insulted the Brexit vote (note that he didn't even mention the Little Englander thing himself, it was already a loaded question), while of course keeping in mind that British politicians are on record of flinging way worse insults at EU politicians (eg. Farage, multiple times) but nowhere in the article does it say he "is determined to ensure we get the worse terms possible". He literally said "During the interview, Mr Verhofstadt also sought to emphasise that the rest of the EU would not be looking to punish the UK in the negotiations. However, “you can never have outside the European Union a better status than as member of the European Union”, he said." which at least to me sounds like the opposite.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 09, 2017, 02:06:36 pm
QuoteI'd certainly rather follow America's lead than Germany's (or, kek, Sweden's), particularly now that Trump's gotten in and begun improving things.
Though I'd prefer if they kept their guns to themselves.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what Friday's meeting between May and Trump brings.
I find myself nodding along to the seccessionists'*posts. It is disturbing.
*Yeah, I'll refer to Brexiteers like that from now on. Sue me.
Soooo... just curious Helgo. Does nodding mean that you approve of this stuff?
Quote
I'd certainly rather follow America's lead than Germany's (or, kek, Sweden's), particularly now that Trump's gotten in and begun improving things.
Post by: TD1 on February 09, 2017, 02:23:45 pm
LW is an excellent read bevause I agree with you on so many things and disagree on so many other. I do think we've become too anti-traditionalist in the west, with the rebel culture of the mid-late 20th spilling over into the rest of society.As an aside, I agree. I'd also say that neo-liberalism is to blame - a staling and turning rancid of the original concept.
Also, hardly a fair question, Chairman (Of the European Council?!?? >:(). Saying one can agree with general arguments by more than one person does not mean that one accepts every individual point presented.
That being said, it's hard to deny that Trump will be improving the American economy, or that he isn't already. That seems to be the key thing that Remainers have latched on to as important, anyway - money.
Post by: Starver on February 09, 2017, 03:37:41 pm
That being said, it's hard to deny that Trump will be improving the American economy, or that he isn't already....by slagging off businesses in such a crafty way that they get an anti-Trump rebound (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-nordstrom-donald-trump-twitter-treated-so-unfairly/)? That's certainly a meta way of economy improvement. Isn't there any way he can do it for more than one company per tweet? 'cause Cos otherwise it seems like a lot of effort, at 3am...
(One cannot refute that Trump will improve the economy, but then its far too early to say either way, and there's not enough tenuous evidence for that happening/soon-to-happen to deny, yet.)
Post by: martinuzz on February 09, 2017, 07:18:41 pm
I honestly think that I can say that Brexit was the better choice. Even from a more left-of-center perspective, with so many right-wing groups gaining power in Europe, would you want to be shackled to that? I wouldn't.What? You do realize that a large part of the Brexit voters come from the same place as those right-wing groups in Europe. They might have economically unshackled themselves from the EU soon, but ideologically the Brexiteers have bonded firmly with Le Pen and Wilders.
Post by: Helgoland on February 09, 2017, 10:20:31 pm
Soooo... just curious Helgo. Does nodding mean that you approve of this stuff?QuoteI'd certainly rather follow America's lead than Germany's (or, kek, Sweden's), particularly now that Trump's gotten in and begun improving things.
Better be careful Helgo, wrongthink is a serious charge these days.If you guys want to talk shit about each other, feel free - keep me out of it though.
For the record: I'm proud of my country, I'm proud of what we're doing, and I believe that my country has a very positive influence on the world. It's not a shining city on the hill, sure, but a country of this size and importance could do a fair bit worse. And it's great in a way that all these regressive nationalists who doubt their culture's and their nation's strength and ability to cope with outside influences, to incorporate them into themselves, wouldn't even recognize.
That having been said, I do believe that tradition and ritual are undervalued in contemporary Western thought. Dialectically speaking one could say that the Alt-Right, the Front National, the AfD, etc etc are the antithesis arising from the tensions and contradictions inherent in our current mainstream ideology. The job at hand for any clear-thinking, honest
Post by: redwallzyl on February 09, 2017, 10:34:09 pm
Post by: Helgoland on February 09, 2017, 11:26:20 pm
*Maybe it would be a good idea to establish the word 'context' for this sort of thing.
Post by: redwallzyl on February 09, 2017, 11:59:47 pm
Do elaborate. I suspect what you mean is a much more detached mode of engaging one's history and culture* that what I'm suggesting.generally to do with cultural relativism and an understanding that no system is universal and shouldn't be applied to everyone because no system works for everyone. the west has a vary economically neo-liberal perspective that it tends to focus on it, but whens the last time you heard of a country espousing another economic ideology that wasn't another defunct universal economic doctrine like communism. a focus of imposing a system onto the world is doomed to fail because it ignores the fundamental differences across the globe with how people act and what they do and value. an anthropological perspective on the world is much more "holistic" in its interpretation as its put. I'm probably bad at explaining it but the gist is people need to stop universalizing economics and especially its relative importance to different peoples. this also of course requires understand diverse cultures from their point of view as well as their history's and how that has shaped them and working within their own value systems which may place entirely different emphasis on some things. unfortunately no doctrine like this has emerged or anything to challenge the modern economic imposition sense the fall of communism so were kind of stuck until something else gains ground. this tends to be the typical philosophy of modern anthropologists, me included as i am one or a student at least for now, we are forced to see the world in this way, from individual perspectives and with much complexity and interwoven systems of culture and society, in order to study it as no other way will work. just as the old universalizing theories of earlier anthropological theory were analyzed, found wanting and rejected as to simplified and ethnocentric so will all such fields that deal with human action.
*Maybe it would be a good idea to establish the word 'context' for this sort of thing.
that was likely a shit explanation but seriously it has taken a awhile for me to grasp the disciplines core tenets and why we operate this way and i still have a lot of studying to do in my chosen field. i probably have an as yet weak grasp on everything i need to change about my way of thinking and its difficult to thing in such a way when I'm all to aware of my own biases.
Edit: modern economics gives no shots about how important communal land ownership is to native Americans or the importance of the structure of a Chinese extended family or even the concepts of American democracy it just seems to render all to profits above all else and as such will never succeed and spread instability wherever it goes.
Post by: Starver on February 10, 2017, 09:18:47 am
a religion where 50% of the ones already here believe their sexuality should be illegal? (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law)That's already been shown to be a non-credible survey, you really shouldn't be using that as 'proof'.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/channel-4-british-muslims_uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/12/a-poll-claimed-to-reveal-what-british-muslims-really-think-critics-say-it-failed/?utm_term=.ff488228abfd
...other, links available, but stayed away from UK papers with their more immediate biases either way.
If you want to hear from someone who took it at face value, though...
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/as-a-gay-british-muslim-this-is-what-i-think-of-the-survey-finding-over-half-of-british-muslims-want-a6978881.html
And lies, damn lies and statistics get twisted to make headlines all the time...
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/no-one-in-five-muslims-do-not-support-isis-a6745206.html
Post by: Sheb on February 10, 2017, 09:29:21 am
As for British Muslim, when you consider the opinion on the countries they or their ancestors came from, they're amazingly liberal, which to me hint that it's a successful exemple of liberal value spreading. Sure, you could argue that Brits be better off not touching the icky less liberal people and adopting a fortress mentality, but I'd argue that in the long run, we're all better off if these ideals spread, and immigration is a nice way because immigrants serves as bridges between culture: a British Muslims of south asian decent is in a better position to make the case for tolerance of homosexuality to a Pakistani than a white CoE Brits.
Of course, my position rests on the underlying belief that liberal ideas will eventually triumph in a free market of ideas. If you don't think so and see conservatism as the winning side (like LW seems to for exemple, although his posts do tend to be cryptics), then protectionism make sense (Assuming we all agree that promoting liberal ideas on stuff like homosexuality is a good thing of course).
Post by: Helgoland on February 10, 2017, 09:34:49 am
Post by: Sheb on February 10, 2017, 09:36:13 am
Post by: TempAcc on February 10, 2017, 09:45:27 am
lel
Post by: Starver on February 10, 2017, 10:30:24 am
Oh yes, the Guardian and their well-known biases against Muslims, minorities in general, and the left. They're a right Tory mouthpiece.They were reporting a publicised study, before said study had been found wanting. I went looking for post-report reports that had had time to do a bit of thinking, not just "this study says" (then either "we told you!" or "which is disappointing")
Quote
Nothing in either of the links you've provided shows the survey to be non-credible.It calls into question the credibility, for which I used the terms I did as opposed to "it's a total lie", but the Independent's piece on the Sun's spin deserved the stronger interpretation. Again, I considered fully the words to be used there, but can't help if your reading of my words doesn't mesh properly with my writing of them. I tried my best.
Anyway, your reply popped up as I was about to make an open reply to Sheb on the "we get the liberal ones" (i.e. unforced first-gen immigrants are 'better' than we'd expect, give or take some culture-shock). Looking at the 'homegrown' immigrant militants, they're very rarely those original immigrants, the pattern seems to be that nth-generation (third or fourth, seems typical) immigrant offspring seem to be the ones that get into the radicalisation-trap, quite possibly convinced by third-parties still based in the 'motherlands' (via social media, these days) or here only because forcibly expelled as troublesome even to the original homeland (perhaps just the wrong side of that place's particular sectarianism). These young, local 'reconverts', like most people who pursue a (brand, type, intensity of) belief rather than are merely socially of that kind are often much more fervent, and may even see themselves as necessarily 'saving' their more relaxed and assimilated elders, whose more casual (or even profunctory) observance gets seen as akin to apostacy.
It's just a reworking of the "child tends to rebel against the parent" dance. Businesslike parents beget playboy kids (and vice-versa), socialist parents often have (at least temporarily) conservative kids, etc. Not all the time, but when it happens notably, it stands out. And then you get the 7/7 bombers, at the extreme.
(Another reason why the Trump travel ban disproportionally stops entirely the wrong people. The troublemakers in the US and the UK, post 9/11, were almost all not people who could have been blocked from entering the country, because they were in the country already (may never have left it!) and were the handful of individuals amongst thousands or millions of similar but blameless identically-profiled citizens who got their buttons pushed somehow to do something. And they get the publicity, and either opprobrium or honour, depending upon the nature of the audience, their uncorrupted peers suffering for it, either way.
(@tempacc, not only did I not say that, but any bias that existed is more Channel 4's programme makers (not even C4!) who commissioned the flawed polling methods.
Post by: Starver on February 10, 2017, 11:39:18 am
Like how areas with low 'immigrant' populations are far more anti-immigrant than those (though similarly British WASPs, themselves) that live and coexist with a thriving multicultural community around them. The London borough of Havering (randomly chosen from likely places, for the purposes of this post, not having time to scour for "the best example") seems to have around 85% explicitly white British Isles population, "other white" at 3%,whilst black and Indian populations, together, add up to around 6%, with the difference in small mish-mashes are in sub-percentile quantities. Lambeth (from the same source, chosen similarly cadually) is 40+% WBI, 15ish% "other white", 25+% B&I, and the larger remainder the mish-mash of various others. And when you then look at not only the total polling of each area, but even specifically the same major demographic of British/Irish Whites, they exhibit totally different opinion spectra...
The trouble is that it's easier to go "we need to talk to a Muslim, try this (Bradford/whatever) phone number and see if the person who answers is one of them!" to get your 1000 person 'sample'1 than to dial nationwide (within and outside the concentrated populations, proportionately) and get so many misses as you find that the farmhouse in Auchtermuchty doesn't have anyone you want to talk to in it, nor that holiday cottage in St Ives, or the places in Llangollen, Matlock, Edmundbyers, Keswick, Brigg, Goole, Bath, Malvern, etc, etc, etc (you're not allowed to ask if they know of any neighbours that you can call who are Islamic...).
Thus you aim at area codes (and sub-area grouped phone pre-fixes) that correspond to an area that is positively culturally islamic, and get (in your 0.03ish% of your 'target' supersample) a lean towards an atypical viewpoint.
And that's before you cherry-pick. You ask them "do you like this, do you not like that, do you have strong or weak opinions about the other", and many other questions. Having already briefly talked about the p-value (down there in the footnote), the more likely you'll find a question answered in a way you'd "like" to report, while ignoring the rest. Say that perhaps 97% of Muslims do not support suicide bombing (do 3%, worryingly, support it, or is that 2.5% "I don't want to answer that", like they did every question since they got bored, and 0.5% more like "hey, if it's against someone who is trying to kill my family, of course..."? The details matter...), but that's not a good figure to release. Go for the blip! Forget the neutral (or anti-blip) results! Sensationalise!
So take such weak/deliberate studies with a pinch of salt. (Not that I can work out how to do a better one, but it's likely worse than useless.)
But, if you want the Grauniad a second time: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/15/channel-4-islamophobic-bandwagon-british-muslims
Deep behind this story, there exist those lies, those damned lies, but mostly those very selectively used (and obtained!) statistics.
1 Out of about 2.7 million actual British Muslims... What's the p-value for that? Yeah, that's another point of contention.
Post by: Starver on February 10, 2017, 12:29:48 pm
The selection bias exists in the face-to-face version of polling, too. Head into "the Islamic Quarter" and talk to anyone who looks and dresses islamic, and for good measure, do this on a Friday afternoon, near the place that's got all the traffic!) and you're getting more and more 'deep' into a 'confirmed' culture, not a proper broad spread.
I've no idea how many people just refused to answer sensibly after the fifteenth stupid question (thus never said that they wouldn't perform an honour killing on a relative) or how many misheard "do you observe Shariah Law?" as "do you watch LA Law?", and I'm fairly confident no-one does, because there'd be no easy way to encode those issues into "Yes/Maybe/No/Does Not Answer" or a sequence of :D :) ::) :o :( symbols.
These are just problems that you should be aware of if you ever see a study of such microtargetted (and wildly unfocussed) nature being presented as 'proof' of a some single sensational fact.
See also: http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 (It really is worth reading, amd then we can argue about chocolate! I like Bourneville dark chocolate!)
Post by: redwallzyl on February 10, 2017, 03:35:37 pm
Do elaborate. I suspect what you mean is a much more detached mode of engaging one's history and culture* that what I'm suggesting.-snip-
*Maybe it would be a good idea to establish the word 'context' for this sort of thing.
If you want something that explains this better than i ever could, read this book (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LX26E4S/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1). its not to long and fairly cheap. its main focus is the causes of global inequality and anthropological perspectives of the causes.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on February 21, 2017, 10:53:10 am
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39042876)
Thoughts? Bravado, reality or reassuring the other euros?
Post by: smjjames on February 21, 2017, 11:09:07 am
not sure what the bill is supposed to entail, other than covering prior commitments.
Post by: Starver on February 21, 2017, 11:16:39 am
(I don't think that the recent GNI levy increase business will still be 'held over, without interest' by the time of the separation, but it's things like this that complicate matters.)
((Ninjaed))
Post by: smjjames on February 21, 2017, 11:21:10 am
((Ninjaed))
Not really, I was just stating what was said in the article, and I don't know the details on the commitments
Post by: Sheb on February 21, 2017, 11:45:49 am
Overall, it's not terrible news for Britain, because the status of these payments give it some extra leverage for the rest of the negotiations.
Post by: Starver on February 21, 2017, 11:47:06 am
(((And Sheb's now wandered in with Facts.)))
Post by: muldrake on February 21, 2017, 01:24:08 pm
Overall, it's not terrible news for Britain, because the status of these payments give it some extra leverage for the rest of the negotiations.
True. Because tough talk or not, the proper response to any utterly unreasonable demands from the EU at this point are something on the order of "you and what army?"
ETA: I put that in a rather American way, though. I think May put it more eloquently, that making extreme and unreasonable demands would be "a calamitous act of self-harm."
Post by: Max™ on February 21, 2017, 05:05:16 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 21, 2017, 07:41:33 pm
Junckers says we will have to "pay a hefty bill" while addressing the EU ParliamentWorks for Anglo nation and Yuro state. Yuro state does not want a massive budget gap to appear overnight, it can deal with rebudgeting if it has time to adjust, and Anglo nation does not incur any serious cost because by accepting budget commitments, the EU is in turn accepting that the UK owns a lot of EU assets
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39042876)
Thoughts? Bravado, reality or reassuring the other euros?
One of those rare moments where everyone got an acceptable deal. Not a particularly exciting deal for both sides, but acceptable
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 24, 2017, 12:31:52 pm
THE STRONGHOLDS HAVE FALLEN
Post by: Leafsnail on February 24, 2017, 01:30:04 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 24, 2017, 01:36:02 pm
But in all honesty, it's not looking good for comrade Corbachov
Post by: martinuzz on February 24, 2017, 01:42:19 pm
UKIP successors shouldn't try to hold a candle to the sun and should instead become dark and edgy, Farage the EdgehogWhatever happened to comrade Boris btw? I'd have expected at least one scandal per week, but it's almost as if he disappeared into thin ether.
But in all honesty, it's not looking good for comrade Corbachov
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 24, 2017, 01:47:25 pm
Quote
Asked whether he had this morning "looked in the mirror and asked yourself the question: 'Could the problem actually be me?"'Tfw comrade Corbachov is fighting tooth and nail to stave off downfall (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/24/humiliation-jeremy-corbyn-tories-take-copeland-labour-historic/)
Mr Corbyn replied simply: "No." Asked why not, he said only: "Thank you for your question."
It's sad really. What's different is that he's now fighting against Union Bosses and his MPs to remain leader, meaning he has only the support of activists-students. Things not looking good for him
Post by: Sheb on February 27, 2017, 04:17:28 am
Which makes for a further challenge: now that Brexit is a thing, the Tories are well positioned to grab UKIP's voters (at least until UKIP rebrand itself as a proper far-right party). In a FPTP system like Britain's, that's terrible news for Labour.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 27, 2017, 08:18:57 am
Labour had been loosing voting share in this district for decades though. With UKIP voters going to the Tories, it was almost inevitable.This is a description, not an explanation :P
This seat has been consistently Labour since its inception, this is the first time it has ever been anything but - why it hemorrhaged its voters is the far more important line of inquiry than whether it hemorrhaged its voters to begin with, because as we can see, it has.
Which makes for a further challenge: now that Brexit is a thing, the Tories are well positioned to grab UKIP's voters (at least until UKIP rebrand itself as a proper far-right party). In a FPTP system like Britain's, that's terrible news for Labour.It's far more important for the Tories that UKIP won't be siphoning off their votes than the other way around, moreover I am not sure UKIP will survive to see the next GE in any meaningful form without a new are based Nige to propel the party forwards. It may be for the best that UKIP dies and is replaced by a NewKIP that has a new unifying factor beyond leaving the EU, but for Labour by far the most significant thing eating it apart is the infighting. The neolib core divorced the party from its working class roots, leading the working class to abandon the party in favour of anything else. Then Corbyn comes along and divorces the party from neolibs. After all is said and done, who's left? Student socialists. Not a very broad appeal there
*EDIT
Quote
Only to the superficial does Labour losing a by-election whilst in opposition, in a seat it has not lost in 80 years, appear to be a disaster. In fact, this was the day that Corbyn and his bold new grassroots movement set themselves inexorably on the path to greatness, with such courage and ingenuity in the face of such a setback.top bants (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/copeland-by-election-churchillian-corbyn-knows-that-it-is-only-through-failure-that-you-find-success-a7598416.html)
When the Labour leader was asked this morning, hours after losing a seat his party has held for 80 years, whether he “ever wondered whether the problem might be me,” his response was instructive. Lesser men might have reached for the simple answer, “yes”, but Corbyn is courageous enough to hold out and search for the deeper, truer lessons. He gave an equally simple reply: “no.”
Post by: Sheb on February 27, 2017, 09:13:44 am
Labour had been loosing voting share in this district for decades though. With UKIP voters going to the Tories, it was almost inevitable.This is a description, not an explanation :P
This seat has been consistently Labour since its inception, this is the first time it has ever been anything but - why it hemorrhaged its voters is the far more important line of inquiry than whether it hemorrhaged its voters to begin with, because as we can see, it has.
Ok, my point is that Labour has been consistently loosing voting share in this seat since the 1997 election, so laying the blame 100% at the feet of Corbyn, or the current infighting seems insufficient.
Post by: Grim Portent on February 27, 2017, 10:31:00 am
At this point the only thing I can see salvaging the party is a mass resignation and replacement of MPs with ones who aren't Neolibs, not sure if old style socialists/social democrats/whatever would be the natural replacement, but Neoliberalism is a poisoned well in a lot of the country and the MPs clinging to it are essentially deployed anchors when the ship is trying to go full sail, holding it back and ripping chunks off it when they fall off.
Post by: Leafsnail on February 27, 2017, 03:06:55 pm
Post by: Grim Portent on February 27, 2017, 03:16:16 pm
(http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/labtridentp.jpg)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 27, 2017, 03:32:52 pm
Post by: Grim Portent on February 27, 2017, 03:51:50 pm
the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who have achieved the questionable distinction of being the only political party to have been exiled to an island within an island.
Can I sig this? :D
Post by: Starver on February 27, 2017, 03:58:45 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 02, 2017, 10:27:30 am
Ok, my point is that Labour has been consistently loosing voting share in this seat since the 1997 election, so laying the blame 100% at the feet of Corbyn, or the current infighting seems insufficient.That's a fair statement, but I'm biased pro-Corbyn so take that with a pinch of salt. I like the guy's sweaters very much, since his sweater socialism has a great deal more consistency than champagne socialism
It is indeed a very apt appraisal of the situationthe Scottish Liberal Democrats, who have achieved the questionable distinction of being the only political party to have been exiled to an island within an island.Can I sig this? :D
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 02, 2017, 03:32:20 pm
Only if you go into your bathroom at night and spin around in front of the mirror, chanting three times "David Cameron had sex with a dead pig". Paint yourself with animal blood as you feel is appropriate.the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who have achieved the questionable distinction of being the only political party to have been exiled to an island within an island.
Can I sig this? :D
Post by: TD1 on March 03, 2017, 08:32:50 am
Post by: Grim Portent on March 03, 2017, 10:04:47 am
Paint yourself with animal blood as you feel is appropriate.
Do I look like a death metal singer? :P
Post by: Alastar on March 03, 2017, 10:21:47 am
Post by: smjjames on March 05, 2017, 02:04:50 pm
Members of the UK Tory (conservatives) party are saying 'nope, we owe nothing to the bill, not even a penny' (http://www.politico.eu/article/tory-mps-britain-owes-zero-brexit-bill-europe/)
It's mostly coming down to legal wrangling and a massive slice of politics.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 05, 2017, 06:42:08 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 10, 2017, 11:59:13 am
That's nice, though this isn't really a significant event - more a confirmation of what everyone had surmised and planned on. The UK is gonna try and claim all the assets it's entitled too while minimizing the extent to which it will continue contributing to the EU budget while the EU is gonna try doing the opposite, minimizing the UK's claims and maximizing its contributions. The law would be on our side but possession is at the end of the day 2/3rds the law
Not so sure about the law, probably depend on what part of the bill you're referring to. The arguments that the UK should still pay for the programs started this budget cycle (and from which it still benefits) is strong. The case for Eurocrat pension, the law is likely on the British side, and as for the 2 billions lost in customs it's murky.
Post by: Sheb on March 13, 2017, 07:55:22 am
Post by: Grim Portent on March 13, 2017, 09:01:23 am
Secondly, circumstances have changed massively with Brexit becoming a thing. It also breaks one of the platforms of the No campaign which was that leaving the UK would take Scotland out of the EU.
Post by: Sheb on March 13, 2017, 09:29:51 am
Double post, but Sturgeon asked for another referendum (http://www.businessinsider.com/scottish-independence-referendum-nicola-sturgeon-brexit-2017-3), to be held before 2019 (so before Brexit). Yay!
I realise that when Wee Jimmy Sturgeon said the initial referendum was a 'once in a lifetime' event she was speaking from a Scottish perspective, and all those deep-fried Mars Bars aren't exactly conducive to a high life expectancy. But what, five years? Things are obviously more dire than I'd expected if that's a lifetime now.
Should they actually ever go independent, I look forward to seeing what great strides they make in funding their own education and healthcare with a ~£15bn deficit.
That deficit looks less impressive when you realize the UK as a whole runs a ~£110 bn deficit. Sure it means that Scotland runs an above-average deficit (especially if oil prices stays low) but it's not the end of the world.
As for legitimacy, what Grim Portent say.
Post by: Sheb on March 13, 2017, 10:13:18 am
I took my figure by grabbing the budget deficit in the table of the latest Economist, 4% (I have the app so it's convenient) and multiplying it by the UK GDP.
Post by: smjjames on March 13, 2017, 10:23:44 am
So, Spain could be a roadblock. and there isn't any kind of deal that I'm aware of that would guarantee fast tracking Scotland into the EU.
Post by: Grim Portent on March 13, 2017, 10:45:55 am
Of course we'd welcom Scotland in, if only to stick it to the UK. Plus, the EU doesn't fund policing or education so that irrelevent.
I'm all in favour of the EU continuing to rush headlong into its own destruction. On the off-chance that Scottish independence ever happened, it would presumably inspire the Catalonians and every other separatist movement to start (covertly, at the least) pushing for leaving the EU, after seeing Scotland's successful example. (Somewhat ninja'd by smjjames).
Not that I think it's at all likely. Anyone who still thinks Scotland can live off North Sea oil really hasn't been paying attention the last few years.
And GrimPortent, speaking of their 'mandate' - the SNP don't have a majority anymore after the resurgence of the Tories. And every other party (bar the Greens, kek) opposes independence. So can they even claim a mandate at this point?
They have 46.5% of the constituency vote and 42% of the regional vote, slightly more than double the share of any other party in Scotland and are running in a system that was actually designed to prevent single party governments in the first place*. Yes they have a mandate as the single largest political group in Scotland. They
On top of that the pro-Independence Greens have 6% of the regional vote, mostly from SNP voters who sympathize with them and wanted to give them a bump, pushing the pro-Independence party vote share to 48% regional.
Or to put it another way the SNP have a higher vote share in Scotland than the Conservatives have UK wide, so the SNP mandate in Holyrood is greater than the Conservatives one in Westminster is.
*The regional vote system was put in place to compensate for the winner takes all nature of FPTP, and allows an MSP to be voted into Holyrood based on the total share of the regional vote the party got with a massive penalty applied to parties that did well in the actual constituencies. That the SNP got a majority in it at all before was more or less unforeseeable.
Post by: Sheb on March 13, 2017, 10:50:10 am
I'm all in favour of the EU continuing to rush headlong into its own destruction. On the off-chance that Scottish independence ever happened, it would presumably inspire the Catalonians and every other separatist movement to start (covertly, at the least) pushing for leaving the EU, after seeing Scotland's successful example. (Somewhat ninja'd by smjjames).
Whut? Those movements are pro-EU for the very good reasons that the EU let smooth the process of independence. If anything they'd be more pro-EU.
Quote
Not that I think it's at all likely. Anyone who still thinks Scotland can live off North Sea oil really hasn't been paying attention the last few years.
Well, it's not like Scotland is a petrostate as is.
Quote
And GrimPortent, speaking of their 'mandate' - the SNP don't have a majority anymore after the resurgence of the Tories. And every other party (bar the Greens, kek) opposes independence. So can they even claim a mandate at this point?
They won a landslide after the referendum. And their 47% is way ahead of the Conservative's UK-wide 40%. Given that the UK is currently ruled by a woman whose main qualification is that she is the only one that didn't drop off the leadership race and that she never faced a General Election (and spent significant energy trying to prevent Parliament to give input on Brexit, because "taking back control" means not listening to the people that are actually elected :p), I think it's clear where the legitimacy is.
Post by: smjjames on March 13, 2017, 10:54:38 am
I'm all in favour of the EU continuing to rush headlong into its own destruction. On the off-chance that Scottish independence ever happened, it would presumably inspire the Catalonians and every other separatist movement to start (covertly, at the least) pushing for leaving the EU, after seeing Scotland's successful example. (Somewhat ninja'd by smjjames).
Whut? Those movements are pro-EU for the very good reasons that the EU let smooth the process of independence. If anything they'd be more pro-EU.
I suspect that he is confusing 'independence from the EU' with 'independence from the mother country', heh.
Post by: Grim Portent on March 13, 2017, 10:59:36 am
I'm all in favour of the EU continuing to rush headlong into its own destruction. On the off-chance that Scottish independence ever happened, it would presumably inspire the Catalonians and every other separatist movement to start (covertly, at the least) pushing for leaving the EU, after seeing Scotland's successful example. (Somewhat ninja'd by smjjames).
Whut? Those movements are pro-EU for the very good reasons that the EU let smooth the process of independence. If anything they'd be more pro-EU.
I suspect that he is confusing 'independence from the EU' with 'independence from the mother country', heh.
No, cov was suggesting that Independence movements would push their parent country to be anti-EU because a EU-exit referendums would give them a good way to motivate support for national independence.
Post by: scriver on March 13, 2017, 11:02:48 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 13, 2017, 03:00:48 pm
... TBH the lack of support from my erstwhile boss was an important factor too. I'll probably reconsider things once the ongoing situation settles down a bit & I finish my current adventure, depending on the status quo of the former and the outcome of the latter.
Post by: TD1 on March 13, 2017, 03:09:55 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 13, 2017, 03:50:37 pm
In late 2015 my original plan was UK. A series of events during my rotation made those plans go haywire, though (mostly my former boss' radio silence). Later on the referendum took place and made things even more uncertain. So I decided to forget about the matter for the time being. And later still, I got the Irish offer. Which, if it goes alright should keep me entertained for a year or two. Giving me plenty of time to test the waters in Ireland, UK, and back home, and plan my next moves accordingly.
*its not that I lacked work at home. Its that most offers nearby were either short or boring or both.
Post by: TD1 on March 13, 2017, 03:59:21 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 13, 2017, 04:02:28 pm
Post by: Starver on March 13, 2017, 04:07:07 pm
Surprisingly few people understand this, so I'll just make sure - it's not Northern Ireland, right? Because that is part of the UK....for the time being, it is. :D
Post by: TD1 on March 13, 2017, 04:37:04 pm
Yea, not gonna happen.
Post by: Grim Portent on March 13, 2017, 05:55:29 pm
Surprisingly few people understand this, so I'll just make sure - it's not Northern Ireland, right? Because that is part of the UK....for the time being, it is. :D
Sinn Fein would need to become at least twice as popular as they are now for it to be feasible for N. Ireland to leave the UK. That's highly unlikely for as long as the religious divide in the Irish and the friction left over from the Troubles remain.
Post by: TD1 on March 13, 2017, 06:02:04 pm
Also, saying it's a religious divide amongst the Irish is misleading in more than one way. It's a cultural divide reinforced by religion and politics, between those who are culturally British and those culturally Irish.
Post by: Grim Portent on March 13, 2017, 06:05:59 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 13, 2017, 06:07:50 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 13, 2017, 06:14:09 pm
Post by: TD1 on March 13, 2017, 06:38:07 pm
There is also, and I can't stress this enough, the cultural divide mentioned previously. "Why doesn't England/Scotland/Wales enter a union with ROI?" can fairly succinctly be answered by "they don't want to, even were there benefits - they are not Irish." Northern Ireland, as well as this cultural divide, has what Grim called "friction left over from the Troubles," which is an understatement. Protestant families see a past stained in blood, where the union was challenged and persevered. It is unlikely that this will casually be given up, no matter the reward. From personal experience, they are unionists, and loyalists, in that in many cases there is loyalty to the union, something perhaps not seen so often in contemporary politics. When you add that to the blood toll (something very personal, linked to local places where family friends died) it adds to a large sentiment of "I'm British. I am different from those in the Republic. I would not be represented properly. I do not want their institutions, or their religion. My friends/family died in this vein - I will vote in it."
Funnily enough, a "reunification" would incidentally see the Republic joining the UK again, given that theirs is the separatist state :P
Post by: Grim Portent on March 13, 2017, 07:10:25 pm
I do find it annoying that Sinn Feinn refuse to take their seats in parliament btw. I get that it's how they protest what they view as the illegitimacy of the monarchy by refusing to swear allegiance to it, which is a requirement to take their seats, but damn it guys can't you bury it long enough to participate. If you have to just open every speech you give in the House of Commons with an insult to the monarch, the failure to attend hurts the process.
Post by: Helgoland on March 13, 2017, 07:38:18 pm
Post by: Neonivek on March 13, 2017, 07:41:15 pm
Quote
I get that it's how they protest what they view as the illegitimacy of the monarchy by refusing to swear allegiance to it, which is a requirement to take their seats, but damn it guys can't you bury it long enough to participate
Wait... the UK is STILL flouting that law?
Hasn't anyone learned anything from the Puritans? SERIOUSLY WTF!
And it isn't so much a protest as it is... kind of absolutely wrong for them to swear allegiance to it... and wrong for it to be a requirement.
Edit: Ehh, Maybe it isn't a UK law... I wouldn't think the UK would keep that law around after the whole embarrassment it lead to... requiring a group of deinstitutionalized people who lay a smack down and go "Well if you are going to be ineffectual nutwits, I guess we will have to do everything ourselves".
But that is a rant for history... and once again! Probably not still a UK law! Impossible!
Post by: Grim Portent on March 13, 2017, 07:53:22 pm
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/swearingin/
It does not apply to the N. Irish Assembly, which they do participate in.
I am not sure if it applies to the other devolved legislatures or not, as N. Ireland is a special case in a lot of ways.
Post by: Neonivek on March 13, 2017, 08:03:07 pm
That is... surprising and so rant worthy... and worthy of every bit of scorn I could ever muster against it.
That I shall skip that rant and say
Lay off people who refuse to do it. All you are doing is "Stop hitting yourself!" as you smack them with their own limbs. Sure they refuse to do it, but you are creating the system where they NEED to refuse to do it. You created a problem and are bashing them for the problem you created.
As for why skip the rant. It is SO scathing, it would immediately draw ire.
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on March 13, 2017, 08:17:22 pm
Post by: Neonivek on March 13, 2017, 08:20:56 pm
If you refuse to do what is required of you as an elected representative, than you shouldn't run for office in the first place.
So, allegiance and affirmation of the Queen... helps elected representatives?
Post by: Grim Portent on March 13, 2017, 08:22:36 pm
Since they're an Independence party all the Westminster parties would refuse to form coalitions with them anyway. They'd be reliant on some kind of fluke where Plaid Cymru and the SNP got all the Welsh and Scottish seats and the GPEW (English/Welsh Greens) got a majority in England in order to have parties that actually want to form a coalition with them.
If you refuse to do what is required of you as an elected representative, than you shouldn't run for office in the first place.
It is a protest by them and their constituents against the monarchy, and they are voted for by people who are fully aware of that, it is in fact what they get elected to do.
Post by: Neonivek on March 13, 2017, 08:31:33 pm
Which is honestly the weirdest part about this. It isn't like anyone who runs for government even believes they are running by the grace of the monarchy (except I guess hallow words)
So why is this still a law? You don't even have to swear on a holy bible in court... But you have the swear allegiance to the Crown. Not the government... the crown... and there is a difference.
Post by: redwallzyl on March 13, 2017, 09:48:11 pm
Post by: Starver on March 13, 2017, 10:00:30 pm
MPs cannot be fired under most circumstancesOr resign. Those who wish to resign (or otherwise trigger a by-election, for them to actually contest) must usually 'get fired' by invoking one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiltern_Hundreds) or other (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manor_of_Northstead) of a pair of Get Out Of Parliament Free holdovers rules.
(I was reading about this a couple of weeks ago, for unrelated reasons. But see 17th Dec '85 on either linked-onward list page, for close relevance.)
ETA: And I'm with Redwallzyl. It'll probably weaken Europe (some people here won't mind that) but also the UK (some people round here won't care about that, and maybe the same ones). Still, when you're not quite happy with how the board game is going, swiping the whole thing off of the table is always an option to some.
Post by: hector13 on March 14, 2017, 06:47:11 am
I'm just going to put down for posterity that brexit was foolish and stupid and everyone will regret it in the future. I call full i told you so rights when such a time comes.
I think Scotland gets that right first :p and Northern Ireland I s'pose.
+1 anyway.
Post by: TD1 on March 14, 2017, 09:21:22 am
ETA: And I'm with Redwallzyl. It'll probably weaken Europe (some people here won't mind that) but also the UK (some people round here won't care about that, and maybe the same ones). Still, when you're not quite happy with how the board game is going, swiping the whole thing off of the table is always an option to some.
By "some," I think you mean the majority, lol.
Post by: Helgoland on March 14, 2017, 09:26:26 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 14, 2017, 09:45:18 am
Post by: TD1 on March 14, 2017, 10:17:04 am
I dunno. There's quite a few loyalists around, you know.
I'm talking about the referendum vote which means that "some" board sweepers means most voters.
I think Scotland gets that right first :p and Northern Ireland I s'pose.
+1 anyway.
Northern Ireland: After-thought of the nation. ::)
Post by: Starver on March 14, 2017, 11:16:22 am
Most votes, assuming you can ascribe distinct motives to marks on paper. Not anywhere near most voters, though.I dunno. There's quite a few loyalists around, you know.
I'm talking about the referendum vote which means that "some" board sweepers means most voters.
Post by: Max™ on March 14, 2017, 03:45:36 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 15, 2017, 11:27:19 am
I realise that when Wee Jimmy Sturgeon said the initial referendum was a 'once in a lifetime' event she was speaking from a Scottish perspective, and all those deep-fried Mars Bars aren't exactly conducive to a high life expectancy. But what, five years? Things are obviously more dire than I'd expected if that's a lifetime now.Nah you're wrong, the referendum was once in a lifetime, but it's a foreverendum thus the first one hasn't ended, and it will keep on going until the sun explodes
Should they actually ever go independent, I look forward to seeing what great strides they make in funding their own education and healthcare with a ~£15bn deficit.
Firstly the SNP have a mandate to request a referendum anytime they get elected, it's part and parcel of their platform and why they get elected in the first place. Saying they can't ask for another referendum is saying the 46% or so of Scots who voted for them can't ask for one. Votes are never one and done things, if they were why bother having elections every few years? A referendum is no different in nature.I agree with you but for timing, before the next general election and before Brexit is done and Scots can clearly see the difference between staying in the UK or going alone and seeking to join the EFTA. England and Wales are in a rather tough spot in that trying to hold a referendum so soon would pretty much grind international business to a standstill whether Scotland remained or not, the Union would be a severe risk. Basically all I'm saying is we've got to get things back to business as usual before campaigning to change the sovereign nature of governance in the UK all over again - Sturgeon was right. These kinds of stuff are once in a lifetime decisions, I really don't think if our dudes lost Brexit we would have seen a second chance in our lifetimes. This is my biggest concern; if we held indyref2 now, there's better chances that no would win over yes. The uncertainty however would spook business peeps into death with a long, drawn out independence campaign after the UK has already endured two such consecutive ones. Thus whether win or lose, the UK would be dead by indyref3
Secondly, circumstances have changed massively with Brexit becoming a thing. It also breaks one of the platforms of the No campaign which was that leaving the UK would take Scotland out of the EU.
Quote
His comments come as Nicola Sturgeon is said to be about to abandon her policy of rejoining the EU immediately after a vote for independence, amid concerns rising Euroscepticism in Scotland could derail her campaign.Ayyy lmao Scots are British (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-would-call-off-independence-referendum-if-theresa-may-let-scotland-stay-in-the-european-single-a7630426.html)
A quarter of people who voted for independence in 2014 also voted 'Leave' in last year's EU referendum; that is 400,000 voters Ms Sturgeon cannot afford to lose next time around. This has apparently pushed the SNP to pursue a compromise that they hope will please everyone.
I'm also not sure where this promise was made. Was it Cameron? Not being sarcastic mind you, I genuinely don't know, sorry
And it was a pleasure as always to catch Nick Clegg whinging on the evening news. I'll never understand LW's soft spot for him; the man is a walking blancmange.He inspires such pity as an innocent puppy stranded in the rain (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/12110168/Nick-Clegg-looking-sad-is-captured-for-eternity-in-his-official-Parliamentary-portrait.html)
What would NI Protestants have to fear from reunification anyway? They'd be a textbook example of a minority, and the EU is pretty big on protecting those. And since the ROI still is part of Our Glorious Union and thus will, for example, keep abiding by the rulings of the ECHR, that's actually a long-term guarantee.I gotta remember this, top laffs
We're a constitutional monarchy, all authority for our officers and officials does not come from the flag, God, constitution or a President, but comes instead from our monarch. It is the civic thread which unites all our politically different individuals together under one nation. In theory anyways. Needless to say, it's difficult to be a Republican and partake in a constitutional monarchy as an elected representative; I've seen some such individuals in the civil service, where the internal contradiction is interesting, but manageable.If you refuse to do what is required of you as an elected representative, than you shouldn't run for office in the first place.So, allegiance and affirmation of the Queen... helps elected representatives?
I'm just going to put down for posterity that brexit was foolish and stupid and everyone will regret it in the future. I call full i told you so rights when such a time comes.I regret that we couldn't pull it off sooner
Post by: Grim Portent on March 15, 2017, 12:42:22 pm
I realise that when Wee Jimmy Sturgeon said the initial referendum was a 'once in a lifetime' event she was speaking from a Scottish perspective, and all those deep-fried Mars Bars aren't exactly conducive to a high life expectancy. But what, five years? Things are obviously more dire than I'd expected if that's a lifetime now.Nah you're wrong, the referendum was once in a lifetime, but it's a foreverendum thus the first one hasn't ended, and it will keep on going until the sun explodes
Should they actually ever go independent, I look forward to seeing what great strides they make in funding their own education and healthcare with a ~£15bn deficit.
As I recall the actual wording was 'once in a generation' anyway, which is roughly 5-10 years, so the timeline fits with her original statement. A few thousand of the people who voted last time are dead now and a few thousand people have since turned 16. As I said before, the SNP get the right to hold one anytime they get the biggest share in Holyrood. Or to be more precise, anytime the majority of MSPs vote for it in Holyrood, because that's how representative democracies work.
Quote
I agree with you but for timing, before the next general election and before Brexit is done and Scots can clearly see the difference between staying in the UK or going alone and seeking to join the EFTA. England and Wales are in a rather tough spot in that trying to hold a referendum so soon would pretty much grind international business to a standstill whether Scotland remained or not, the Union would be a severe risk. Basically all I'm saying is we've got to get things back to business as usual before campaigning to change the sovereign nature of governance in the UK all over again - Sturgeon was right. These kinds of stuff are once in a lifetime decisions, I really don't think if our dudes lost Brexit we would have seen a second chance in our lifetimes. This is my biggest concern; if we held indyref2 now, there's better chances that no would win over yes. The uncertainty however would spook business peeps into death with a long, drawn out independence campaign after the UK has already endured two such consecutive ones. Thus whether win or lose, the UK would be dead by indyref3
But if the Indyref2 happens after Brexit then the entire purpose for doing it, which is for Scotland to avoid Brexit, stops being relevant, as Scotland would then have to apply for EU membership as a non-member, rather than as a sub-member.
Quote
His comments come as Nicola Sturgeon is said to be about to abandon her policy of rejoining the EU immediately after a vote for independence, amid concerns rising Euroscepticism in Scotland could derail her campaign.Ayyy lmao Scots are British (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-would-call-off-independence-referendum-if-theresa-may-let-scotland-stay-in-the-european-single-a7630426.html)
A quarter of people who voted for independence in 2014 also voted 'Leave' in last year's EU referendum; that is 400,000 voters Ms Sturgeon cannot afford to lose next time around. This has apparently pushed the SNP to pursue a compromise that they hope will please everyone.
I'm also not sure where this promise was made. Was it Cameron? Not being sarcastic mind you, I genuinely don't know, sorry[/quote]
It was one of the official platforms of the NO campaign run by the Conservatives, New Labour and Lib Dems. I do not think it was on the pointless pledge the party leaders signed though, not that that went anywhere anyway.
As is there's a chunk of YES voters who are more self determination focused than the rest, who are anti-EU and anti-UK and want to leave both, with the rest of the movement being focused on the more direct problems that come from UK politics not aligning with Scottish ones more than half the time over the past 40 or so years and feeling the less direct influence the EU has is not a problem, or feeling it's actually a benefit because of freedom of movement, trade, research grants and other funding it gives.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on March 15, 2017, 12:44:30 pm
Battle lines are drawn and nobody ever admits they were wrong either way these days.
Post by: Pwnzerfaust on March 15, 2017, 12:46:29 pm
Post by: Grim Portent on March 15, 2017, 12:49:46 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 15, 2017, 01:02:30 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 15, 2017, 01:12:26 pm
Post by: Grim Portent on March 15, 2017, 01:24:13 pm
Election polls for Scottish independence have been kind of horrid, though. Even post-Brexit-May. Can the SNP really afford a second defeat in the referendum?
Probably actually, the last one didn't hurt their election results, and as long as they get elected they can still pursue their agenda, and I can't see the Independence movement dropping below 30-40% approval anytime soon, even if it fails again, so it'd just resurge the next time Westminster screws Scotland over.
As is NO has a 6% (+/- depending on poll) or so lead, but last time they had a 30 point lead to start with and lost most of it by polling day, so it's not a great indicator of who would win this far in advance.
SNP seems basically invincible anyway, wasn't them gaining all but three MPs after the first vote?
That is in the Westminster elections though, which are fully FPTP, in the Holyrood elections which use a type of AMV they have just below a majority and work with the Greens a bit. They have the support of roughly 45% of the population, about what Labour and Cons have combined, and have been the leading party in Scotland since the 2007 Scottish elections.
Post by: misko27 on March 15, 2017, 01:25:59 pm
Ultimately, I won't be crying if Scotland leaves, so long as we make it clear we're A) not letting them back in, and B) not paying for their healthcare, defence or education anymore. But I'd be incredibly surprised if Scotland did better outside of the Union than within it, regardless of Brexit. And I'd rather us prosper together.Haha, now where have we heard this language before?
Post by: Sergarr on March 15, 2017, 01:30:14 pm
Remain campaign slogans. But the context is very obviously different, seeing as Scotland has been part of UK for much longer than UK has been a part of EU, and it has been much better integrated too, to boot.Ultimately, I won't be crying if Scotland leaves, so long as we make it clear we're A) not letting them back in, and B) not paying for their healthcare, defence or education anymore. But I'd be incredibly surprised if Scotland did better outside of the Union than within it, regardless of Brexit. And I'd rather us prosper together.Haha, now where have we heard this language before?
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 15, 2017, 01:44:22 pm
Post by: misko27 on March 15, 2017, 05:30:32 pm
Personally I'd be happy if Scotland seceded just so I could avoid angry British people correcting me about "Great Britain vs The UK vs England vs Scotland vs The Crown vs whatever", and what precisely the difference is between British and English or British and Scottish (which is never consistent between individuals). What is England? Is it a country? A state? A kingdom? An island? An empire? An idea? A postage stamp? The world may never know. When something reappears on Wikipedia's lamest Edit-Wars as often as the Balkans, there is a problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars#Ethnic_and_national_feuds).
Quote
Is Scotland a Constituent country (linking to constituent country), or a Country within a country (linking to constituent country), or a Country (linking to constituent country), or Country (linking to country), or a Semi autonomous subdivision of the United Kingdom, or a Semi autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom, or a Semi autonomous subdivision of the United Kingdom, or a Home Nation, or a Nation, or a Kingdom, or a Part, or a Province, or a Region, or a combination of any of the above, or none of the above?Tis nonsense.
There have also been similar edit wars on pages about England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Following in the fine tradition of truly Lame edit wars, the conflict has spilt over into unlikely places – for example, cities twinned with Scottish cities have had flag icons repeatedly switched between the Union Jack and that of Scotland, with collateral damage seen on Colin McRae and Chris Hoy (whose page during the 2008 Olympics saw both the Union Jack being removed/added from nationality and switching between being British and Scottish).
Post by: Starver on March 15, 2017, 05:33:31 pm
I feel that about half the UK will Regrexit and half the UK will be filled with Brexitement myself.Don't forget the half who were Apathexit...
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2017, 04:36:08 am
I'm pretty sure that one of the biggest arguments for voting no on the Scottish independence referendum, back when it was run, was that if they went independent, they wouldn't be in the EU anymore. Now that England has shafted Scotland by voting to leave the EU, it seems only right that Scotland should be allowed to choose to remain in the EU as a separate entity.
And 'England has shafted Scotland'? You realise the Brexit vote was pretty much 60/40 in Scotland, right? It's not like Scotland is a united nation of strident Europhiles. If anything, the EU has shafted all of us. Do you really think Brexit would have passed if, all that time ago when Cameron went to them for some kind of deal he could present to the British public as a compromise, to persuade them not to vote for Brexit - do you think if they'd given him anything more than the laugh in the face that he received that we'd be in this position now? I mean, fuck, you know I'm glad we're leaving, but on that front I'm still genuinely annoyed on behalf of the EU-supporters, because they deserved better support than they got from people like Tusk, Juncker, Merkel, etc.
He, you can't run an union by encouraging people to hold referendum on leaviing to extract concessions. I mean, Cameron was an ass, he managed to antagonize pretty much every other EU leader, why would you expect the EU to make (yet) more special carves-out for Britain?
Post by: Neonivek on March 16, 2017, 06:50:54 am
I feel that about half the UK will Regrexit and half the UK will be filled with Brexitement myself.Don't forget the half who were Apathexit...
I am going to the store to buy a carton of Milexit.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 16, 2017, 08:58:28 am
As I recall the actual wording was 'once in a generation' anyway, which is roughly 5-10 years, so the timeline fits with her original statement.Come on now you're having a giggle, the SNP were clearly not saying they were gonna hold a referendum every five years until the UK was ruins
Once in a lifetime, once in a generation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY3UaP_--4o), these are not terms we use to describe the passing lives of mayflies
A few thousand of the people who voted last time are dead now and a few thousand people have since turned 16. As I said before, the SNP get the right to hold one anytime they get the biggest share in Holyrood. Or to be more precise, anytime the majority of MSPs vote for it in Holyrood, because that's how representative democracies work.If your legitimacy for calling as many independence referendums as you want comes from a few thousand people dying or the SNP MPs saying so when they've got no such mandate to do so I'm rather worried about the practicality of seeking compromise with the SNP. Scottish people voted against independence in a once in a lifetime referendum you'll need a bit more to have just cause. For starters Holyrood does not have the right to alter the constitution of Britain without agreement with Britain, hence why the last such referendum was an agreement between the government in Westminster and the government in Edinburgh. For seconds, the SNP is running under the assumption that the 60% who voted in the EU referendum are people who want to leave the UK and join the EU, which is an extraordinary claim to make. A claim, which they will need to justify with evidence - which will provide them with their mandate.
The idea that MPs have a right to command the will of their people without the consultation of their people is simply ludicrous. If the MPs in Westminster had their way, the majority of Britain who voted to leave the EU would have been ignored, because as it happens most MPs were pro-EU regardless of what their constituents actually wanted. Thus how am I supposed to take SNP politicians word for it that they represent Scotland's wishes when the majority of Scots oppose indyref2 electric boogaloo and even 34% of SNP voters wouldn't want Scotland to leave the UK and join the EU? (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ihg707zgux/ScottishTrackers_25-Jul-2016_Indy_W.pdf)
Ideally, we would have gotten this all done and dusted with a snap election. Then SNP could have been able to go forwards into the future with clear mandates, thus I'm suspicious of the SNP trying to push the second indyref campaign so soon, before the general election, during Brexit negotiations.
So how are we to respond? You can see why I talk of timing, of waiting until the next general election. It is not enough to say things have changed when in all honesty, it appears otherwise
But if the Indyref2 happens after Brexit then the entire purpose for doing it, which is for Scotland to avoid Brexit, stops being relevant, as Scotland would then have to apply for EU membership as a non-member, rather than as a sub-member.Oh dear, I guess this seals it then - Scottish MPs have no right to override the rest of the country, least of all when the Scottish people would rather be in a UK without the EU, than in an EU without the UK. If we hold this referendum now whilst we're conducting negotiations, then the UK leadership will be dealing with a constitutional crisis, half the country threatening to break away while negotiating with the European Union at the same time. Our job market has returned to stellar performance (http://www.standard.co.uk/business/hays-uk-job-market-returning-to-health-after-brexit-blow-a3473116.html) with unemployment at its lowest in a decade (http://www.standard.co.uk/business/jobs-boom-rolls-on-but-pay-pain-looms-for-staff-a3467341.html) coming at the cost of retarded wage growth. That stability regained, it all completely evaporates if Westminster agrees with the SNPs demands right now.
It was one of the official platforms of the NO campaign run by the Conservatives, New Labour and Lib Dems. I do not think it was on the pointless pledge the party leaders signed though, not that that went anywhere anyway.I haven't found much to say about that, though I did find this:
Quote
t has been apparent for years that Scotland enjoys membership of the EU because of our membership of the UK and if we no longer are members of the UK then it follows that we are no longer are part of the EU.Note, archived - the original webpage is taken down, presumably because bettertogether either ran out of money or are trying to hide that they warned Scots remaining in the UK was the only way to remain in the EU. There was also one Tory politician called Ruth Davidson who said the only way to stay in the EU was to remain in the UK. (https://stv.tv/news/politics/1359352-dossier-of-no-campaign-broken-promises-published-by-snp/) Also on their twitter is this, I think the comments it received illustrate how no SNP voters bought the bullshit (https://mobile.twitter.com/UK_Together/status/506899714923843584).
We enjoy EU citizenship due to our UK citizenship. There is no Scottish flag flying outside the European Parliament.
Scotland is not named in any EU treaty.
If we are no longer part of the UK we are a candidate country - if the other members allow us to start that process.
And let us not forget that the EU is a political organisation that is run by politicians. The people who will discuss a separate Scotland’s applications all have to consider their own national interests. We will not just be waved through.
It may well be that the President of the European Commission, as a former Portuguese Prime Minister, is thinking about the politics of the Iberian peninsula when commenting on these questions just as the President of the Council ,Herman van Rompuy, a former Belgium PM make be influenced by his own experiences at home concerning Flanders.
I don’t believe that we will ever need these negotiations as I fully believe that the majority of Scots will look at the shambles being proposed by the separatists and will cast a positive vote to stay in the UK.
However, we cannot allow ourselves to be complacent. We must use the next two years to ensure that nationalism and separatism are defeated. If we don’t, we leave ourselves open to the fact that the nationalists will take us on a journey to a deeply uncertain future.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140914205737/http:/bettertogether.net/blog/entry/eu-cant-trust-them
As is there's a chunk of YES voters who are more self determination focused than the rest, who are anti-EU and anti-UK and want to leave both, with the rest of the movement being focused on the more direct problems that come from UK politics not aligning with Scottish ones more than half the time over the past 40 or so years and feeling the less direct influence the EU has is not a problem, or feeling it's actually a benefit because of freedom of movement, trade, research grants and other funding it gives.Kowtowing to a chunk who have no legitimacy to the damage of the entire country is not an attractive prospect tbh
Ignoring Scotland would be bankrupt already if it had independence (https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/independent-scotland-now-bankrupt/), neither it nor R/of UK would emerge from indyref2 or independence alive. Thus it seems SNP must demand indyref 2, Westminster must deny it. Knowing Westminster must deny it, SNP must demand it nevertheless, thus ensuring that their campaign is alive and kicking into 2020. Thus it seems it doesn't matter who leans upon who (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/04/scottish-economy-grows-far-more-slowly-than-uk-as-a-whole), when it seems the goal is not to succeed, but to challenge.
I feel that about half the UK will Regrexit and half the UK will be filled with Brexitement myself.That would be consistent with the way one half voted one way and the other half voted the other
Battle lines are drawn and nobody ever admits they were wrong either way these days.
pretty much 60/40 in Scotland, right? It's not like Scotland is a united nation of strident Europhiles. If anything, the EU has shafted all of us. Do you really think Brexit would have passed if, all that time ago when Cameron went to them for some kind of deal he could present to the British public as a compromise, to persuade them not to vote for Brexit - do you think if they'd given him anything more than the laugh in the face that he received that we'd be in this position now? I mean, fuck, you know I'm glad we're leaving, but on that front I'm still genuinely annoyed on behalf of the EU-supporters, because they deserved better support than they got from people like Tusk, Juncker, Merkel, etc.To be fair, the EU shafting their most powerful ally in the UK was hilarious and a much needed gift to are based Nige
Remain campaign slogans. But the context is very obviously different, seeing as Scotland has been part of UK for much longer than UK has been a part of EU, and it has been much better integrated too, to boot.Aye, and if the UK were like the EU, we'd have Greece'd Scotland, instead of subsidizing Scots far in excess of what the English receive. We don't even have any oil, the money comes out of our work and taxes, at a time when our infrastrucutre is fucking shite and our NHS at risk of collapsing, while the SNP say they're rich enough to secede therefore they don't need to contribue anything to the poor of the UK with all their vast wealth.
...
It's very painful trying to understand politicians. Still, there's a great deal more expense I reckon southerners would be willing to tolerate to keep the Union alive, a lot of history together, undoubtedly that fondness never dies
Well as an American lecturing a Brit, and as a Serb, I would like to remind you that cultural ties have absolutely no intrinsic importance whatsoever.Things Americans say
They matter precisely as soon as people want to imagine they matter, and cease to be relevant as soon as people wish to ignore them, and not one second longer. Forget that at your peril.Compare it to money, how as soon as people stop believing it has value, it stops have value. Culture is not like money, because culture is priceless.
Personally I'd be happy if Scotland seceded just so I could avoid angry British people correcting me about "Great Britain vs The UK vs England vs Scotland vs The Crown vs whatever", and what precisely the difference is between British and English or British and Scottish (which is never consistent between individuals).It is awfully American to freedom' other nations over mistakes in geography :D
Post by: Starver on March 16, 2017, 09:27:37 am
and a much needed gift to are based NigeI have really got to ask, because "are based Nige" comes up a lot in your scribblings. Is this a phonetic error? Or deliberate affectation, of that silly kind you otherwise make?
"Are" may be "Our", but "based" doesn't seem to match anything (except, vaguely, "biased", or "bastard" at a pinch, but not sure that's the opinion you want to convey).
Tried anagrams, too, but "blessed" or even "bare arsed" don't match, and "ease drab" doesn't mean anything that I think you support. And transpositions ("evi fewih", "izm jiaml", or of course "ner onfrq") don't mean much.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 16, 2017, 09:47:04 am
I have really got to ask, because "are based Nige" comes up a lot in your scribblings. Is this a phonetic error? Or deliberate affectation, of that silly kind you otherwise make?This'll do you a lot of fun (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pZ-Ny8q22o)
"Are" may be "Our", but "based" doesn't seem to match anything (except, vaguely, "biased", or "bastard" at a pinch, but not sure that's the opinion you want to convey)."Based" is based but this kind of based (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Based), broadly speaking, well good
Tried anagrams, too, but "blessed" or even "bare arsed" don't match, and "ease drab" doesn't mean anything that I think you support. And transpositions ("evi fewih", "izm jiaml", or of course "ner onfrq") don't mean much.I gotta admit I'm thankful for the effort you put into deciphering the meaning
Post by: Starver on March 16, 2017, 01:38:54 pm
Between this and previous stuff you've said on the subject, I genuinely don't know whether you can't follow LW's meanings or if this is your own affectation, in some attempt to sound particularly, well, old, or out of touch.I genuinely did not know. There's an awful lot of 'in crowd' stuff in LW's spiel, and I've made several private protestations to that effect (the above was going to be composed here, but pasted into private... but I forgot to do the latter bit).
I'm definitely older than I'd like (isn't everybody, except those who foolishly think they want to be older), but I don't think I'm quite so much out of touch as there is just too much "in touch" to go round. Which potentially makes it a problem when someone uses language from one memesphere in a place where practically no-one else does
Not that I'm so innocent of obfuscative code-switching (more by accident but maybe, maybe, occasionally on porpoise), and prior to the existence of the Web I was often in places where a given local patois was de rigour and I freely partook. But I tried (and try) not to do it elsewhere, just to be different.
I've long since put LW in the category of people who refuse to use punctuation, or more than one case, or avoid a certain key on their keyboard. Either a psychological need (occasionally a phydical problem), an affectation of a psychological need(/ditto) to play a role or else just being bloody-minded about it. I know enough people in the first part of the spectrum to know never to make crass assumptions, but have decreasing tolerance when its obvious it's just the latter.
I know that my 'thing' is a mixture of inherent verbosity and (attempted) grammatical rigour, and a smattering of now possibly archaic TLAs. I do try to avoid glazed over eyes, though. Not always successfully. And if I'm in any way Hipsterish about it, I'm definitely more the kind of Hipster from before it was mainstream(!)...
That's all. For now, though, consider me marginally more enlightened. (And more so once I check out that YouTube link, on a better link, perhaps. Unless it's just a RickRoll or similar.)
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 19, 2017, 09:35:42 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 19, 2017, 01:10:31 pm
*Tips trilby*In this moment I am enlightened, not because of any phony linguist's blessing, but because of my superior ironyWould you say you're... euphoric?
Post by: Sergarr on March 20, 2017, 08:41:48 am
Post by: Starver on March 20, 2017, 09:43:06 am
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=1D
(Those will change as viewed later, of course. Screenshotted, but not yet cropped and uploaded to anywhere for image-linking. Maybe later, when I'm not travelling.)
(Right now, showing that we're not as low as (in Month display) the mid-March drop, but definite fall and (slower, lower) rebound straight after the announcement. And on the yearly, obvious we've lost more against the dollar. Even the Trump effect on the dollar didn't help.)
Whether or not this is a bad thing, or a good thing, is almost philosophical. I have some dollars to convert, though, so maybe now's as good time as any? Having missed the prior dip.
Post by: Azzuro on March 20, 2017, 10:12:58 am
Post by: Starver on March 20, 2017, 10:51:21 am
So what's the timeline after March 29?March 30th then March 31st then April 1st. Twice, just to make sure we get the joke.
Spoiler: Or...? (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 22, 2017, 10:41:42 am
Post by: TD1 on March 22, 2017, 10:59:11 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 22, 2017, 11:22:39 am
I think you're mistaking that for what most people think will happen after Article 50.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 22, 2017, 11:58:20 am
Post by: TempAcc on March 22, 2017, 12:15:22 pm
Wait..
Post by: Starver on March 22, 2017, 12:16:06 pm
(Actually, I'm being disingenuous. LZ is probably aimed at avoiding the "sugar tax", so I can understand it at least from the corporate point-of-view... But, it does sort of defeat the entire branding...)
Post by: TD1 on March 22, 2017, 12:29:12 pm
Whether or not the advantages and disadvantages can be reconciled depends entirely on what you feel to be beneficial.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 22, 2017, 07:02:05 pm
For Remainers, the focus is European Unity and being stronger together, as well as commercial arguments. For Leavers, it is identity, stronger borders, and a less Eurocentric world view. Also with commercial arguments.I imagine the commercial arguments will be different for Leavers and Remainers because they'll be operating on different levels of capital. For wealthier Remainers whose portfolios will be damaged by political instability the financial case for Remain is obvious, whereas for Leavers who are too poor they don't really give a shit about how much money richer people make on speculating with currency or futures when they themselves, have no future whether or not the EU lives or dies. Thus one side is complaining that it will be harder to hire Slovenian maids whilst another is complaining they can't afford to send their kids to school, (https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities) but actually in 2017 it's progressive to say that the destitute and poor are mental invalids who shouldn't be allowed to vote
Whether or not the advantages and disadvantages can be reconciled depends entirely on what you feel to be beneficial.
Quote
Only an hour earlier, I had been in Manchester at a graduate recruitment fair, where nine out of 10 of our interviewees were supporting remain, and some voices spoke about leave voters with a cold superiority. “In the end, this is the 21st century,” said one twentysomething. “Get with it.” Not for the first time, the atmosphere around the referendum had the sulphurous whiff not just of inequality, but a kind of misshapen class war.Current year smug will always kill itself (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/divided-britain-brexit-money-class-inequality-westminster)
Basically shit's fucked and it will take decades to fix this shit. Saying the country is divided between Leave and Remain is probably not true, the divides are probably more numerous and deeper than politics
Seriously this guardian article is pretty dank, though you don't need a journalism degree to see shit's fucked and politicians all coming from one school that costs more than the national family average income don't exactly have a good grasp on reality
Post by: Starver on March 22, 2017, 07:20:49 pm
I imagine the commercial arguments will be different for Leavers and Remainers because they'll be operating on different levels of capital. For wealthier Remainers whose portfolios will be damaged by political instability the financial case for Remain is obvious, whereas for Leavers who are too poor they don't really give a shit about how much money richer people make on speculating with currency or futures when they themselves, have no future whether or not the EU lives or dies.I'm not that financially secure (currently worrying about my eventual pension thanks to some unnecessary messing about, and then there's those few dollars that I do really need to be in sterling, if I can get the right W-8-whatever forms submitted to the proper people: and that's before I possibly have to worry about financial collapses and supply-chain disruptions that send food prices skyrocketting) so I'm not in either of those opposing quadrants that you seem to have placed everybody in...
Maybe I'm an outlier, outside the line of best correlation, but just so you know that I'm more an ascetic by necessity than an affluent profligate.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on March 22, 2017, 07:44:19 pm
I imagine the commercial arguments will be different for Leavers and Remainers because they'll be operating on different levels of capital. For wealthier Remainers whose portfolios will be damaged by political instability the financial case for Remain is obvious, whereas for Leavers who are too poor they don't really give a shit about how much money richer people make on speculating with currency or futures when they themselves, have no future whether or not the EU lives or dies.I'm not that financially secure (currently worrying about my eventual pension thanks to some unnecessary messing about, and then there's those few dollars that I do really need to be in sterling, if I can get the right W-8-whatever forms submitted to the proper people: and that's before I possibly have to worry about financial collapses and supply-chain disruptions that send food prices skyrocketting) so I'm not in either of those opposing quadrants that you seem to have placed everybody in...
Maybe I'm an outlier, outside the line of best correlation, but just so you know that I'm more an ascetic by necessity than an affluent profligate.
You have to be careful when engaging in discourse with LW, because while he's very good at seeing to the root of problems, and cutting through the waffle politicians like to try and blind people with, he also loves the soundbite (and to portray bremainers as the upperclass aristos exclusively).
I mean my sig is like, 4/5ths LW quotes even though I strongly disagree with him for a reason.
Post by: TD1 on March 22, 2017, 07:47:46 pm
The basic argument for this that my student-minded well off friends have proposed is that the poor were too ignorant and didn't know what was going on, or they would have voted remain.
If that doesn't indicate class divide and age divide, I don't know what does. There's a reason that social media, domain of the meme and the young, is so fervently remain.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 23, 2017, 09:49:43 am
I'm not that financially secure (currently worrying about my eventual pension thanks to some unnecessary messing about, and then there's those few dollars that I do really need to be in sterling, if I can get the right W-8-whatever forms submitted to the proper people: and that's before I possibly have to worry about financial collapses and supply-chain disruptions that send food prices skyrocketting) so I'm not in either of those opposing quadrants that you seem to have placed everybody in...I don't judge peoples backgrounds based on their views, one thing I've found is that not only is it better to listen to arguments and not people, but often people are never showing their true backgrounds - in London I've always known it to be that the poor try to seem rich, the rich try to seem criminal, the middle try to seem upper etc.
Maybe I'm an outlier, outside the line of best correlation, but just so you know that I'm more an ascetic by necessity than an affluent profligate.
Appearances are deceiving and then you also got to factor in everyone has their own problems and advantages they're likely to never speak in public. No point to go digging when there's billions of people with such complicated histories
You have to be careful when engaging in discourse with LW, because while he's very good at seeing to the root of problems, and cutting through the waffle politicians like to try and blind people with, he also loves the soundbite (and to portray bremainers as the upperclass aristos exclusively).Ahaha I have to thank you for overselling my qualities, I don't see anything they're not seeing, doesn't exactly take a sage to see and say "things suck." Also in my defence, I also love the wall of text, it's just the soundbite is much more memorable
I mean my sig is like, 4/5ths LW quotes even though I strongly disagree with him for a reason.
I don't think many people would doubt that the rich had a tendency to vote one way, the poor another. The basic argument for this that my student-minded well off friends have proposed is that the poor were too ignorant and didn't know what was going on, or they would have voted remain.Social media and Unis, but no memes.
If that doesn't indicate class divide and age divide, I don't know what does. There's a reason that social media, domain of the meme and the young, is so fervently remain.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
-snip-
Spoiler: snip (click to show/hide)
Post by: martinuzz on March 23, 2017, 10:53:21 am
Sacrifice kebab to appease nibiru.Sacrifice Gibraltar for a slightly better trade deal
Wait..
Post by: TD1 on March 23, 2017, 10:59:19 am
((Strapped to a suicide vest))
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 23, 2017, 12:50:43 pm
snip
There's a difference between describing the wealthy as anti-Brexit and describing No voters in general as wealthy.
The rich were a tiny minority of No votes, and as far as I can tell, most No voters are in the same income ranges as most Yes voters. So it's misleading to make it out like Yes voters are interested in protecting their jobs while No voters are interested in protecting their investments.
Post by: TD1 on March 23, 2017, 12:53:04 pm
It's also true that I heard varied arguments in favour of Leave, but in favour of Remain the only one I heard spoken of was money.
Post by: Starver on March 23, 2017, 02:41:28 pm
Being part of a power-block (and with more say as to how that powerblock works than we would by bunking up in Trump's cell) was very important. And just like Cornwall doesn't always have the same priorities as Lincolnshire or Cumbria or Kent, just because we're not always happy doesn't mean we (or Cornwall) would be better off out of Europe (or UK/England, depending upon the scheme).
Much of the Brexit was money (that infamous £350m for the NHS, etc, that was almost immediately disavowed), and the rest could as easily be linked to money as the non-monetary Remaining stuff.
e.g. those EU seasonal workers undermining our own workforce, not that we seem to have an appetite for seasonal work (and our benefits system strongly discourages it!), meaning that we need to pay more to our reluctant workers (and no more EU subsidies for environmentally friendly land use, unless we decide to fork out from our national purse directly, as on of many potential costs we didn't previously have), meaning food prices rise (or general taxation), hitting everybody who wants to eat (but not actually scaling to their wealth bracket, so richer people will be fairly Ok with that, our homegrown workers less so, unless somebody actually changes the benefits system to pay out more money to the low end(!)...).
But it was the bus and the (non-EU!) immigration stuff that stuck. As witnessed by the 'overwhelming majority' who voted to <insert single, simplistic reason of the day here, according to who the speaker is>... All of which is total bollocks, pardon my Esperanto....
1 Not that a country would ever blanket ban another country's population from engaging in everyday international travel, above and beyond and actual individual/organisational membership of a persona non grata list... Oh, wait!
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 23, 2017, 08:52:35 pm
Post by: Starver on March 24, 2017, 02:44:33 am
Interesting Starver, cos this goes at odds with all the folks scratching their heads saying this was the first UK vote in ages where "the economy stupid" did not sway votersHuh? What of mine is that in response to?
ETA: In fact, that supports my position.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 24, 2017, 06:56:20 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 24, 2017, 07:45:47 am
In regards to the whole much of Brexit was about money thingDon't be daft. Brexit was about the eternal struggle between order and chaos. Which one is gaining the upper hand is left to the criteria of the reader
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 24, 2017, 09:13:42 am
Post by: Azzuro on March 24, 2017, 09:26:50 am
Post by: Starver on March 24, 2017, 10:59:27 am
In regards to the whole much of Brexit was about money thing
You misread, then.
It's also true that I heard varied arguments in favour of Leave, but in favour of Remain the only one I heard spoken of was money.To which I reply
Stability in general,.free movement (to tourism, educational opportunities, culture in all its forms1). There's money involved in those, but only in the way that money is always involved.
[...]
Much of the Brexit [i.e. Leave, just to clarify] was money (that infamous £350m for the NHS, etc, that was almost immediately disavowed), and the rest could as easily be linked to money as the non-monetary Remaining stuff.
Make sense, now?
Post by: TD1 on March 24, 2017, 11:23:45 am
Their Remain counterparts involved arguments around money, for example immigration - they're good workers! They make us money! - and Europe - the single market! Much trade! such wow.
The Leave arguments may be linked to money - damn immigrants taking our jobs - but this was rarely the case, whereas Remain's main platform was based around counter arguments involving the words "ker" and "ching."
Of course, this wasn't always the case - some spoke of a greater place on the world stage in Europe, for instance, or of national projects. But a disproportionate section of the argument was "the economy, stupid."
Post by: hector13 on March 24, 2017, 01:30:40 pm
As a side note, most of the first page results from the Google search "Brexit bus" tell us about the big fat lie that slogan was, too.
Post by: TD1 on March 24, 2017, 01:37:09 pm
Post by: Starver on March 24, 2017, 01:47:06 pm
Yea, the European funds being used for something useful argument. Not really as huge an argument for Leave as the "we will all literally die from economic collapse" thing was for remain.Have you been drinking a different flavour of Lucozade Zero than me..? That was, as mentioned, one of the great tenets of the campaign. Not everyone took it to heart, but it was actually an oft-quoted reason in the vox populi, next to the mistargetted immigrants thing.
Post by: Starver on March 24, 2017, 04:22:57 pm
The thing to do would be to go through LW's old Brexit thread and see what the actual arguments posters here (from both sides) were focusing on.Interesting. "Do a full analysis on goalposts that I've suddenly set up, or STFU...". I actually credit posters here with more intelligence than the average voter (even when I disagree with them, or even think they're being particularly disingenuous). But, ok, I'll spend some time on that very specific target when I get some time, and try to enumerate our own voiced opinions.
Y'know, if you can be arsed.
For the man on the street we were actually talking about, we need some archive footage, or similar, which will need careful balancing to remove broadcaster bias in what they chose to make available.
We can always play the odds with the newspaper front pages (https://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/2016/06/21/front-pages-archive.cfm) (that selection in "alignment/argument type" terms are: Leave/financial, Leave/migration, Remain/financial, (nothing obvious), Remain/cultural, Remain/???, Remain/financial, Remain/faked news, Remain/employment rights - but other days may reveal other distributions...), to see what the various sides were putting through their respective media frontends, or listen to something like this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b080tvqx)...
Post by: hector13 on March 24, 2017, 04:57:24 pm
Anyway, why are a broad selection of newspaper headlines of lesser quality as evidence than a pretty-much-anonymous internet forum set up for a niche game developer?
Post by: Starver on March 24, 2017, 06:11:01 pm
Y'know, if you can be arsed.You fully expect me to not be arsed.
I shall be arsed, but it will take some effort to do it properly. Allow me at least the weekend. There's some paid-for work and familial activities to take priority, and not letting the rest of the forums slide behind would be useful, but there'll be gaps of opportunity...
Post by: martinuzz on March 28, 2017, 12:35:41 pm
In an icy meeting between May and Sturgeon (the Scottish first minister) May has said that that is out of the question, especially during the Brexit procedure. The British government does not want complications during what are going to be the most difficult negotiations in the history of the UK.
This raises the question for me. Is it legally possible for the UK government to forbid a referendum approved by the Scottish parliament?
EDIT: unrelated to Scotland, the British Brexit minister David Davies has said that the promises made by the Brexit camp, like 350 million to healthcare, and getting the same trade deal as we have while still in the EU cannot be fulfilled, because that would be impossible. He says that people should also not expect the number of immigrants to drop. Instead he says that he expects the number of immigrants to slightly rise.
"But the important thing is that we have control over our own borders."
I wonder, if they were to hold a new Brexit referendum now, if they would even manage to get 10% to vote yes. Best thing May can do IMO is call Juncker and beg politely to stop the whole silly Brexit thing.
Post by: PTTG?? on March 28, 2017, 01:08:58 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 28, 2017, 01:24:23 pm
Probably the only person that can REALLY stop Scotland from leaving is The Queen, and she knows better to stay out of meddling in things, so, she isn't going to. At least overtly, I'm sure she wields plenty of subtle background power.
She let the other former British colonies go their own way, so, I don't see why not.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 28, 2017, 01:56:23 pm
Or less drastically, the way all referendums work. It's never been "one and done", but always a matter of political will. In those states of the US where the barrier to entry is very low (via signatures) ballot measures get attempted year after year. It really can't be any other way either, since people's opinions on things change rather rapidly, the desire to only have a single referendum ever is based in political maneuvering. Let's not call things "whinging", though. Everybody under the sun tries to accuse their political opponents of being hysterical manchildren who need to become mature by believing what they believe instead. (http://i.imgur.com/ZgOEtys.jpg) It's a non-argument.
Post by: TD1 on March 28, 2017, 02:01:52 pm
We have a word, in America, for the sort of thing that forbidding Scotland from leaving is: "hypocrisy." I dunno if the British English version is different or what. Maybe it's "Jolly-good-take-the-biscut" or something.
Really? I'll just move to the Confederate States, then.... Oh, wait, I can't.....
:P
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 28, 2017, 02:27:42 pm
Scotland's been in a union with the rest of the UK for over three hundred years. Whereas at the time of the last Scottish referendum we'd been in the EU for what, forty years? Scotland's EU membership was an important part of the argument, certainly, but it was hardly the be all and end all.Literally all I remember from the Better Together campaign was "muh EU benefits" and "the Tories will take over the day we leave and restore the Empire". It is, by all accounts, a main factor for a lot of voters. SNP made gains after both the Scotland vote and the Brexit vote, so they clearly have a mandate as well.
Quote
And for that matter, it still *is* an important part of the argument. Is anyone seriously expecting Scotland to leave the UK and immediately be inducted into the EU, deficit-twice-as-big-as-Greece and all? After statements from, for example, Spanish representatives to the contrary?I think the Europhiles might decide to expedite them if Hard Brexit comes to pass.
Quote from: Merkel The Eternal
I decide who is European.
Quote
Scotland might end up choosing between being in a union with the rest of the UK, and being in a union - European or otherwise - with absolutely no one.And regardless of whether they get a pass or not, it's still their right to hold a referendum. Just as it was Leave's right to vote for economic insolvency and Remain's right to vote for handing sovereignty over to Brussels and burning the British flag.
Quote
That's not the argument? The point is that whining is a totally emotional appeal about your opponents, and works for literally anything, including Literally Hitler. It lacks persuasive substance.Everybody under the sun tries to accuse their political opponents of being hysterical manchildren who need to become mature by believing what they believe instead. (http://i.imgur.com/ZgOEtys.jpg) It's a non-argument.
I know, right? (https://imgur.com/zOZC7cc)
But yeah, whinging seems accurate. Feel free to substitute in 'whining', 'moaning', or 'throwing a shitfit' if they strike your ear better.
Post by: Starver on March 28, 2017, 02:59:13 pm
My own recollection is that the EU was primarily an argument for the Independence campaign. 'If we stay, we'll be dragged out of the EU!'. They voted to stay anyway.That's flipwise. There was no sign of Brexit coming to pass, then, and it was all "if you leave the UK, you'd have difficulty (re)gaining the EU membership that you like, so vote Stay".
Interesting read (https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/05/will-an-eu-referendum-kill-the-scottish-independence-referendum/#), of something prior to either of the referenda even being solidified...
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 28, 2017, 03:02:39 pm
My own recollection is that the EU was primarily an argument for the Independence campaign. 'If we stay, we'll be dragged out of the EU!'. They voted to stay anyway.I question this recollection, since it was almost a certainty that there would be issues with retaining EU membership if they left the UK and at the time Brexit was showing very bad numbers. Though the argument is one that was possible, it was not considered likely compared to difficulties with independence.
Quote
We'll see. Given the general sentiment from commentators such as posters here, it certainly wouldn't surprise me to see Europe acting out of pique. Though I doubt they'll be quite so keen when they realise they have to start throwing piles of money into the black hole of Scottish policing, education and healthcare.Not like fiat currency is real anyway. Scotland's unemployment is a fairly normal 5%, which might be a better metric. But then, economics is right up there with chaos magik in terms of reliability.
Quote
Trying to control the language used by others is a poor road to go down, in my opinion. It leads to 'problematic' outcomes ;) And as I said, whinging/whining/moaning/bitching seems to sum up their behaviour fairly well.I'm not controlling your language, I'm criticizing your argument as being an appeal to emotion. Not only are accusations of whining universal, they don't prove anything even if they're true. Scotland can both be whining for a referendum and be correct in desiring it post-Brexit. And people who don't want Scotland to have a referendum can be said to be whining that Scotland doesn't have to go down with the rest of the UK from a deal they didn't agree to. There's nothing there from a rhetorical standpoint, it's all pathos.
Next thing you know, you'll be complaining when I call her Wee Jimmy Sturgeon (https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/ad_165828585.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&strip=all).
Post by: Neonivek on March 28, 2017, 03:05:06 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 28, 2017, 03:09:00 pm
Post by: Starver on March 28, 2017, 03:14:19 pm
Post by: Starver on March 28, 2017, 03:30:32 pm
Do you have any sources on Brexit showing bad numbers at the time?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#/media/File:UK_EU_referendum_polling.svg
Quote
We know that Leavers would have asked for another chance, had they lost far less narrowly...
No, you know that Nigel Farage said something to that effect on the night of the referendum. Based as he is, he's hardly an unbiased figure in all this, given he didn't want to be defeated and out of a job. As for Leavers as a whole, I personally don't recall being asked whether we'd demand referendum after referendum until we got the result we wanted.
Remember this..? (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215)
Post by: Starver on March 28, 2017, 04:19:25 pm
It was less likely than it was likely, and heading further into the "even less likely" direction for a further 8 months or so, as a trend (but with a December blip in a set of the dots). I think you're just being wilfully dismissive, but never mind.Do you have any sources on Brexit showing bad numbers at the time?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#/media/File:UK_EU_referendum_polling.svg
The poll you're linking to show it as close to 50/50 at the time of the Scottish referendum, which somewhat detracts from MSH's argument that Brexit was considered unlikely.
Quote
['60% for Remain or Leave'. Seems like some people just wanted different parameters for the referendum, as opposed to wanting to change a result they didn't like.The result wasn't even known when that petition was created, and it was done so upon the assumption that Leave would fail (the first time) by someone who was a Leaver.
You surely remember all this.
Quote
I retroactively disagree with the proposed change, obviously. There's no sense giving the status quo an even bigger advantage than it already had. Or are we going to pretend that the government and its 'Brexit Information Leaflet', or the BBC, were fair and unbiased?The government's leaflet always seemed like a useless thing, to me. It didn't form any part of my decision on the day (I was still not committed), and may have backfired when the nihilist crowd threw it back as nebuluous (but loud sounding) ammunition for their cause. And I know you were all against MSM before that was even acronym, but really? The BBC has balanced things far better than most news organisations (and definitely than an overwhelming number of newspaper titles), unless you just want to complain that reality has a liberal bias...
Post by: Starver on March 28, 2017, 04:35:20 pm
Mate, it's your poll.It's a mass of polls, from multiple sources (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:T.seppelt/UK_EU_referendum_polling.csv). I'm trying to be nice to you, but there's still that little something about the way that you deflect things by your apparent misunderstanding.
Quote
I don't know who made it, nor do I know under what assumptions they did so.Be enlightened. (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/william-oliver-healey-referendum-petition_uk_576f8b28e4b0232d331e1b39) (But I must commiserate you upon your amnesia.)
Post by: TD1 on March 28, 2017, 04:51:49 pm
Personally, I wouldn't want a revote right after it. Although, I do recall hearing closer to the time the opinion that Remain should have a revote, so that all the ones who voted stupidly would get the chance to make the right decision. That was funny :P
Post by: Starver on March 28, 2017, 05:06:23 pm
And, as for figuring in voting, I am never a fan of tactical voting (it just creates things like Bregrexit, as has been discussed before) but the chronology was:
Farage says that 52/48 would be "unfinished business", assuming that it would be in the Remain/Leave direction.
A Leaver creates that pre-emptive petition. (And later says "The logistical probability of getting a turnout to be a minimum of 75% and of that, 60% of the vote must be one or the other (leave or remain) is in my opinion next to impossible without a compulsory element to the voting system.", but that might be him trying to sour his own grapes.)
Nearly a month later, we have the vote.
You participate in the thread of the moment.
News that the petition has been 'discovered' and 'hijacked' by 'Bremoaners' is posted to the same thread. But it's also all over the media, so unless you're hiding under a rock...
Some time between then and now, you've forgotten this final point, or are just trying to be annoying. But I'm assuming the former, because you're recently proven susceptible to problems in your recall and, between this and an actual real life visit to a person who is in hospital for intensive observation this week, I'm defaulting to assuming a medical blip that can (and hopefully will) get better soon. Because the alternative isn't somewhere I care to go, in either case.
Good health to you, in the future.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on March 29, 2017, 08:54:00 am
On an actual point of discussion, saying "scotland's been part of the UK for hundreds of years!" seems disingenuous when that's mostly because the English were shits to them and stamped all over the various rebellions for hundreds of years before acknowledging it was sort of its own country, ish.
On a point of discussion more related to the current affairs:
What do people think of the bbc coverage going on right now? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-39424391)
Post by: Starver on March 29, 2017, 09:49:48 am
Post by: martinuzz on March 29, 2017, 02:16:55 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: scriver on March 29, 2017, 10:24:51 pm
We have a word, in America, for the sort of thing that forbidding Scotland from leaving is: "hypocrisy." I dunno if the British English version is different or what. Maybe it's "Jolly-good-take-the-biscut" or something.
I'd like to start by pointing out that I support Scottish independence and fresh referendums, and then say that it's quite a stretch to call it hypocritical given that the union between Scotland and England is a very different situation from the European union. Equating the two is a very shallow way to look at it.
Post by: TD1 on March 30, 2017, 04:08:40 am
Post by: Neonivek on March 30, 2017, 04:18:29 am
We have a word, in America, for the sort of thing that forbidding Scotland from leaving is: "hypocrisy." I dunno if the British English version is different or what. Maybe it's "Jolly-good-take-the-biscut" or something.
I'd like to start by pointing out that I support Scottish independence and fresh referendums, and then say that it's quite a stretch to call it hypocritical given that the union between Scotland and England is a very different situation from the European union. Equating the two is a very shallow way to look at it.
Yeah it isn't even like the situation between Canada and Quebec... and yet we still support a referendum (we think it is silly for them to do it... mostly because we think it is scapegoating for their real problems)
Post by: Sheb on March 30, 2017, 04:22:57 am
I'm in favour of an eventual Scottish referendum, but not one right now. Of all the bad times.
To be fair I'd guess there is a pretty solid argument that a referendum should at least wait until the end on the EU-UK negotiations so that Scotland can choose its deal knowing what's on the table.
Post by: Neonivek on March 30, 2017, 04:24:20 am
I'm in favour of an eventual Scottish referendum, but not one right now. Of all the bad times.
To be fair I'd guess there is a pretty solid argument that a referendum should at least wait until the end on the EU-UK negotiations so that Scotland can choose its deal knowing what's on the table.
To admit though a successful referendum gives Scotland a lot more bargaining power. They might even be able to blackmail UK in the process in order for Scotland to stay... and thus have a direct impact on the negotiations.
Post by: Sheb on March 30, 2017, 04:33:14 am
Post by: TD1 on March 30, 2017, 04:36:46 am
Post by: Sheb on March 30, 2017, 05:09:48 am
Post by: TD1 on March 30, 2017, 05:29:00 am
As for the symbolic value....even of that, I'm doubtful. How does Europe accepting part of a splintered state prove that it has a strong future?
Post by: Sheb on March 30, 2017, 06:52:28 am
*Or can be spun as showing.
Post by: Frumple on March 30, 2017, 07:09:02 am
I mean... why? The actual content of the negotiations are kinda' irrelevant. The problem is that they can be started and gone through with in more or less complete defiance of what your people want. Unless the negotiations include full devolution there's not really anything that can be in them that's going to address that, and the sooner you split the sooner your own negotiations can start.I'm in favour of an eventual Scottish referendum, but not one right now. Of all the bad times.To be fair I'd guess there is a pretty solid argument that a referendum should at least wait until the end on the EU-UK negotiations so that Scotland can choose its deal knowing what's on the table.
Post by: martinuzz on April 02, 2017, 11:26:00 am
Spain has made it known that they wish to involve the status of Gibraltar in the Brexit negotiations.
In response, former conservative party leader Michael Howard has said that 'Our PM May is willing and able to defend Gibraltar, like Margareth Thatcher defended the Falkland islands', implying the UK would be willing to enter an armed conflict with the EU over Gibraltar if nescessary.
Furthermore, the Spanish minister of foreign affairs announced that SPain will not object to Scottish EU membership. This comes as a surprise, since Spain itself has issues with parts of the country wanting independence, and has thusfar been against Scottish independence.
The concept plan of Donald Tusk includes the Spanish wish of having a say over Gibraltar: In 1713, the Peace of Utrecht formally added Gibraltar to the British Empire. Donald Tusk's concept plan includes renegotiation of the Treaty of Utrecht. The plans will allow Spain to exclude the conflicted area of Gibraltar from a EU - UK trade agreement, if the UK refuses to sign a bilateral agreement over Gibraltar with Spain.
The government in Madrid already announced that Gibraltar airport can by no means fall under a EU - UK trade agreement.
Unsurprisingly, 96% of the inhabitants of Gibraltar voted against the Brexit.
Post by: Azzuro on April 02, 2017, 12:06:01 pm
In response, former conservative party leader Michael Howard has said that 'Our PM May is willing and able to defend Gibraltar, like Margareth Thatcher defended the Falkland islands', implying the UK would be willing to enter an armed conflict with the EU over Gibraltar if nescessary.
That escalated quickly. But does Spain have any legal claim to Gibraltar, seeing as the UK entered the EU with Gibraltar in its possession and thus should also leave with it? Or wait, is Spain even asking for control of Gibraltar, or just giving the UK a(nother) middle finger in the exit negotiations by excluding Gibraltar from them? Likely the Conservatives are doing some macho posturing hoping for the glory days of Thatcher.
In any case, Spain dropping opposition to Scottish EU entry can only fuel the calls for Independence Referendum v2. I'm predicting that before the two years are up, the whole EU implicitly says that an independent Scotland would be guaranteed express EU re-entry.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 02, 2017, 03:11:38 pm
Tbh: I dont think it will get very serious, but there will be a lot of posturing on both sides and things will probably get harder for those living in Gibraltar (and those not living in Gibraltar but working there) as it seems likely that the frontier is going to become less permeable real soon.
Also: it does seem that there was some tradeoff behind the scenes does it not? Aka: no veto to Scotlamd in exchange for veto rights over Gib's status
Post by: Starver on April 02, 2017, 05:20:23 pm
Also: it does seem that there was some tradeoff behind the scenes does it not? Aka: no veto to Scotlamd in exchange for veto rights over Gib's status.Rather puts paid to a Scottish(-Ulsterish?)-Gibraltean breakaway from the one Union to (re)join the other Union.
Post by: martinuzz on April 02, 2017, 05:22:56 pm
EDIT: my newspaper's cartoonist on the Brexit:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/foto/bas-van-der-schot~p4368443/#&gid=1&pid=4419371
Post by: hector13 on April 02, 2017, 05:28:28 pm
Best thing May can do is threaten to sell Gibraltar to Putin as a forward naval base.
EDIT: my newspaper's cartoonist on the Brexit:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/foto/bas-van-der-schot~p4368443/#&gid=1&pid=4419371
Pfft, the horrifically stereotypical Scot should be chained to May, not holding on for dear life.
Post by: martinuzz on April 02, 2017, 05:32:06 pm
Post by: Frumple on April 02, 2017, 07:21:41 pm
Poor guys, though. First being dragged from the union they wanted to remain in, now being used as an excuse to threaten war and facing the likelihood of pretty severe economic repercussions regardless. Critters probably don't have a win condition for this one.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 02, 2017, 07:51:05 pm
Recently, at least, California consistently votes Democrat. Would it be surprising to you if a Republican coordinated disaster relief for California? Or threatened to defend it were it invaded?Well, Republican politicians openly talk about their contempt for California and how they hope its people will suffer from their various problems, and the party made Chris Christie a pariah for accepting disaster relief for New Jersey because it was offered by Obama's administration, so....er....
Post by: Frumple on April 02, 2017, 09:07:14 pm
Not even sure what a proper stateside equivalent would be. Would have to be something ruddy weird involving guam or somethin'.
Post by: Sheb on April 03, 2017, 01:32:05 am
Post by: TD1 on April 03, 2017, 01:43:21 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 03, 2017, 01:51:30 am
Furthermore, I'm betting both parts will get strongly worded warnings from their neighbours, if the saber-rattling warms up too much.
Not sure about Trump, though. He looks lile the kind of guy who enjoys bumfights. And Bad Vlad would enjoy it as it would weaken Western Europe even further. But other than that? Not bloody likely
So yeah, everyone chill. Its business as usual.
Post by: Strife26 on April 03, 2017, 05:14:13 am
Post by: Sheb on April 03, 2017, 06:17:16 am
Post by: Silleh Boy on April 03, 2017, 06:50:31 am
Post by: Azzuro on April 03, 2017, 10:43:22 am
I don't care whether the method used is boots on the ground or economic warfare, a threat to the sovereign rights of UK citizens - whether they live in the home counties or in the Falklands or Gibraltar - is deadly serious. And that's exactly what the comments of Tusk/the Spanish foreign minister are; a threat to try to hold us over a barrel and make us sacrifice the rights of the people of Gibraltar. I can tell Tusk and the rest now that we will never do that. For so long as the Gibraltrans choose to be a part of our nation, I support defending them with every method at our disposal. I'd happily go myself, for that matter.
And we're sabre-rattling? The EU leaders are making all the overtures they can to break up our country simply because we don't want to be in their ~50-year-old failing club any more. Their actions and words - particularly bringing Gibraltar into it - seem much more sabre-rattling to me than anything May or Michael Howard have said. The EU have as much as said they need to attempt to ruin us in order to frighten the other countries back into line, so that no one else dares to try to rip themselves away from Germany's teat.
Michael Howard's comments seem perfectly appropriate to me. The bureaucrats of the EU appear determined to make enemies out of us, and I think they could certainly stand to be reminded that if that's what they really, genuinely want, we'll fill that role as best we're able. And to take that lightly would be at their peril, given our track record.
Whoa, calm down there buddy. According to the news, Spain isn't even asking for control of Gibraltar, they're just asking for a veto over the EU agreements regarding Gibraltar which all require unanimity, so there's basically zero change apart from the EU acknowledging Gibraltar as an issue important to Spain. The border will become a lot harder to cross regardless, as the UK leaves the common market, so the EU isn't even playing hardball here, it's just reverting to the situation pre-EEC.
Post by: da_nang on April 03, 2017, 11:07:22 am
I'm hoping that the current issue with Gibraltar isn't going to be used to polarise people against a 'common foe'. We don't need more enemies being made and more lasting emnity out of something that's already a mess - that feels like that may be a little much to hope for in the current political climate though.The whole Gibraltar War hysteria is ridiculous and blown out to galactic proportions. It reminds me of "War is unforeseeable" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khJNPg_PadI). I mean, how else was the guy supposed to answer the question? Tell them the UK won't defend its territories? Say nothing?
It's the media on both sides trying to generate clicks through ridiculous spin on obvious, unavoidable truths; don't pay attention to it.
Post by: Frumple on April 03, 2017, 12:13:54 pm
It would indeed have been ridiculous if the leave camp had actually done the sane thing and questioned what the hell he was going on about instead of setting their position firmly on top of the threat, but that ain't what happened. Which is why so much attention has come down on it.
Post by: Sergarr on April 03, 2017, 01:08:12 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 03, 2017, 01:17:35 pm
"Backstabbing"
Strong, emotive language, that - if nothing else.
Post by: Sergarr on April 03, 2017, 01:31:18 pm
The EU has done so much for them... well, no longer. The Welsh and English can cry as much as they want about how they want to eat their cake and have it, too, with their inane demands to remain in the common market while also having sovereign immigration control and trade deal making, but they'll find out that they're no longer the "special exception", and thus will not get what they want.
Post by: TD1 on April 03, 2017, 01:58:42 pm
When, in reality, it simply wasn't working any more. He didn't feel the relationship was right, even if he did appreciate the concessions. There was no emotive backstabbing. No betrayal. Just a parting of ways.
I mean, you should know better than to apply such emotional terms to politics, especially on such a large scale.
Post by: Sergarr on April 03, 2017, 02:02:32 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 03, 2017, 02:03:47 pm
Post by: Sergarr on April 03, 2017, 02:05:09 pm
Post by: Starver on April 03, 2017, 02:06:11 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 03, 2017, 02:08:22 pm
Plus, I'm fairly certain there's a few too many halves in there.
Post by: Frumple on April 03, 2017, 02:18:38 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 03, 2017, 02:24:00 pm
The point was that the actual divorce itself wasn't a betrayal. After he decided to have a divorce, it's true that both sides got rather mouthy, which is kinda par for the course. It's true that after she implied that she wanted to keep custody of the kid he shook his fist at her, but so far no blow has landed.
Personally I'm not the biggest fan of the divorce metaphor, but you have to admit it has remarkable flexibility.
Post by: martinuzz on April 03, 2017, 03:48:11 pm
Post by: Azzuro on April 05, 2017, 11:51:11 am
Correct analysis, if a bit shallow.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 05, 2017, 12:05:54 pm
To shift the thread away from the poor overused divorce metaphor: Singapore is not quite what Brexiters think it is (https://www.ft.com/content/9f6eeb64-1864-11e7-a53d-df09f373be87)I see through your feeble attempt to make me sign up to read
Correct analysis, if a bit shallow.
Post by: TD1 on April 05, 2017, 12:07:16 pm
Post by: Sergarr on April 05, 2017, 12:07:43 pm
Post by: hector13 on April 05, 2017, 12:59:23 pm
And raise him what?
If we're being pedantic - which I so often am :)) - whatever you say first is what you do. Thus, by seeing it you can't raise it on that particular round of betting.
Post by: TD1 on April 05, 2017, 01:05:33 pm
Post by: martinuzz on April 05, 2017, 01:16:48 pm
That's because he hasn't been on the forums since the 26th of March.He's probably busy practicing isolationism
Post by: misko27 on April 05, 2017, 01:54:04 pm
Hope he's ok.
Post by: Sergarr on April 05, 2017, 01:55:36 pm
Hmm, oh yeah, he promoted sustainable living in isolation, I remember that. Still, hope he's okay.That's because he hasn't been on the forums since the 26th of March.He's probably busy practicing isolationism
Post by: TempAcc on April 05, 2017, 02:01:48 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 05, 2017, 02:29:02 pm
Post by: Helgoland on April 05, 2017, 03:19:19 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 05, 2017, 03:48:03 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 05, 2017, 04:50:12 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 05, 2017, 05:32:51 pm
Shush, dont say disgusting stuffHmm, oh yeah, he promoted sustainable living in isolation,That's because he hasn't been on the forums since the 26th of March.He's probably busy practicing isolationism
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 17, 2017, 04:56:59 am
Naah, he probably just mangled the k and e on his keyboard and is unable to post without these.The hilarious thing is I actually did break my "k" key and got a new one imported from Murrica only to have the computer in question break itself
But yeah, not dead or in isolation, just very busy. Spent the last weeks sailing around England and Northern coast of Yurop, was pretty dank all around, though I still have much work to do before I'm back to the usual schedule of
Post by: martinuzz on April 17, 2017, 10:27:49 am
Post by: hector13 on April 18, 2017, 06:18:13 am
Mrs. May calling for snap elections (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39629603). Let's see if Bregret is an actual thing.
Only ~6 weeks for campaigning though. Hopefully opposition parties have been on the ball with their plans for Brexit.
Post by: Sheb on April 18, 2017, 06:44:06 am
Well then.
Mrs. May calling for snap elections (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39629603). Let's see if Bregret is an actual thing.
Only ~6 weeks for campaigning though. Hopefully opposition parties have been on the ball with their plans for Brexit.
He, good, there should have been a General Election after the Brexit vote, rather than the farce that led to May becoming PM.
In other news, UK Gov wants to leave EU, refuse to let EU agencies leave. (https://euobserver.com/tickers/137598) :P
Also, Covenant, I always figured you were more the UKIP (Or even BNP on a bad day) type rather than Labour. Colour me surprised.
Post by: Neonivek on April 18, 2017, 06:47:18 am
Though I guess that is to be expected (Why would the UK NOT try to suck up all the benefits they can? Principle?). At this point a REAL possible outcome is that the UK ends up in the EU in essence (basically this whole Brexit thing ending up being the UK forcing a special deal onto the EU)
Post by: hector13 on April 18, 2017, 06:57:24 am
Well then.
Mrs. May calling for snap elections (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39629603). Let's see if Bregret is an actual thing.
Yeah, we better hold our breath and wait and see if Corbyn gets in ;)
To be honest, I'm sad about it. After the election, Red Jez will have to go, and Labour might actually end up with a leader we have to worry about again. I feel we could have clung onto the status quo for at least another couple of years.
Oh well. Interested to see if UKIP retains its position in the national vote, or if the Lib Dems manage to worm their way back into third place.
Nah the British parties have to campaign that Brexit is still happening, but they can't do that in Scotland. I am curious how they deal with that dichotomy. I'm mostly surprised in my gut I still want the U.K. in yoorup.
I'm probably with you that Labour won't do well and I don't think the Lib Dems can move past the view they were spineless during the coalition, while Theresay May at least appears competent. She's also had the benefit of knowing she wants to do this, and has thus prepared for the campaigning.
My gut further tells me the Tories consolidate their position at the expense of Labour, while the SNP retain most of their seats in Scotland. Hopefully. May has forced Sturgeon's hand a bit, they may have to campaign on indyref2 to some extent. Could backfire handily though, for either side.
Post by: Sheb on April 18, 2017, 06:59:07 am
Nah the British parties have to campaign that Brexit is still happening, but they can't do that in Scotland. I am curious how they deal with that dichotomy. I'm mostly surprised in my gut I still want the U.K. in yoorup.
I'm probably with you that Labour won't do well and I don't think the Lib Dems can move past the view they were spineless during the coalition, while Theresay May at least appears competent. She's also had the benefit of knowing she wants to do this, and has thus prepared for the campaigning.
My gut further tells me the Tories consolidate their position at the expense of Labour, while the SNP retain most of their seats in Scotland. Hopefully. May has forced Sturgeon's hand a bit, they may have to campaign on indyref2 to some extent. Could backfire handily though, for either side.
Yeah, May probably wouldn't do the snap election thing if she wasn't sure to win a good majority.
Post by: Starver on April 18, 2017, 07:01:30 am
Mrs. May calling for snap elections (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39629603). Let's see if Bregret is an actual thing.Won't necessarily work as straight-party-shift. We need competing pro-/anti-brexit candidates of the (otherwise) same hue ending up on the ballot alongside the avowed anti-/pro-brexit incumbent in most of the seats, or we can find out as little about public opinion as ww did about whether we wanted to leave the Common Market or not this year previous.
Also, "There will be a vote in the House of Commons on Wednesday to approve the election plan - the Labour opposition party it will vote in favour." I can't work out which actual rewording of this, in the article, was actually intended, though the meaning is of course clear. (If I disagree, slightly. It opens up MPs who are opposite on the Corbyn issue from their own constituents to be vulnerable to the forces so unleashed.)
Post by: Sheb on April 18, 2017, 07:06:18 am
Post by: Neonivek on April 18, 2017, 07:08:28 am
Post by: Sheb on April 18, 2017, 07:46:57 am
It'd be political suicide at a national scale.
What about the LibDems?
Post by: hector13 on April 18, 2017, 07:51:30 am
Post by: Sheb on April 18, 2017, 08:05:00 am
They're already knackered. They have 10 seats, not much to lose to be fair.
That's 10 more seats than UKIP. :p
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 18, 2017, 08:56:20 am
inb4 LibDem-SinnFein-UKIP coalition from hell
inb4 hysteria over whoever's got the ex-BNP membership this time around
inb4 "why don't we just abolish the monarchy and be done with it"
Post by: smjjames on April 18, 2017, 09:06:17 am
Well then.
Mrs. May calling for snap elections (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39629603). Let's see if Bregret is an actual thing.
Only ~6 weeks for campaigning though. Hopefully opposition parties have been on the ball with their plans for Brexit.
So, she's trying to get a two thirds majority for her party before the actual vote? I think that's the gist of it? Could backfire on her since she has no control over how things actually go.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 18, 2017, 10:08:59 am
Spoiler: Random musings (click to show/hide)
Whatever the fate of the European Union, I am still of the opinion that we must ensure the European States remain strong, whatever fate befalls them usually befalls us after long. It's amusing that Merkel trusts our security services more than her own (https://archive.is/QukDw), it's trust we should maintain, if the EU threatens us we must in turn not make the mistake of allowing European Leaders to be left alone when they most need us. The EU may be no friend of ours, but Europeans certainly are.
My guess is that while no party (apart from the Lib Dem/Green) will back Bremain, the contest will eventually end up with the Tories backign Hard Brexit and Labour back Soft Brexit and staying in the Common market. Since for a bunch of reason the Tories are probably going to win anyway, the vote should overall be good news for Brexiters since it'd give the hard brexit more legitimacy.There is no such thing as a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. There is leaving the European Union, and there is staying in the European Union. Staying in the economic union with the EU wherein it would decide our trade terms with the entire world, with our trade partners, wherein it would lock us into the continent's protectionism against our will, is rather odd - we would under such a proposal mislabeled the soft brexit, be ostensibly leaving the European Union, whilst remaining shackled to the economic mechanisms which ensure the real control of the European Union. For the sake of what? Bankers having easy credit access to Europe? Hahahaha, no, that simply wouldn't do. It would be foolish to lower the EU flag only to remain within EU institutions. The libdems are having a right giggle if they genuinely thought we voted "Leave the European Union" in order to have the European Union negotiate our trade deals with the Commonwealth and the World. Gods forbid, having our trade deals negotiated by a Union determined to make the United Kingdom's economy fail as an example to other nations. Can't think of a quicker route to suicide tbh
Libdems committed suicide under Cleggy boiIt'd be political suicide at a national scale.What about the LibDems?
It was a rather sad affair, he's very sorry for it. In regards to the snap election, it seems clear that the election was triggered by May with the hefty pressure of the SNP, LD and Lab MPs, using the EU referendum results to interpret whatever mandate they wanted. Ostensibly the polls suggest that the Tories will be able to wipe out considerable numbers of pro-EU MPs who sit on constituencies which voted to Leave, and are MPs threatening to grind our gov to a halt. It's a gamble, a safe one - but a gamble nonetheless. I believe as long as the Tories don't get arrogant over positive statistics they should do splendidly, it seems that every time an election was a certain victory, its supporters didn't bother showing up for the "certain victory" and it turns into a surprising defeat.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 18, 2017, 11:06:42 am
That's because London is a shit, m8.Such individuals were not Londoners though, being from the rural countryside. I fear it is very much a generational thing, which would make it out to be considerably more than a geographic issue
'Elites' serves me well enough most of the time, but if you want something more banteriffic, I don't know, our all-powerful figureheads sounds about right.Commoners -> House of Commons -> House of Lords -> House of Overlords
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 18, 2017, 01:35:18 pm
Commoners -> House of Commons -> House of Lords -> House of Overlords
The House of Overlords of the United Kingdom, referred to ceremonially as the Eye of Godsmen, is the final house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons and the House of Lords, it meets in the Palace of Westminster.[3] Officially, the full name of the house is: We Godsmen Of Furthest Sight Who Guide The Fate Of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland convened in Shadow.
Unlike the publicly exposed lower houses, the members of the House of Overlords are not appointed based on democratic or aristocratic principles, but are taken from a mixture of elevation meritocracy from relevant corporate and social circles as well as non-heritable ritual attainment.[4] The membership of the House of Overlords is divided between these two groups, the Enlightened Eyes and the Sanguine Eyes. The Enlightened Eyes consist of exactly 256 beings elevated as Overlords by the methods of their seat, which exists in perpetuity. Elevation methods are determined by each seat's circle and are occasionally under retaliative binding, precluding their listing here.[5] The Sanguine Eyes consist of survivors of the Proclamation of Starless Night and all ongoing survivors of the Fated Venture. They have no set number and, lacking any elevation circle, rarely leave their seats except through death.[6] The Sanguine Eyes and the Enlightened Eyes are bound together through parliamentary obscurantism, not requiring any member of either group to identify themselves, as well as those members who have been identified adopting creation monitors. Very few of the latter group are female for obvious reasons.[7]
Few members of the House of Lords and only the Speaker of the House of Commons are aware of the Overlords. The Speaker employs their immemorial pronunciation at the instruction of the Monarch to clear difficulties created by the House of Commons, while the House of Lords is more independent, being retained through useful traditions and the legal weakness of the body.[8] Following the passage of the House of Lords Act of 1999, however, they have been far more obstructive to the Overlords, a trend that is believed to be sourced in the Lords who are aware of the Overlords guiding their ignorant peers. [citation needed]
The House of Overlords scrutinizes bills that have been approved by the lower houses and implants bills it wishes them to enact.[9] It regularly adds hidden clauses and amendments to legislation that was not originally implanted.[10] No act of law may be finalized in the United Kingdom without the approval of the Overlords[11], with the exception of the Monarch's rarely-invoked Divine Right of Establishment.[12] In this capacity, the House of Overlords serves to manage and protect the section of the human superorganism living under its authority.[13][14][15] [dubious - discuss] Bills can be introduced into either the House of Overlords directly or implanted within the lower houses or another public group. Members of the Overlords may never take on roles as government ministers even while employing a false identity, upon penalty of death [weasel words] under the Regulation for False Consciousness Act of 1951. The House of Overlords retains the right to partake of government support services, but in practice the Enlightened Eyes make use of their circles while the Sanguine Eyes are not in need.
A second Queen's Speech was held in the House of Overlords following the first speech in the House of Lords until 1991, when political difficulties regarding the Monarch's visitation began to emerge. The Overlords have little involvement in the British judicial system outside of the Judicial Management Committee, and some members of the Committee have infamously called for the disestablishment of Justice, a contributing factor to the Monarch's displeasure.[16] The Overlords also protect the practice and ritual of the Innermost Catholic Church of Lunes, and ensure that the Lunes do not reach beyond safe practice or are investigated by the public.[17]
>_
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 18, 2017, 01:56:09 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 18, 2017, 02:26:28 pm
Post by: TD1 on April 18, 2017, 02:56:29 pm
Post by: Sergarr on April 18, 2017, 07:00:27 pm
Hey, it's not our fault so many of you people want to remain in the EU's "common market" and are saying that their businesses and agricultural facilities will be in peril unless UK negotiates that. And guess what comes with this common market? That's right, regulations. UK will be forced to follow all EU regulations, and this time - it won't have any say at all about it. Ahahaha!My guess is that while no party (apart from the Lib Dem/Green) will back Bremain, the contest will eventually end up with the Tories backign Hard Brexit and Labour back Soft Brexit and staying in the Common market. Since for a bunch of reason the Tories are probably going to win anyway, the vote should overall be good news for Brexiters since it'd give the hard brexit more legitimacy.There is no such thing as a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. There is leaving the European Union, and there is staying in the European Union. Staying in the economic union with the EU wherein it would decide our trade terms with the entire world, with our trade partners, wherein it would lock us into the continent's protectionism against our will, is rather odd - we would under such a proposal mislabeled the soft brexit, be ostensibly leaving the European Union, whilst remaining shackled to the economic mechanisms which ensure the real control of the European Union. For the sake of what? Bankers having easy credit access to Europe? Hahahaha, no, that simply wouldn't do. It would be foolish to lower the EU flag only to remain within EU institutions. The libdems are having a right giggle if they genuinely thought we voted "Leave the European Union" in order to have the European Union negotiate our trade deals with the Commonwealth and the World. Gods forbid, having our trade deals negotiated by a Union determined to make the United Kingdom's economy fail as an example to other nations. Can't think of a quicker route to suicide tbh
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 18, 2017, 07:12:32 pm
Hey, it's not our fault so many of you people want to remain in the EU's "common market" and are saying that their businesses and agricultural facilities will be in peril unless UK negotiates that. And guess what comes with this common market? That's right, regulations. UK will be forced to follow all EU regulations, and this time - it won't have any say at all about it. Ahahaha!The same people who wanted us to remain in the EU want us to remain in the single market, for the exact reasons you mentioned - it strengthens their project whilst weakening the UK. I also question your laughter, as the UK is leaving the single market, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38641208) thus will not be subject to EU regulation or EU control of British trade.
Quote
Any agreement with the EU must "allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services", Mrs May said.It is of no surprise for example that before the referendum Nick Clegg wept, saying that to leave the EU would require leaving the single market - only to U-turn when he lost. Let them talk, the real contest will be decided in the elections, if the liberal democrats manage to achieve a majority they will have earned the mandate to cancel Brexit.
"But I want to be clear: what I am proposing cannot mean membership of the single market.
"It would, to all intents and purposes, mean not leaving the EU at all.
"That is why both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the single market."
Post by: Sergarr on April 18, 2017, 07:27:58 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 18, 2017, 07:34:36 pm
Well, hey, you're welcome to have your home industries ruined because their clients were all in EU, then!Hey look at none of the evidence you're providing
So much nothing is substantial in its emptiness
Post by: Sergarr on April 18, 2017, 07:38:56 pm
Post by: Sergarr on April 18, 2017, 07:43:30 pm
No, you have to provide evidence that the UK would suddenly lose every single bit of trade with the EU following Brexit.Well, that's obvious. They leave the EU's single common market, so they don't get to trade with EU! Simple, really.
EDIT: Wait, there's also USA and China's trade with EU. I forgot about them. Shit.
EDIT2: I guess that makes my argument debunked, then.
Post by: hector13 on April 18, 2017, 08:00:29 pm
Nah the British parties have to campaign that Brexit is still happening, but they can't do that in Scotland. I am curious how they deal with that dichotomy. I'm mostly surprised in my gut I still want the U.K. in yoorup.
I'm probably with you that Labour won't do well and I don't think the Lib Dems can move past the view they were spineless during the coalition, while Theresay May at least appears competent. She's also had the benefit of knowing she wants to do this, and has thus prepared for the campaigning.
My gut further tells me the Tories consolidate their position at the expense of Labour, while the SNP retain most of their seats in Scotland. Hopefully. May has forced Sturgeon's hand a bit, they may have to campaign on indyref2 to some extent. Could backfire handily though, for either side.
This seems a pretty astute summary of the factors involved. Though I imagine you're hoping it falls in Sturgeon's favour whereas I'm backing May.
Also, I thought you were backing independence for Scotland? If that's the case, why would you still want the U.K. in the EU? Or are you only in favour of Scottish independence in the event of the U.K. leaving the EU?
I am backing independence for Scotland, and my main reason for that (self-determination) kinda has me on the fence in terms of Brexit. I like the idea of Europe, but it is like most political things nice looking on paper but in practice, a bit shit. I also don't know that much about EU machinations to shift myself off the fence, one way or t'other. This on a conscious level, anyway.
As I say, my gut likes Europe, and doesn't like the Tories. Thus, a Tory-led charge away from the mainland doesn't sit comfortably.
Presently my desire for Scottish independence is kept separate from my feelings regarding Europe, until I can reconcile them. Which probably won't happen since I'm lazy.
Post by: Silverthrone on April 18, 2017, 10:03:32 pm
Well, the faster this union business is sorted (opinion: not entirely in favour, but I perfectly understand it, and taking back control is something one can always respect), the faster things can return to something more managable. Preferably before someone is killed.
(EDIT: A slight directed squarely against the Daily Mail staff, rather than the current government. They are merely somewhat disagreeable, and one certainly cannot say that the prime minister is not doing what she has promised.)
Post by: Neonivek on April 18, 2017, 10:07:20 pm
I assume it was just an emboldening spike (which shouldn't be taken seriously)
Post by: Neonivek on April 18, 2017, 10:15:55 pm
No, Neo, we're all still as racist as ever.
I was being serious...
Did you know that Nazis back Donald Trump... Do you think Donald Trump is a Nazi or in anyway responsible for them?
Unless you are trying to defend the UK and suggest they have no racism or problems with racism... which suggests the exact opposite (that they have "naturalized" racism, to the point where anti-race sentiments are shrugged off as a normal viewpoint)...
Quote
An advert for a famous pizza brand showed a black child briefly in a crowd scene in an advert last month, and we immediately began a boycott
Anti-Black sentiment is more typically American than UK. What the UK shares with the US right now is heightened Islamophobia. Though it is expressed differently...
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 18, 2017, 10:20:57 pm
No, Neo, we're all still as racist as ever. Non-whites only scurry out of doors under the cover of darkness, or with hoods concealing their faces, because they know otherwise the roving gangs of Brexiteers will attack them en masse.A shame, given the single greatest contribution to British culture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0_1g5FVYAc&feature=youtu.be) came from a black Brit.
We're also making significant progress purging them from the public eye. An advert for a famous pizza brand showed a black child briefly in a crowd scene in an advert last month, and we immediately began a boycott. They issued a public apology and have resolved to use only white, British, 100% Celtic blood actors in all of their advertisements from now on.
Post by: Neonivek on April 18, 2017, 10:25:33 pm
No, Neo, we're all still as racist as ever. Non-whites only scurry out of doors under the cover of darkness, or with hoods concealing their faces, because they know otherwise the roving gangs of Brexiteers will attack them en masse.A shame, given the single greatest contribution to British culture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0_1g5FVYAc&feature=youtu.be) came from a black Brit.
We're also making significant progress purging them from the public eye. An advert for a famous pizza brand showed a black child briefly in a crowd scene in an advert last month, and we immediately began a boycott. They issued a public apology and have resolved to use only white, British, 100% Celtic blood actors in all of their advertisements from now on.
Ok, I love him!
Anti-Black sentiment is more American than UK. What the UK shares with the US right now is heightened Islamophobia.
You know, I saw an article (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/islamophobic-read-news-more-racist-study-muslim-terrorism-radical-isis-plos-one-new-zealanders-a7663861.html) the other day that said people who read the news are more likely to be Islamophobic. I laughed out loud.
I... wouldn't doubt it. In fact it kind of makes perfect sense.
---
No but really did the spike finally level off? Because it was concerning...
I suspect it leveled off... like... a month after the vote... so yeah I am asking a REALLY old question.
Post by: Silverthrone on April 18, 2017, 10:31:29 pm
Anti-Black sentiment is more American than UK. What the UK shares with the US right now is heightened Islamophobia.
You know, I saw an article (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/islamophobic-read-news-more-racist-study-muslim-terrorism-radical-isis-plos-one-new-zealanders-a7663861.html) the other day that said people who read the news are more likely to be Islamophobic. I laughed out loud.
Well. Not particularly strange. Rather lol-some indeed.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on April 19, 2017, 02:35:08 am
There's a difference between "We need to stop radicalisation of the young, the spread of ISIS, and the importation of cultural ideals incompatible with modern society" and "Don't trust the ragheads"
Post by: scriver on April 19, 2017, 04:07:40 am
Post by: Starver on April 19, 2017, 05:07:35 am
You can hate Isis and radical Islam without hating Jamal at the curry shop, you know.Or Mr Singh, proprietor of your corner shop, or the Wus who do the absolute best sweet'n'sour pork, and that guy at the
Polski Sklep I Kawiarenka Internetowa whose name you never can remember because it's a funny spelling... Mazur?
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 19, 2017, 05:51:56 am
I am backing independence for Scotland, and my main reason for that (self-determination) kinda has me on the fence in terms of Brexit. I like the idea of Europe, but it is like most political things nice looking on paper but in practice, a bit shit. I also don't know that much about EU machinations to shift myself off the fence, one way or t'other. This on a conscious level, anyway.If Jezza was leading Brexit would you still have the same opinion? Also in your opinion, is self-determination irreconcilable within the UK? Pardon my questioning, we've not had much in the way of SNP viewpoints in Bay12 since Owlbread up sticks and went, and it leaves me very much curious
As I say, my gut likes Europe, and doesn't like the Tories. Thus, a Tory-led charge away from the mainland doesn't sit comfortably.
Presently my desire for Scottish independence is kept separate from my feelings regarding Europe, until I can reconcile them. Which probably won't happen since I'm lazy.
So has the racism spike gone down in the UK?
I assume it was just an emboldening spike (which shouldn't be taken seriously)
Spoiler: They put a statue of a white male on top of the racist spike (click to show/hide)
I was being serious...This is troubling news, I had no idea Trump was a Nazi. Now it makes sense why he wants to meet the Queen, he's going to force her to abdicate and pass the crown to the Duke of Farage, the Right Honourable Nigel III
Did you know that Nazis back Donald Trump... Do you think Donald Trump is a Nazi or in anyway responsible for them?
Unless you are trying to defend the UK and suggest they have no racism or problems with racism... which suggests the exact opposite (that they have "naturalized" racism, to the point where anti-race sentiments are shrugged off as a normal viewpoint)...
Anti-Black sentiment is more typically American than UK. What the UK shares with the US right now is heightened Islamophobia. Though it is expressed differently...It's usually expressed during terrorist attacks with suspicion and literal fear of Muslims
Post by: Starver on April 19, 2017, 06:23:20 am
Just FYI that we're a complex, heterogenous mix of self-conflicting values and opinions so that we're as much in conflict with ourselves as against A. N. Other, so long as the chips (not fries!) aren't actually anywhere near being down, and probably still when they are. And if someone disagrees with this... point proven! :P
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 19, 2017, 07:08:17 am
Post by: Sheb on April 19, 2017, 08:03:09 am
Yes? You're not going to find any objections to that statemeny among people critical of Islam. It's the "any criticism of Islam is racism!" crowd that's going to have a problem with it.
Yeah, because you never see people wanting to ban all Muslims immigrants for exemple. That's be preposterous.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 19, 2017, 08:13:27 am
The only thing the British agree on is you walk on the left and stand on the rightAnd driving the other way around, the power sockets, the two-faucet bathrooms, electric showers, regarding black pudding as food...
Btw: do British muslims eat black pudding? I just thought that it sounds like something that wouldnt fit dietary restrictions...
Post by: scriver on April 19, 2017, 08:36:00 am
Yes? You're not going to find any objections to that statemeny among people critical of Islam. It's the "any criticism of Islam is racism!" crowd that's going to have a problem with it.
Yeah, because you never see people wanting to ban all Muslims immigrants for exemple. That's be preposterous.
You're doing that passive agressive thing again.
Post by: Puzzlemaker on April 19, 2017, 08:59:20 am
Wahhabiphobia IS warranted though. Lets try to be accurate with our fears, at the very least.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 09:08:35 am
Islamophobia isn't really warranted. Lots of practitioners that have nothing to do with any extremism all around the world.
Wahhabiphobia IS warranted though. Lets try to be accurate with our fears, at the very least.
Well the Islamophobia in the UK sort of existed before ISIS and the direct fear of terrorism. Something about the problem created by Cultural Ghettos and lack of assimilation.
I'd say "Changing the values of our country" but... I think that was part of Canadian Islamophobia, that Muslims would enter Canada and change our country from progressive to regressive (as crazy as that is... for CANADA to worry about that and specifically target Muslims... because yeah NO OTHER country has traditional family values.) because they don't accept our way of life.
-Then again the whole Canadian Backlash might have to do with the brief stint of honor killings. Which the Muslim community was quick to denounce as unacceptable, because... of course it was unacceptable.
Post by: Helgoland on April 19, 2017, 09:30:52 am
FYI, this is not a hypothetical. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis)
Post by: scriver on April 19, 2017, 09:48:55 am
Substitute 'Muslims' by 'Jews' and you'll see where the problem is.
You can substitute "Muslims" for "Nazis" as well and it would have as much relevance.
Quote
FYI, this is not a hypothetical. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis)
And that would be applicable to the situation if we were only talking about 1000 people rather than millions.
Post by: Helgoland on April 19, 2017, 09:58:01 am
Substituting a people for a people is slightly different from substituting for a people the modern equivalent of the legions of hell.Substitute 'Muslims' by 'Jews' and you'll see where the problem is.
You can substitute "Muslims" for "Nazis" as well and it would have as much relevance.
Oh, the reason that ship wasn't let in was that folks thought the number of refugees coming over from Europe had become unreasonably high. Read up on the Kindertransport for more details.QuoteFYI, this is not a hypothetical. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis)
And that would be applicable to the situation if we were only talking about 1000 people rather than millions.
Quote
In contrast to the Kindertransport, where the British Government waived immigration visa requirements, these OTC children received no United States Government visa immigration assistance. Furthermore, it is documented that the State Department deliberately made it very difficult for any Jewish refugee to get an entrance visa. And it was even harder to secure the appropriate papers for their parents, hence most had to remain in Europe.
Post by: scriver on April 19, 2017, 10:07:18 am
Oh, the reason that ship wasn't let in was that folks thought the number of refugees coming over from Europe had become unreasonably high.QuoteFYI, this is not a hypothetical. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis)
And that would be applicable to the situation if we were only talking about 1000 people rather than millions.
And therefore you conclude that no other number, regardless of how high it is, is an unreasonable high number?
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 10:11:24 am
Islam is not a people. It is a religion, and religions have much more in common with ideologies than with peoples. You are born into your people, you choose your religion.
While that is true. Lets be real here, we aren't talking about Muslims IN GENERAL. We are talking about the "Undesirable" ones aren't we? The ones who are of a specific race.
Quote
And therefore you conclude that no other number, regardless of how high it is, is an unreasonable high number?
Well that is the question isn't it... WAS The number too high? and why was it too high?
Was the UK's infrastructure collapsing under the weight? Or is there... some other underlying issue?
Post by: Sheb on April 19, 2017, 10:20:53 am
But you see, you can't claim you're only Islamophobe against extremists if the policy you're arguing for is a complete entry ban for all Muslims. I'm not saying that's your position scriver, but just pointing out that saying that:
Yes? You're not going to find any objections to that statemeny among people critical of Islam. It's the "any criticism of Islam is racism!" crowd that's going to have a problem with it.
Is wrong. Plenty of people critical of Islam do dislike all muslims as a blanket thing.
Post by: scriver on April 19, 2017, 10:27:19 am
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 11:04:15 am
Quote
we're already overcrowded
Well if you want to fight against globalists you might want to throw out that old myth. This isn't an episode of Captain Planet (Which by the way, they had two episodes dedicated to this!)
It helps when the excuses to justify a stop to Muslim Immigration weren't... you know... empty excuses with the façade of validity.
Quote
the ones we have aren't assimilating to the standard I would like'
This is also one I tried NOT to bring up too heavily because if I was wrong and this wasn't an issue... it would be a sign of racism.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 11:10:56 am
Quote
We have a population approximately a sixth that of the USA, in an area that could fit into the United States 40 times over. Moreover, it's highly concentrated in England. The vast majority of immigrants aren't going to be settling in the (relatively sparsely populated) Scottish highlands.
And the entire population of the US could happily live... in Texas. Which is twice the size of the UK.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 11:14:13 am
I invite you to make that suggestion to them and see how they respond.
It is more that the "overcrowding" is more a product of poor infrastructure and design.
Well... More that it was once good design but population increases change the needs.
Or rather what hilariously happened to Brasilia which was supposed to be a perfect city.
Edit: Interestingly, after looking into things... A million temporary immigrants over 3 years? That is about right for the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10509723/UK-population-could-hit-132-million-warn-official-figures.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10509723/UK-population-could-hit-132-million-warn-official-figures.html)
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 11:24:07 am
Quote
I thought a moment ago you were saying it was a myth?
It is, it assumes that no significant changes will occur in order to mitigate or eliminate the problem. It is also ignoring that the cause of overpopulation isn't the population but the handling of the population.
It is basically blaming the EFFECT... for the cause.
That is the myth.
Increasing the population doesn't make the problem go away, nor should it aggravate it (Mostly because the UK is doing the bare minimum in keeping up). Though it IS interesting that a population decrease is devastating for a country.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 19, 2017, 12:51:19 pm
Btw: do British muslims eat black pudding? I just thought that it sounds like something that wouldnt fit dietary restrictions...Black pudding made from pig blood and skin naturally isn't halal, but black pudding made from lamb or cow blood is completely fine. I believe blood is only an issue for certain kosher requirements. Note as well, the question of whether "muslims" eat black pudding is different from whether black pudding is halal, as alcohol is haram, yet all the same British muslims imbibe it, as is the case in many Muslim countries in the world. So you can go down to Malaysia for example and the cashiers will all have "no alcohol for under 21s and Muslims" but the edgy teens still behave like edgy teens
Well the Islamophobia in the UK sort of existed before ISIS and the direct fear of terrorism. Something about the problem created by Cultural Ghettos and lack of assimilation.The UK has not had this problem until after labour's mass immigration policy post 9/11. Before then, assimilation was the standard, after that the government did its best to stop assimilation in order to make Britain "multicultural."
I'd say "Changing the values of our country" but... I think that was part of Canadian Islamophobia, that Muslims would enter Canada and change our country from progressive to regressive (as crazy as that is... for CANADA to worry about that and specifically target Muslims... because yeah NO OTHER country has traditional family values.) because they don't accept our way of life.
-Then again the whole Canadian Backlash might have to do with the brief stint of honor killings. Which the Muslim community was quick to denounce as unacceptable, because... of course it was unacceptable.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Contrast with Marine Le Pen who canceled her meeting with the Grand Mufti of Lebanon when he told her to wear a veil (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-lepen-idUSKBN1600R6)
Who is going to assimilate whose culture
Look at the face of your premier. What happened to Canadian resolve
While that is true. Lets be real here, we aren't talking about Muslims IN GENERAL. We are talking about the "Undesirable" ones aren't we? The ones who are of a specific race.Gingers aren't that bad tbh
I invite you to make that suggestion to them and see how they respond.It's even more hilarious considering how Texas used to belong to Mexico until illegal American immigrants enriched Texas with their culture. It was only a few thousand American immigrants, just seeking a better life, those bigoted Mexicans who tried shutting down the border were just being racist for fearing that the WASPs would refuse to assimilate into Catholic Mexican culture
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 12:54:02 pm
Quote
Who is going to assimilate whose culture
Look at the face of your premier. What happened to Canadian resolve
Canada doesn't want to assimilate cultures.
That is kind of not our goal here.
So... Thank you? If they want to "assimilate" Canada they better get in line with all the other cultures within Canada.
Not to mention there are... negative implications of any society that has a strong sense of assimilation. A current embarrassment in Canada is how we are slowly assimilating Inuit culture passively.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 19, 2017, 01:43:06 pm
Canada doesn't want to assimilate cultures.Don't thank me m8 it's your country, I'm just glad to see Canada is finally getting over it's serious racism, it's so progressive for lesbian premiers to obey imams who preach their followers to warn her that she'll be treated the same as alcoholics, adulterers and gamblers for her sinful ways. It's at times like this when Canada bravely shows its face, that it looks to the world and declares in the defence of its values, it will sit in the corner obediently, in those moments I know Canada's values will stand the test of time.
That is kind of not our goal here.
So... Thank you?
Not to mention there are... negative implications of any society that has a strong sense of assimilation. A current embarrassment in Canada is how we are slowly assimilating Inuit culture passively.
On a more serious note, affluent gated communities can easily preach others to tear down their front door. What a glory it must be to have a continent to your own flanked by two oceans and guarded by the most powerful naval force in the world, thus that whoever arrives is a person of your choosing! Alas poor Canada, burdened as it is by wealthy Asian migrants, bringing in all their money and commerce - however will it cope?!! Where on such a tiny continent can it house all these rich people who applied legally to become a part of Canadian civic society? One man can only kowtow so much! (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chinese-fundraiser-trudeau-statue-1.3863266)
In case I haven't been clear enough, I take issue with gross oversimplifications. As it happens, not everywhere is the same, and you would do well to know what you're talking about before asserting it as fact, as I'm sure you have no reason why you believe the UK has been doing the bare minimum to keep its people alive - indeed, we live in mordor, where everyday is a terrorist attack and BNP marches through the streets whilst industrial capitalists purchase souls on the flesh market for reckless consumption and needless greenhouse emissions. I reckon if I looked out my window I would see another march of racists out to lynch the Angolans for the crime of drinking semi-skimmed milk and sounding too much like Anglos.
Or perhaps we don't. With a look out my window I see the sun setting in another regular day in Britain.
Neo, this would be much, much less frustrating if you would post a single source for any claim you make. If you're going to tell me how my country is run and how it should be run then please provide the information you used to conclude this, simply calling everyone racist if they disagree with you is no substitute for good reason - I think you'll find one can have a strong dislike of being murdered for their faith and not be racist.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 02:11:37 pm
Quote
I think you'll find one can have a strong dislike of being murdered for their faith and not be racist
It is because... There is this very obvious undercurrent here... that is very blatant.
But because it is so obvious it kind of can't be commented on, but sidestepped around.
Quote
Don't thank me m8 it's your country, I'm just glad to see Canada is finally getting over it's serious racism, it's so progressive for lesbian premiers to obey imams who preach their followers to warn her that she'll be treated the same as alcoholics, adulterers and gamblers for her sinful ways.
Once again... Thank you?
You seem to have this idea that the ideal situation was for her to bravely bust down the door and slap the religion out of them... for the sake of... tolerance?
--
But if you want a GENERAL idea of what has been whispered in my ears
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9075849/Multiculturalism-has-left-Britain-with-a-toxic-legacy.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9075849/Multiculturalism-has-left-Britain-with-a-toxic-legacy.html)
So what is the enemy here?
"an equal right to maintain its own identity, culture, language, religion and customs"
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 02:22:58 pm
Quote
where different communities did not interact with each other and all sense of a common identity was lost, replaced by a Babel of languages and conflicting cultures.
And then there is
Quote
Some of the arriving groups have deep commitments to religious views that place women in a subordinate position, and which lead them to think that practices such as homosexuality are an abomination that should be severely punished.
And then we have the quote I used earlier... and we get the general tapestry.
A culture scared of losing its culture sees outsiders as the general enemy and as such wants to impose... limitation on the effect they can have on the culture.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 02:25:18 pm
I think I may have just lost my mind for a moment, but is Neo attacking his own argument right now?
No... though, I guess... without context they only stick out as choice in my mind... rather then as admonishment for other views.
It is a very... Troubled Climate.
I can understand the idea of there simply not being ready to take on such a burden of immigrants... But it is kind of clear that isn't the issue. It is the pretense that people use to give it legitimacy. The article is a bit closer to what I think is actually going on in a few people's minds.
Post by: Starver on April 19, 2017, 02:26:09 pm
And that would be applicable to the situation if we were only talking about 1000 people rather than millions.Millions, schmillions...
And non-assimilation was much earlier perpetuated by the rules against giving Council Housing to recent immigrants. Quite rightly, one could say, not allowed to jump the queue over natives of long standing(-in-line), but that just highlights the problem of not enough such housing (which Right To Buy v1 didn't help).
So, anyway, with the country only gradually weaned off of "No children, no dogs, no Irish, no blacks, and if you think I'll let anybody cook curries in my houses day-in day-out forcing me to replace all the carpets when they leave...", and immigrants not given randomly scattered council homes so as to 'dissolve' them into British culture, the ones already settled because they had the money to buy homes helped the newcomers settle in homes they get help buying (located near to where the assisting immigrants were, due to familiarity and access and sustaining those original socio-geographic links), and so clumps of immigrants arose, perhaps precipitated to out-movement of original residents to free up more homes, and leading to potential self-ghettoisation in areas, putting extra pressures on links to the 'normal' communities beyond the amorphous borders.
So it happened with the Huguenots, that's how various Chinatowns arose, the themed streets of the Godfather setting, why Corby was dubbed "Little Scotland". What matters is what happens next.
And multiculturalism isn't a bad thing. Multiculturalism should be that your neighbours might celebrate Christmas or Hannukah or Eid or the birthday of Guru Gobind Singh or... Heck, they could be Catholic or Methodist or Greek Orthodox or even towards Puritanism (they likely don't celebrate anything if they're Jehovah's Witnesses, but the ones on my street don't begrudge any of the rest of us, and I suspect they also keep the doorknocking JWs from passing by that often. It might be a 'terretorial thing', but I've known them to have visited my parents' house several times, with nary even a leaflet on my own doormat... but I digress).
What multiculturalism isn't supposed to be is an assumption that Sharia Law governs a neighbourhood above UK law, any more than I could ever expect to enforce the rule that colanders shall be worn at all times, throughout a Pastafarian community, on pain of meatballs. That is not multiculturalism, that's more of a cultural balkanisation, made all the more unsettling to all other (pre-existing) cultural observers because of the double-whammy of otherness compressed into a handy collection of streets or even entire districts. (All but the "been here since the ice-age" lot forgetting that their self-identified community was disturbing to the predecessors they displaced or else inherited the Brick Lane-type nexus of congregation and transition from...)
I know there are people with far more vehement opinions about this than I, and I think they're wrong in so many ways. But that's a given, and I suspect I wouldn't be entirely comfortable living alongside them.
Post by: Jopax on April 19, 2017, 02:28:25 pm
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 02:40:57 pm
Quote
What multiculturalism isn't supposed to be is an assumption that Sharia Law governs a neighbourhood above UK law, any more than I could ever expect to enforce the rule that colanders shall be worn at all times, throughout a Pastafarian community, on pain of meatballs.
Wait a minute... Huh? Where do you get this?
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-europe.html (http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-europe.html)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sharia-law-alive-well-uk-6957168 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sharia-law-alive-well-uk-6957168)
Hmm... those are close... but religious courts aren't anything new (though complaining about it sure is)... So where is this idea from? AHA!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering-Sharia-law-Britain-As-Islamic-extremists-declare-Sharia-law-zone-London-suburb-worrying-social-moral-implications.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering-Sharia-law-Britain-As-Islamic-extremists-declare-Sharia-law-zone-London-suburb-worrying-social-moral-implications.html)
Yeah that guy is nuts... I am not sure under what circumstances would it be acceptable other than gated communities.
I'd ask why you guys don't have laws that pertain to this... But then I'd probably find out you already do.
Then again it IS important to know how contract law works in the UK (YES it is related...)
No one's calling for forced assimilation here; the banning of foreign languages, etc. That'd be ridiculous. Multiculturalism is fine and good so long as the boundaries between groups are sufficiently lax.
Remember the folly of multiculturalism is SPECIFICALLY as quoted:
"an equal right to maintain its own identity, culture, language, religion and customs"
Though... Given how even the US has religious courts...
---
Edit: Here we go an UPDATED article!
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain (https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain)
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 02:52:03 pm
Okay, since we're playing hardball, let's play hardball.
Say you have a large immigrant influx into Canada who practice female genital mutilation. What then?
Why does large influx matter?
But let me check for a moment...
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/Canada/ (http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/Canada/)
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 02:55:02 pm
Oh good, a page from 2001 last updated in 2007 that's 100% unrelated to female genital mutilation.
Answer my question, Neo.
The scream was on how dense it was and how much reading I'd need to find do to find out.
I know there are limits to religious practices in Canada (Though we will let some people die, even innocent children, if it means keeping their religious practices often times) but I don't know how much female circumcision goes by... (not to mention there are types and degrees)
So I have NO idea... I can't read through all this!
Post by: Starver on April 19, 2017, 02:55:28 pm
It's not me that's getting 'this'. I was going into what the "anti-multiculturalism, blend everybody up into a (white, probably Anglican if possible) homogenous goop with no texture" lot tend to talk about as (bad, but for them the only form of) multiculturalism.QuoteWhat multiculturalism isn't supposed to be is an assumption that Sharia Law governs a neighbourhood above UK law, any more than I could ever expect to enforce the rule that colanders shall be worn at all times, throughout a Pastafarian community, on pain of meatballs.
Wait a minute... Huh? Where do you get this?
I say that if you are viewing a map at any level above the basic pixel's-worth of data, you should ideally get a smeary wash composed of all differently-coloured elements in an unclumpy way, any gradients of resulting hue being self-similar regardless of how far you zoom in or out...
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 02:57:14 pm
It's not me that's getting 'this'. I was going into what the "anti-multiculturalism, blend everybody up into a (white, probably Anglican if possible) homogenous goop with no texture" lot tend to talk about as (bad, but for them the only form of) multiculturalism.QuoteWhat multiculturalism isn't supposed to be is an assumption that Sharia Law governs a neighbourhood above UK law, any more than I could ever expect to enforce the rule that colanders shall be worn at all times, throughout a Pastafarian community, on pain of meatballs.
Wait a minute... Huh? Where do you get this?
I say that if you are viewing a map at any level above the basic pixel's-worth of data, you should ideally get a smeary wash composed of all differently-coloured elements in an unclumpy way, any gradients of resulting hue being self-similar regardless of how far you zoom in or out...
Multiculturalism tends to be opposed more by Strong National and/or Cultural Image.
Not homogeny or at least directly, racism.
Quote
I want to know what you think the government of Canada should do, not what the current legislation says that it would do.
I'd never be able to tell you on the spot. I know the two lightest forms are acceptable and should be allowed under religious circumstances only.
I don't think Canada should allow any more then that, but I'd want a consensus first. Though given that any more then that and we get into serious cases of life-altering maiming... I don't think Canada favors it.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 03:14:39 pm
The two lightest forms are not acceptable, actually. They are all a violation of human rights (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/).
I said circumcision.
Post by: Jopax on April 19, 2017, 03:16:13 pm
Edit:
So it doesn't seem like a snipe. Neo, earlier you said you couldn't read the whole thing that was linked. What are you arguing with then? What are your tools and weapons in this discussion of ideas and merits if your ideas are based upon misguided beliefs that aren't based in reality and fact?
I really suggest you take a step back and take a few days to read up on these issues before coming back to the discussion. You aren't doing anyone any favors, you're just irritating people by being impossible to talk with because it's basically like boxing with fog at this point, fog that is talking nonsense at that :V
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 03:18:37 pm
Which incidentally falls under genital mutilation.
Indeed, though it is a separate issue.
As for example... None of these apply to the lightest form.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Mostly because the lightest form of female circumcision is lighter than the standard male circumcision.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 03:24:20 pm
My question was about female genital mutilation.The two lightest forms are not acceptable, actually. They are all a violation of human rights (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/).
I said circumcision.
Yeah, but you were including it. (actually I thought you were referring to it... AS Female Genital Mutilation)
It amazes me how reticent some people are to give their viewpoints on things nowadays. I imagine it's due to some sort of fear of having the wrong opinion, or offending someone.
For my part, I don't want anyone fucking with the genitals of babies in any way that isn't medically necessary. I don't care how 'light' it is, or whether it's done to males or females. I'll happily share that opinion.
Agree or disagree, I don't get why with some people it's like pulling teeth trying to find out what their own opinion is. It's like they have to cite legal precedent for their opinions.
It is something that is a bit culturally ingrained in some religions... As long as it isn't excessive (and arguably it is already excessive) I feel I should accept it.
Still think babies should at least be numbed... but then again we are so dumb as a society it wasn't that long ago that we had to discover that yes... babies do feel pain.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 03:28:08 pm
Not... America 1950s "keeping women pure" sort of stuff.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 03:30:03 pm
I'd like to see some article or description of this "lightest" form, preferably from the WHO or some other internationally recognized organization.
I can't even find normal circumcision on WHO
Post by: Jopax on April 19, 2017, 03:31:05 pm
I will however retract the "two lightest" and stick with "Lightest" (as I forgot the second lightest, well assuming the second lightest on that page wasn't the third worst in circumcision), so long as it follows the circumcision methodology... and is ONCE AGAIN a religious practice with religious precedent.
Not... America 1950s "keeping women pure" sort of stuff.
So because it's religious and based in misguided thinking much older than that of 1950's America it's somehow ok?
Ninja Edit: It was linked literally posts ago by Ispil :V
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 03:33:04 pm
I will however retract the "two lightest" and stick with "Lightest" (as I forgot the second lightest, well assuming the second lightest on that page wasn't the third worst in circumcision), so long as it follows the circumcision methodology... and is ONCE AGAIN a religious practice with religious precedent.
Not... America 1950s "keeping women pure" sort of stuff.
So because it's religious and based in misguided thinking much older than that of 1950's America it's somehow ok?
Ninja Edit: It was linked literally posts ago by Ispil :V
I meant the same mentality of "Keep them pure by injuring them in order to prevent it"...
Also Ispil did not :P
At least I didn't SEE anything on male circumcision.
Post by: Jopax on April 19, 2017, 03:36:08 pm
Also, yes he did:
The two lightest forms are not acceptable, actually. They are all a violation of human rights (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/).
(Also also, I feel we should probably wrap this up or move to another thread or something, this is hardly Brexit stuff now)
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 03:37:39 pm
It is something that is a bit culturally ingrained in some religions... As long as it isn't excessive (and arguably it is already excessive) I feel I should accept it.
Despite seeing many arguments like this in the past few years, I'll never understand why I 'should' be impelled to accept something that is instinctively and logically abhorrent to me, as if it somehow makes me a bad person (and in whose eyes? Certainly not my own, or those of my community) to oppose practices like these.
I might not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death your right to say it.
Remember, no one can prevent you from getting an abortion (well... SORT OF). Your judge cannot prevent a divorce because they or you are Catholic.
We kind of accept that as a society.
Quote
Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support
Then there we go! Easy peasy, there is no excuse.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 03:44:53 pm
QuoteFGM is associated with cultural ideals of femininity and modesty, which include the notion that girls are clean and beautiful after removal of body parts that are considered unclean, unfeminine or male.
So you're saying there's no excuse for FGM, and that it should not be practiced in your country even by immigrant groups who regard it as a cultural norm? Is that not violating your principles of multiculturalism?
The Babies and children have no say in this exchange. If as an adult they wish to go through this procedure then go ahead. Plus Religious and Cultural Norms are separate.
It is also a part of multiculturalism.
I know, I know, this is all a bit off the deep end, but I feel that only with such an extreme example can I really make the point that there can be exceptions to absolute preservation of every shred of identity/culture/religion.
Ok THANK YOU for this add on! (not sarcasm) I was worried you were attacking me this entire time... I was sitting in my chair peeved going through this entire hoop waiting for the "And now you see Neonivek, you are EVIL!!! or STUPID!!! or A MONSTER!!!"
I understand there is a limitation to multiculturalism and how far it should go... (I still question the whole "we will let a child DIE!" part... but then again I don't like children dying)
But... Yeah... Letting a bunch of people set up Sharia law in a section of a town and allow them to bully unrelated people into following it... sounds like it is directly opposed by multiculturalism.
Post by: Neonivek on April 19, 2017, 04:01:26 pm
Well... At least in terms of how they are allowed to act upon it.
People are allowed to get Religious Courts appealed in normal courts right? Because that is a fairly typical law.
-Then again... Her divorce could reeaaaallly only be real through the religious court. Since I doubt she was seeking a legal divorce but a spiritual one.
Post by: Radio Controlled on April 19, 2017, 04:19:22 pm
Not entirely unexpected though I guess,
Spoiler: given her previous statements (click to show/hide)
A interesting situation either way, a party calling for a new election while still under investigation (https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/04/claims-may-called-an-election-to-escape-tory-expenses-scandal/) for fraud (https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/mar/15/second-tory-reveals-police-investigated-him-over-spending-allegations)in the previous one. But hey, at least we'll be able to see her defend her positions in some juicy debates. Then again, maybe not. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/18/theresa-may-rules-out-participating-in-tv-debates-before-election)
But, one wonders, will they have any time to spend on an election in the middle of Brexit negotiations?
Spoiler: Why, let's ask the woman of the hour herself. (click to show/hide)
Guess I can't really fault her for trying to strengthen their position when it seems they could make some gains and cement a stronger majority to get their preferred flavor of Brexit through. And as I've seen people point out this could prevent an election occurring just before the end of the negotiation period, which admittedly would also lead to uncertainty and potential spanners in the works.
And if this is any indication, at least Germany doesn't think this should interfere with the process:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
At least we can count on the British media to give us an unbiased view of the proceedings
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Yes, I know using the Daily Mail is akin to cheating at this point, but still. You can practically feel the erection of whoever made that poking you in the eye.
In related news, come one come all, be amazed! Witness the Amazing Jeremy Corbyn,
Spoiler: The Man Who Finishes Third In a Two Person Race (click to show/hide)
Now taking bets as to when exactly the UK will become a de facto one-party state, given the performance of the opposition.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on April 19, 2017, 04:47:39 pm
My hot bet is a surprise storm to power by the greens, who cancel brexit, the monarchy, and the economy in order to focus all of the governments resources on the important matter of discovering what their platform actually is
Post by: Silverthrone on April 19, 2017, 04:58:32 pm
Further, if we must go down that route, I do believe that drawing a direct comparison between islamophobia and the repression of the Jewish population in Nazi Germany is a ruddy, great simplification. It can be probed further, but it will only become more gauche as it goes.
Now back with the program:
I do not think that multi-culturalism, at its core, is wrong, that it is a bad thing. However, it is also not a good and great thing in an off itself. Further, it happens by itself, all the time. Every now living culture is a result of exchange and growth (frankly speaking, some excellent, some terrible). It carries on, and at its own pace. Indeed, a united England with one shared and cherished culture would likely have been a very strange notion for a bronze age Briton.
However, what rather irritates me is when this ideal of diversity is ham-handedly pushed into places not ready nor willing to accomodate them. One can imagine many of its cosmopolitan preachers, looking at the country-side (quite white and traditional, be it Britain or Bavaria), and thinking "Oh, my, these poor people have never known the joy of diversity, their lives must be a stagnant quagmire!". Then, they believe that a great service has been done to the poor provinsials when a few busloads of uprooted Afghan men is sent for them to manage as they can. That this act alone has enriched them. Meanwhile, the locals are left with a situation they did not want and cannot handle, and the newly arrivals are most likely left to fend for themselves (as always, some of those people are good, some of them are not).
It would no doubt have been an enrichment, had it occured at its own pace. Indeed, worcestershire sauce, chutney and tea are all (in my opinion) great examples of enrichment. Christmas, and most that is a part of it, is another. However, this enrichment ought to not be forced. Multi-culture will come with culture clash, and there will also come the point where one must decide what cultural traits are welcome and which are not.
One can post-pone this decision through cultural relativism, but why would anyone do such a dreadful disservice?
Post by: martinuzz on April 19, 2017, 05:57:15 pm
http://www.volkskrant.nl/foto/collignon-2~p4368444/4443835/
Post by: redwallzyl on April 19, 2017, 07:38:12 pm
Good Lord, am I out of the loop, some three pages out. Well, to summarise; Islamism is the common denominator for an awful lot of trouble, but it is often ignored and given undue space and privilige. Not particularly good at all. It is, however, a very wide denominator, as well. Not every single person to which it applies is part of the problem, and should be left out of the entire business. There is, after all, wheat and chaff. I think Islamism, and the negative behaviours that are tied to it, should be suppressed and discouraged. I think that it is perfectly warranted to do so. Partly because of the violence, and the risk to the public. Partly because I think it is well within the rights of native citizens in a country to declare that they want and do not want to see introduced.I would add that most problems between different peoples in such situations is often some side did not want to be in the situation they are in such as being involuntary up rooted or the local socieaty being stressed in some way. In the long term though many people's we are seeing are the result of both exploiting various peoples then attempting to deny them equal opportunity through discrimination. Turns out systematic oppression backfires. Who could have guessed?
Further, if we must go down that route, I do believe that drawing a direct comparison between islamophobia and the repression of the Jewish population in Nazi Germany is a ruddy, great simplification. It can be probed further, but it will only become more gauche as it goes.
Now back with the program:
I do not think that multi-culturalism, at its core, is wrong, that it is a bad thing. However, it is also not a good and great thing in an off itself. Further, it happens by itself, all the time. Every now living culture is a result of exchange and growth (frankly speaking, some excellent, some terrible). It carries on, and at its own pace. Indeed, a united England with one shared and cherished culture would likely have been a very strange notion for a bronze age Briton.
However, what rather irritates me is when this ideal of diversity is ham-handedly pushed into places not ready nor willing to accomodate them. One can imagine many of its cosmopolitan preachers, looking at the country-side (quite white and traditional, be it Britain or Bavaria), and thinking "Oh, my, these poor people have never known the joy of diversity, their lives must be a stagnant quagmire!". Then, they believe that a great service has been done to the poor provinsials when a few busloads of uprooted Afghan men is sent for them to manage as they can. That this act alone has enriched them. Meanwhile, the locals are left with a situation they did not want and cannot handle, and the newly arrivals are most likely left to fend for themselves (as always, some of those people are good, some of them are not).
It would no doubt have been an enrichment, had it occured at its own pace. Indeed, worcestershire sauce, chutney and tea are all (in my opinion) great examples of enrichment. Christmas, and most that is a part of it, is another. However, this enrichment ought to not be forced. Multi-culture will come with culture clash, and there will also come the point where one must decide what cultural traits are welcome and which are not.
One can post-pone this decision through cultural relativism, but why would anyone do such a dreadful disservice?
Post by: hector13 on April 20, 2017, 01:37:10 pm
I am backing independence for Scotland, and my main reason for that (self-determination) kinda has me on the fence in terms of Brexit. I like the idea of Europe, but it is like most political things nice looking on paper but in practice, a bit shit. I also don't know that much about EU machinations to shift myself off the fence, one way or t'other. This on a conscious level, anyway.If Jezza was leading Brexit would you still have the same opinion? Also in your opinion, is self-determination irreconcilable within the UK? Pardon my questioning, we've not had much in the way of SNP viewpoints in Bay12 since Owlbread up sticks and went, and it leaves me very much curious
As I say, my gut likes Europe, and doesn't like the Tories. Thus, a Tory-led charge away from the mainland doesn't sit comfortably.
Presently my desire for Scottish independence is kept separate from my feelings regarding Europe, until I can reconcile them. Which probably won't happen since I'm lazy.
No problem at all.
Anyhow, as you've pointed out a few times already over the course of the thread, Brexit doesn't really have a soft or hard variety, so it kinda defeats the purpose of leaving if in doing so you lose the ability to influence the way things go, but opt to stay in certain parts. It probably wouldn't matter who was leading Brexit, I still wouldn't be entirely on board with it.
As for self-determination within the UK, in an ideal world it could happen, but in practice, I don't think it can. Theresa May has been clamouring on and on about how the country needs to pull together, but failed to inform the Scottish government (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39331244) precisely when she was going to trigger Article 50, despite apparently having discussed it with the Welsh government - who voted to Leave, as opposed to Scotland's Remain.
Seems a bit petty, and a little bit hypocritical after May's call for a grown-up relationship between the UK government and the devolved administrations (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/theresa-may-wants-grown-up-relationship-with-scotland-1-4265901). Further cheekiness from that, when she says she wants the relationships built on "cooperation and consensus" but just outright rejects Scotland's demands to remain a part of the common market as well as the UK. Also the whole "we need to focus on Brexit, you can't have your referendum. We're having a general election, by the way" thing, which essentially wastes two months of your two year negotiation process aimed at disentangling the UK from the past 40+ years of EU law and regulation.
It seems that (at least the current) British government considers Scotland a petulant child that needs to be kept in line, but I'm also aware of my huge bias against the Tories and for Scotland.
Post by: Max™ on April 21, 2017, 11:01:03 am
Post by: Starver on April 22, 2017, 12:45:10 pm
(It hits The Times's paywall, but you get the gist from what little it'll display without crossing. Try The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-britain-back-queue-trade-deal-eu-angela-merkel-brexit-a7696376.html) if you want. Or Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-europe-idUSKBN17O07Z). Or Huffpo (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-may-prioritise-eu-over-uk-for-trade-deal-and-remainers-are_uk_58fb345be4b018a9ce5bad1e). Or... you can probably find it yourself, elsewhere.)
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 22, 2017, 01:12:14 pm
Post by: Starver on April 22, 2017, 01:14:14 pm
Oh what a friend we have in
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 22, 2017, 01:37:37 pm
Spoiler: SKIMMED (click to show/hide)
Also gonna reply later, very busy atm
Post by: Sergarr on April 22, 2017, 01:57:38 pm
When I saw the headline on the news-stand, I *splorf*ed... (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/trump-puts-eu-ahead-of-britain-in-trade-queue-l7t8zwn7k)Well, so much for the "USA will save us and replace EU trade-wise!" part of the Brexit movement...
(It hits The Times's paywall, but you get the gist from what little it'll display without crossing. Try The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-britain-back-queue-trade-deal-eu-angela-merkel-brexit-a7696376.html) if you want. Or Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-europe-idUSKBN17O07Z). Or Huffpo (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-may-prioritise-eu-over-uk-for-trade-deal-and-remainers-are_uk_58fb345be4b018a9ce5bad1e). Or... you can probably find it yourself, elsewhere.)
If this keeps up, and EU will manage to convince China to do the same, the Britain will be properly surrounded, which is a necessary stepping stone towards showing what happens to those who try to pull a fast one on the
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 22, 2017, 02:07:06 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 22, 2017, 03:21:40 pm
This was not the EU. This was Donald.Namely, Donald realising how the EU works.
Quote
"Ten times Trump asked her (Merkel) if he could negotiate a trade deal with Germany," the newspaper quoted a senior German politician as saying.Trump: Merkel, I want to make a trade deal with Germany
"Every time she replied, 'You can't do a trade deal with Germany, only the EU'," the politician said. "On the eleventh refusal, Trump finally got the message, 'Oh, we'll do a deal with Europe then.'"
Merkel: You can make a trade deal with the EU
Trump: No I want to make a trade deal with Germany
Merkel: No, you can only make a trade deal with the EU
Trump: But I want to make a trade deal with Germany
Merkel: Germany is in the EU, you can make a trade deal with the EU
Trump: But I want to make a trade deal with Germany
Merkel: The EU trade deal will apply to Germany
Trump: But it isn't a trade deal with Germany
Merkel: The deal is with the EU, which represents Germany
Trump: But the deal represents the European Union not Germany
Merkel: The EU represents Germany, the deal is with the EU
Trump: So we're making the trade deal with Germany right
Merkel: It will have to go through the EU, yes
Trump: I've gone through this over and over again, Germany
Merkel: Germany's trade deals are conducted by the EU
Trump: I love Germany, that's why I want to negotiate a trade deal
Merkel: It is legally impossible for Germany to conduct a trade deal
Trump: So you're saying Germany doesn't want a trade deal
Merkel: No-
Trump: If Germany doesn't want trade deals I'll negotiate with the Europeans instead
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on April 22, 2017, 03:29:28 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 22, 2017, 06:17:46 pm
Haha, you'll be lucky mate. I'm still waiting on answers from him to about half-a-dozen questions.I've given up trying to have a serious discussion, can't believe I managed to make it this far into 2017 still trying. Lord knows I am patient
"MPs urged not to sabotage Brexit" (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/778289/Brexit-news-MPs-warned-sabotage-Theresa-May-EU-Article-50-David-Davis) - Seems Theresa May has decided it will be considerably easier to conduct Brexit negotiations having eliminated pro-EU MPs from within her ranksSpoiler: given her previous statements (click to show/hide)
Don't agree with her decision, but hey at least people will not be going on for decades talking about how an unelected Prime Minister pulled the UK out of the EU
At least we can count on the British media to give us an unbiased view of the proceedingsDeploy orbital sides launcher
Now taking bets as to when exactly the UK will become a de facto one-party state, given the performance of the opposition.Tbh reported to the police for seditious thoughts, please report to your local job centre for reeducation
As for self-determination within the UK, in an ideal world it could happen, but in practice, I don't think it can. Theresa May has been clamouring on and on about how the country needs to pull together, but failed to inform the Scottish government (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39331244) precisely when she was going to trigger Article 50, despite apparently having discussed it with the Welsh government - who voted to Leave, as opposed to Scotland's Remain.That would be because she was in Wales, talking with the Welsh government
She met the first minister of Wales in Monday morning to talk about the future of Swansea and in Monday afternoon the date set for triggering article 50 was broadcasted to the entire country through the BBC. What are the SNP getting angry about, they weren't kicked out of Westminster - I don't see how Michael Russell hearing the set date for article 50 being triggered a few hours later from the Welsh suggests the UK is doomed to certain balkanization. The Majority of Scots oppose a second referendum (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-poll-majority-oppose-second-referendum-1-4351990) while Nicola Sturgeon announced a second referendum without a mandate from the Scottish people, without informing Westminster ahead of time. This is why I think the obstacle to self-determination and Britain versus self-determination sans Britain is the SNP itself - it's creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by going on a warpath regardless of what its voters want. Seems cheeky that Michael can turn that into an insult, without considering what his party's actions look like to the rest of Britain
Seems a bit petty, and a little bit hypocritical after May's call for a grown-up relationship between the UK government and the devolved administrations (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/theresa-may-wants-grown-up-relationship-with-scotland-1-4265901). Further cheekiness from that, when she says she wants the relationships built on "cooperation and consensus" but just outright rejects Scotland's demands to remain a part of the common market as well as the UK. Also the whole "we need to focus on Brexit, you can't have your referendum. We're having a general election, by the way" thing, which essentially wastes two months of your two year negotiation process aimed at disentangling the UK from the past 40+ years of EU law and regulation.There's nothing cheeky about rejecting the demand that Scotland remains a part of the single market and the UK, it's not a demand that can legally be satisfied:
Quote
There was further bad news for the SNP when Elmar Brok, a senior member of the European Parliament, also said there could be “no exceptions” to allow Scotland to remain in the single market.While it would be pretty awesome if the United Kingdom could simultaneously be an independent non-member of the European Union whilst a member of the European Union, it's not possible, nor do the European Union negotiators want to create such an exploitable precedence. In regards to EU law and regulation, the plan has been from the start to transfer EU law and regulation, thus causing no chaotic rush to disentangle 40 years of regulation; there is no issue there. The focus is very much regaining executive authority over how we run our country before deciding exactly what goals and how we run the country will be set
The German MEP, chairman of the parliament’s foreign affairs committee, told BBC Radio Scotland: "We cannot have two agreements with the United Kingdom and with Scotland. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/18/fresh-blow-nicola-sturgeons-bid-keep-scotland-single-market/)
It seems that (at least the current) British government considers Scotland a petulant child that needs to be kept in line, but I'm also aware of my huge bias against the Tories and for Scotland.Cameron's jellyfish crew gave off that tone, what with his whole infamous "pls don't destroy uk to piss off effin tories" speech, I don't see that in the current gov - who are stepping on eggshells since the SNP seems determined to turn anything into an insult with which to use against Britain. Despite the SNP always having a voice in Westminster, despite sending the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Ministers to discuss the future in Holyrood, the SNP then goes on saying it's a great insult to Scotland because Westminster didn't send David Davis - even though they invited him for March 16, the same day he was due to appear in the House of Commons (https://www.facebook.com/UKHouseofCommons/videos/376755032723622/). It's this whole thing of giving Westminster impossible demands, jumping at non-insults and then delivering insults in return - the SNP are trying to convince the majority of Scots who oppose more referendums that the English are Tories, that the Tories hold Scotland in contempt, and that the Scots hold the reverse in kind. I'm concerned it's gonna work, when unity seems so tantalizingly possible. Separating ourselves from a generation old trading bloc we were only half-heartedly in, that doesn't scare investors nearly as much as the prospect of breaking up a 300 year old union between the most integrated economies on the isles both using the same currency. Holyrood could keep losing independence referendums and it would still fuck up London, God knows what that would do to the rest of the country, and there's nothing much we can do if the SNP have decided they have the right to keep calling referendums whenever they feel like it.
Simply put, if the SNP tells you the Tories hold you in contempt, and the Tories tell you they don't, the former's far more trustworthy than the foreign latter. I suppose what I'm getting at is what could the Westminster gov do that would not be deemed an insult to Scotland by the SNP? It's painful having to defend why one rejects a Scotland remaining in the EU and UK option when the EU is adamant that that is impossible, this is not a decision Westminster has any capability to allow
Or Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-europe-idUSKBN17O07Z). Or Huffpo (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-may-prioritise-eu-over-uk-for-trade-deal-and-remainers-are_uk_58fb345be4b018a9ce5bad1e). Or... you can probably find it yourself, elsewhere.)Of note is that all of this comes from The Times quoting unnamed sources, which explains the tone. Trump wants to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, so the Times comes to the conclusion that this is a catastrophic setback for the UK. During the referendum The Times officially supported Remain, while The Sun officially supported Leave - both are owned by Murdoch, thus Murdoch was shoring off all possibilities and catering to all audiences' preferences. Personally I stopped taking much stock in Trump after I realized he liked talking up whoever he was talking to, whether it was Taiwan, Japan, UK or Germany, and I truly don't know how much cocaine he must be on to be able to U-turn so rapidly from "yeah gonna blow you up" to "wtf I like you now". My suspicions around the Times trying to spin this as the USA being incapable of conducting a trade deal with the UK and EU aside, I do wonder what the Whitehouse's official public statements will come to be. As it stands their official stance remains that the USA and UK will conduct a bilateral trade agreement ASAP (http://www.cityam.com/263197/us-ready-forge-new-bilateral-trade-deal-uk-says-us-house). Trump is a hard one to understand. Personally I am not placing too much credit to the anonymous sources, partly on account of the Times's partisanship, partly on account that I sincerely hope the most powerful man in the world didn't actually not know how the EU nations conducted trade deals. Before attempting to conduct trade deals with the EU nations. Ten times.
This is not unexpected. Donald Trump looks only after number one. TBH I think he was encouraging Brexit with the expectation of making the British easier to bully down the line.Nah, seems much more likely he did it to court the Anglophile vote in the USA when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made very public interventions against the UK.
It is because... There is this very obvious undercurrent here... that is very blatant.It is because... This thing that is so obvious... So easy to point out... I can't say anything about it... But it's there... I won't tell you though...
But because it is so obvious it kind of can't be commented on, but sidestepped around.
-Every Neonivek post
Once again... Thank you?Launching into physical assault =/= Having my secular leaders submit to religious authority
You seem to have this idea that the ideal situation was for her to bravely bust down the door and slap the religion out of them... for the sake of... tolerance?
Yeah nah don't see an obvious middle ground here. It's either genocide or shariah law
Oh wait nah, I gave you an example. Marine Le Pen didn't assault anyone, she canceled the meeting. Look, such a simple gesture, and it demonstrates far more spine - she shows she will not compromise her values.
So what is the enemy here?
"an equal right to maintain its own identity, culture, language, religion and customs"
Quote
Almost every serious politician now recognises that Honeyford was correct to maintain both that multiculturalism is a recipe for the segregation of communities and that it would work against the development of a single set of basic values that could bind members of British society together. But while multiculturalism may have been abandoned as government policy, its legacy is everywhere.You seem to be running under the dogmatic assumption that multiculturalism is an inherent good. We've had a few decades of neolibs who wanted diversity because they saw it as an inherent good, without need for any justification except its own self-reference or it being the current year. We're doing our best to get rid of them, because it turns out keeping the peace between communities is harder than with individuals. That and the neolibs turned out to be covering for slavers but that's another story tbh
I think I may have just lost my mind for a moment, but is Neo attacking his own argument right now?Don't question it. Just accept it
I am truly, seriously lost here.
What I find depressing is that I could actually see this happening if Trump was handling negotiations directly.I like the story that Trump's daughter managed to convince him to launch air strikes on Syria with pictures of sad children
Post by: Sheb on April 23, 2017, 10:41:52 am
Don't recall that story. The only one I recall is Trump being basically goaded into authorising that airstrike that killed one US... marine?r old daug
Aren't you mistaking it for th eYemeni raid where a SEAL died, as well as 30-odd civilians (including a 8-year old american which was the daugther of that preacher that got dron'd)
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 23, 2017, 01:56:56 pm
Don't recall that story. The only one I recall is Trump being basically goaded into authorising that airstrike that killed one US... marine?This is the one in question (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/790384/Donald-Trump-launched-Syrian-air-strikes-because-Ivanka-URGED-him-Eric-Trump-Kushner-Assad)
Which, excluding the fact that people died, I found kind of amusing given the whole "Hillary is a warhawk!" shit that was being spewed.
Post by: redwallzyl on April 23, 2017, 03:20:39 pm
Post by: Neonivek on April 23, 2017, 05:39:47 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
---
Then again... multiculturalism is the right to your own beliefs. So I guess it really could be argued as being an inherent good regardless of the hardships.
Post by: TempAcc on April 23, 2017, 05:52:39 pm
It is because... There is this very obvious undercurrent here... that is very blatant.It is because... This thing that is so obvious... So easy to point out... I can't say anything about it... But it's there... I won't tell you though...
But because it is so obvious it kind of can't be commented on, but sidestepped around.
-Every Neonivek post
My sides are now floating in the kuiper belt, thanks a lot.
Post by: Neonivek on April 23, 2017, 06:12:43 pm
It is because... There is this very obvious undercurrent here... that is very blatant.It is because... This thing that is so obvious... So easy to point out... I can't say anything about it... But it's there... I won't tell you though...
But because it is so obvious it kind of can't be commented on, but sidestepped around.
-Every Neonivek post
My sides are now floating in the kuiper belt, thanks a lot.
Yep it is accurate. Still won't say... for a very good reason.
Post by: Neonivek on April 23, 2017, 10:07:54 pm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-education-cuts-state-school-teachers-budget-buy-pencils-pens-paper-funding-jeremy-corbyn-a7643456.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-education-cuts-state-school-teachers-budget-buy-pencils-pens-paper-funding-jeremy-corbyn-a7643456.html)
Which... apparently isn't doing too too well. From what research I can gather the UK has been trying to improve its school system for a while but has been having a very troubled time doing so.
Oddly enough the issue presented here as "Islamic Schools" was also one of the things that was in the docket of being eliminated if my studies are correct. Not SPECIFICALLY mind you (It actually seemed to be more about trying to change the despairing difference between schools).
---
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/news-events-and-publications/evidence-briefings/immigrant-integration-in-british-society/ (http://www.esrc.ac.uk/news-events-and-publications/evidence-briefings/immigrant-integration-in-british-society/)
Quote
•Integration is mainly presented in the media as a one-way process, with the onus being on immigrants to adapt.
Along with this it seems like integration is being dissolved on both ends as the ability of the UK to use its immigrants is weak as well... And because it is weak it means they rely on social services more and bog down other systems... and because they rely on social services more and bog down other systems... they don't integrate as well... which bogs the system... which hurts integration. So on and so forth.
---
So lets shore up the social systems and hold back on immigration so that can be fixed. How much should immigration be cut by?
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/11/23/brexit-immigration-cut-will-cost-uk-billions-every-year (http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/11/23/brexit-immigration-cut-will-cost-uk-billions-every-year)
Ok... interesting concept (I didn't post that to support some other argument, I just thought that was a really interesting POV when looking at things economically). Yet lets talk a little less on "overall economic growth", we are talking about quality of life not quality of wallet. (and yes there IS an article that says the opposite too!)
Uhhh... I actually can't find anything on that subject.
Only that SPECIFICALLY Middle Easterners (and Turkey) should be excluded from immigration... A few say entirely.
I can only guess that not only do no one know but that the problems with the UK are aggravated by immigrants, not created. Like a broken bridge becomes much more apparent when a elephant tap dances across it. So holding back immigrants alone wouldn't fix it, but it couldn't hurt if coupled with a genuine action plan.
Either that or proposing actual cut backs with amounts attached is political suicide.
---
Goodness with this many problems you would think the UK was in a recession
*checks internet* (If I ever do this... I actually have JUST checked the internet, this isn't for dramatic effect)
Ohh... it not only has been in a recession for a bit more then a year in 2008-2009 but apparently the UK is close to another recession that may or may not happen.
Post by: hector13 on April 24, 2017, 03:21:37 pm
As for self-determination within the UK, in an ideal world it could happen, but in practice, I don't think it can. Theresa May has been clamouring on and on about how the country needs to pull together, but failed to inform the Scottish government (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39331244) precisely when she was going to trigger Article 50, despite apparently having discussed it with the Welsh government - who voted to Leave, as opposed to Scotland's Remain.That would be because she was in Wales, talking with the Welsh government
She met the first minister of Wales in Monday morning to talk about the future of Swansea and in Monday afternoon the date set for triggering article 50 was broadcasted to the entire country through the BBC. What are the SNP getting angry about, they weren't kicked out of Westminster - I don't see how Michael Russell hearing the set date for article 50 being triggered a few hours later from the Welsh suggests the UK is doomed to certain balkanization. The Majority of Scots oppose a second referendum (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-poll-majority-oppose-second-referendum-1-4351990) while Nicola Sturgeon announced a second referendum without a mandate from the Scottish people, without informing Westminster ahead of time. This is why I think the obstacle to self-determination and Britain versus self-determination sans Britain is the SNP itself - it's creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by going on a warpath regardless of what its voters want. Seems cheeky that Michael can turn that into an insult, without considering what his party's actions look like to the rest of Britain.
I don't see how the SNP don't have a mandate for calling another referendum. Scottish voters overwhelmingly elected (http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2016/scotland/results) an SNP government in 2016.
(As an aside, the only reason they didn't get a majority was because of a quirk of the election system put in place by Westminster, in which the number of regional votes a party receives is divided by the number of constituency seats they won in that region, plus one. There are seven representatives per region, so this continues until all seven are chosen, with the divisor increasing for the parties that receive a regional seat. The SNP won 59 of the 73 constituency seats, hamstringing them a bit in the regional vote.)
The SNP didn't hide from the fact that they lost the 2014 referendum. Sturgeon said they wouldn't campaign for another referendum unless there was a material change in circumstances prior to the last GE in 2015 (http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-scotland-32222806), echoed in their manifesto for the 2016 Scottish election, and again her speech following the EU referendum results (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-36620375). Even then it wasn't a staunch demand for another referendum immediately, she just said that this meant that a referendum was back on the table of options for Scotland. It took until March - 9 months after the EU referendum - for the SNP to bring a vote to the Scottish parliament on a second independence referendum (https://www.ft.com/content/195d9986-13d1-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c), during which time the UK government ignored their offer of a compromise.
Seems a bit petty, and a little bit hypocritical after May's call for a grown-up relationship between the UK government and the devolved administrations (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/theresa-may-wants-grown-up-relationship-with-scotland-1-4265901). Further cheekiness from that, when she says she wants the relationships built on "cooperation and consensus" but just outright rejects Scotland's demands to remain a part of the common market as well as the UK. Also the whole "we need to focus on Brexit, you can't have your referendum. We're having a general election, by the way" thing, which essentially wastes two months of your two year negotiation process aimed at disentangling the UK from the past 40+ years of EU law and regulation.There's nothing cheeky about rejecting the demand that Scotland remains a part of the single market and the UK, it's not a demand that can legally be satisfied:QuoteThere was further bad news for the SNP when Elmar Brok, a senior member of the European Parliament, also said there could be “no exceptions” to allow Scotland to remain in the single market.While it would be pretty awesome if the United Kingdom could simultaneously be an independent non-member of the European Union whilst a member of the European Union, it's not possible, nor do the European Union negotiators want to create such an exploitable precedence. In regards to EU law and regulation, the plan has been from the start to transfer EU law and regulation, thus causing no chaotic rush to disentangle 40 years of regulation; there is no issue there. The focus is very much regaining executive authority over how we run our country before deciding exactly what goals and how we run the country will be set.
The German MEP, chairman of the parliament’s foreign affairs committee, told BBC Radio Scotland: "We cannot have two agreements with the United Kingdom and with Scotland. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/18/fresh-blow-nicola-sturgeons-bid-keep-scotland-single-market/)
My expert says otherwise (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/29/scotland-remain-eu-brexit-european-union-scots-england-wales) :P
I didn't say it would be easy, and neither are the SNP. It would require a great deal of compromise between Scotland and the UK, and the UK and the EU.
Should you want to read it, the Scottish government's position on Scotland's place in Europe (http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00512073.pdf).
It seems that (at least the current) British government considers Scotland a petulant child that needs to be kept in line, but I'm also aware of my huge bias against the Tories and for Scotland.Cameron's jellyfish crew gave off that tone, what with his whole infamous "pls don't destroy uk to piss off effin tories" speech, I don't see that in the current gov - who are stepping on eggshells since the SNP seems determined to turn anything into an insult with which to use against Britain. Despite the SNP always having a voice in Westminster, despite sending the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Ministers to discuss the future in Holyrood, the SNP then goes on saying it's a great insult to Scotland because Westminster didn't send David Davis - even though they invited him for March 16, the same day he was due to appear in the House of Commons (https://www.facebook.com/UKHouseofCommons/videos/376755032723622/).
He was invited in July and December last year (http://www.parliament.scot/newsandmediacentre/103299.aspx), both times his office said he was busy. He was even offered the chance to have a video conference than have to travel to Edinburgh...
His assistant was offered instead... he backed out too (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15127049.David_Davis_treating_Holyrood_with__quot_contempt_quot___say_SNP/), until after Article 50 got triggered.
The committee in question would be remiss in their duty to examine Brexit and what it means for Scotland (http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/100259.aspx) by talking to the British minister responsible for overseeing withdrawal negotiations. A duty they can't really perform if he won't talk to them.
I suppose what I'm getting at is what could the Westminster gov do that would not be deemed an insult to Scotland by the SNP?
I think engaging in discourse would be a good start, but it's been almost a year since the referendum, and Article 50 has already been triggered, so it'd be a token gesture if anything at this point.
The SNP aren't saying the Tories should fuck off and die, they want what's best for Scotland, and if the Tories aren't even willing to talk about it... what's the point of Scotland having any say at all?
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 27, 2017, 09:42:00 pm
My sides are now floating in the kuiper belt, thanks a lot.Orbital space program begins with the launch of sides
I don't see how the SNP don't have a mandate for calling another referendum. Scottish voters overwhelmingly elected (http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2016/scotland/results) an SNP government in 2016.Looking it up, that solves a lot of my confusion:
Quote
The SNP stresses that independence will only be achieved when the majority of people in Scotland want it to happen.I can see where you're coming from, however I have some issues with this. The first and foremost is the assumption that the majority of people in Scotland want it to happen, evidence does not suggest this is the case (https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/05/scottish-independence-no-lead-6/). The second is that they believe the changing of circumstance gives them a democratic mandate, misunderstanding that a democratic mandate comes from their electorate and not from circumstance. BMG shows the majority of Scots oppose a second referendum (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/13/nicola-sturgeonscottish-independence-do-you-support-a-second-referendum), leading me to wonder how Sturgeon came to the conclusion that she can ignore the wills expressed not just by the southerners, but northerners too - seems dodgy twice over. The third is the timing, trying to block Brexit only 2.5 years after Scotland decided no is not justifiable, by what right is that fair or democratic?
It says the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is "clear and sustained evidence" that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.
The fourth is in her speech:
Quote from: 2015
The first minister went on to say there was a "triple lock" on a further independence referendum, adding: "Before it's inserted in a manifesto, something has to change. Then people have to vote for the manifesto - if it is in it - and then people have to vote for independence."Before it's inserted in a manifesto, something has to change. Then people have to vote for the manifesto. Yet looking at her conduct, she completely skipped this, failing to provide a manifesto to the Scottish people that said she intended to campaign for a second referendum. I wonder how it is she forgot this? Why is she now claiming the SNP campaign has nothing to do with independence? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/nicola-sturgeon-becoming-laughing-stock-claim-general-election/)
Quote
Her intervention came as a new opinion poll found support for independence has dropped to 40 per cent and only one in four Scots support her demand for a second referendum between autumn next year and spring 2019.It's awfully mercenary to recognize that an independence referendum would need to be put before voters in a manifesto only to ignore that when you dislike your voters' intentions.
(As an aside, the only reason they didn't get a majority was because of a quirk of the election system put in place by Westminster, in which the number of regional votes a party receives is divided by the number of constituency seats they won in that region, plus one. There are seven representatives per region, so this continues until all seven are chosen, with the divisor increasing for the parties that receive a regional seat. The SNP won 59 of the 73 constituency seats, hamstringing them a bit in the regional vote.)That they also didn't get a majority of votes no doubt helps, woe is the south - the SNP won 56 parliamentary seats with 4.6% of the vote, UKIP with 12.6% of votes got 1 seat :P
The pain is real
The SNP didn't hide from the fact that they lost the 2014 referendum.I'll have you know I have shown extraordinary restraint in making jokes in regards to the whole once in a lifetime referendum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R__GiEc5wc) every 3 years
It took until March - 9 months after the EU referendum - for the SNP to bring a vote to the Scottish parliament on a second independence referendum (https://www.ft.com/content/195d9986-13d1-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c), during which time the UK government ignored their offer of a compromise.When she put indyref2 on the table, it would be little consolidation that she wanted to block Brexit in return. What has Sturgeon ever offered in compromise? Seriously m8 she's compromised on nothing I've seen, even tried blocking the Great Repeal Bill and stopping the triggering of article 50. British when she wants to override the British, Scottish when Westminster needs her help, says Theresa May doesn't have a mandate to Leave the European Union despite Leave winning yet claims to have a mandate for indyref2 or blocking brexit despite not having a mandate.
My expert says otherwise (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/29/scotland-remain-eu-brexit-european-union-scots-england-wales) :PI think the EU has precedence over experts
I didn't say it would be easy, and neither are the SNP. It would require a great deal of compromise between Scotland and the UK, and the UK and the EU.That's not a compromise, the SNP would assume de facto full sovereignty despite losing indyref and euroref, England and Wales would remain subject to EU law, sovereignty and would lose control of its borders to the EU. That's not a compromise, that's a list of surrender terms haha, Britain would lose everything despite the British voting against every single one of those proposals
Should you want to read it, the Scottish government's position on Scotland's place in Europe (http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00512073.pdf).Cheers, that was helpful. The Greenland-Denmark example they bring up is not particularly helpful, given that Greenland is a Danish territory, while Scotland is not - the free trade deal the UK is negotiating is for the UK, of which Scotland is constituent. In particular this:
Quote
As we set out in more detail later in this chapter, nothing in this proposal prioritises the European Single Market over free movement and free trade within the UK nor places such free movement and free trade on any different footing from presently undertaken. Our proposal would secure for Scotland the benefits of the European single market in addition to – not instead of – free trade across the UK.Is the critical divergence between Westminster and Holyrood. There is only one way in which Scotland can remain a member of both the UK and the ESM, and that is if the UK is subject to the EU. The only alternative is if Brussels compromises, which they refuse to do. If Brussels allows Scotland to remain in the ESM without the UK, then Britain will able to as a European country, have total free trade with the EU without any of the obligations or sovereignty loss other European countries face in order to have free trade with the EU - simply by exporting to Scotland and from Scotland to the EU. Hence why the EU told us it's not on the table, it would be entirely to our advantage.
He was invited in July and December last year (http://www.parliament.scot/newsandmediacentre/103299.aspx), both times his office said he was busy. He was even offered the chance to have a video conference than have to travel to Edinburgh...From your link:
His assistant was offered instead... he backed out too (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15127049.David_Davis_treating_Holyrood_with__quot_contempt_quot___say_SNP/), until after Article 50 got triggered.
The committee in question would be remiss in their duty to examine Brexit and what it means for Scotland (http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/100259.aspx) by talking to the British minister responsible for overseeing withdrawal negotiations. A duty they can't really perform if he won't talk to them.
Quote
It is understood UK Government ministers involved in Brexit have been ordered to cancel visits outside London around the March date in case the House of Lords rejects their Brexit plan.Before article 50 was triggered the UK Brexit plan could have died in the HOC or HOL, meaning neither would have been able to give any answers as to what was going to be, as they had no idea whether the gov's plan would actually go through. I certainly know the SNP haven't been in the dark on this, having seen Salmond yesterday morning in the Parliament Brexit talks, or for that matter trying to kill those plans in the HOC. Thus there is no insult, it would be rather embarrassing to send a top minister with nothing to say, or worse, to say and risk undermining the government whilst negotiating with yurop
I think engaging in discourse would be a good start, but it's been almost a year since the referendum, and Article 50 has already been triggered, so it'd be a token gesture if anything at this point. The SNP aren't saying the Tories should fuck off and die, they want what's best for Scotland, and if the Tories aren't even willing to talk about it... what's the point of Scotland having any say at all?Westminster is chock full of SNP MPs who've been exceedingly involved in Brexit, if they don't want to have a say in how things are run then they're doing it in an awfully loud way. As to why, it should seem obvious. As we approach negotiations our ministers must have a clear understanding of what industries are at stake, thus all the MPs have been voicing concerns for their local constituents' industries and services needs. If the SNP wants the UK to remain in the EU, Westminster can't deliver on that without becoming arbitrary and despotic, however it can ensure Britain gets a free trade deal that suits Britain and Europe (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/27/eu-trade-commissioner-says-bloc-will-do-post-brexit-free-trade/). By not participating, that would make it exceedingly difficult to do a deal bespoke to Britain, there'd be an information blackspot in the shape of Scotland, which is naturally helpful to no one.
Post by: hector13 on April 28, 2017, 03:46:45 pm
I don't see how the SNP don't have a mandate for calling another referendum. Scottish voters overwhelmingly elected (http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2016/scotland/results) an SNP government in 2016.Looking it up, that solves a lot of my confusion:QuoteThe SNP stresses that independence will only be achieved when the majority of people in Scotland want it to happen.I can see where you're coming from, however I have some issues with this. The first and foremost is the assumption that the majority of people in Scotland want it to happen, evidence does not suggest this is the case (https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/05/scottish-independence-no-lead-6/). The second is that they believe the changing of circumstance gives them a democratic mandate, misunderstanding that a democratic mandate comes from their electorate and not from circumstance. BMG shows the majority of Scots oppose a second referendum (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/13/nicola-sturgeonscottish-independence-do-you-support-a-second-referendum), leading me to wonder how Sturgeon came to the conclusion that she can ignore the wills expressed not just by the southerners, but northerners too - seems dodgy twice over.
It says the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is "clear and sustained evidence" that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.
The first bit is from 2015, so... not sure of the relevance to now. I'll accept that support for independence is less than support for the union at least from the relatively small sample in the second link. However, that sample does not say that the majority of Scots are against independence. They had to take out the 15% of people who either weren't sure (13%) or wouldn't say (2%) before coming to that conclusion. 15% is a pretty significant margin for error. It was 44% against and 41% for before that.
The third is the timing, trying to block Brexit only 2.5 years after Scotland decided no is not justifiable, by what right is that fair or democratic?
She's a Scottish politician representing the Scottish people. What do you propose she do when her constituents categorically reject something their bigger, louder neighbour is forcing them to do?
Bearing in mind, of course, that Better Together did campaign that the best way for Scotland to lose its EU membership was to vote yes (https://twitter.com/UK_Together/status/506899714923843584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snp.org%2Fbroken_promises_by_tories_and_no_campaign_since_indyref).
The fourth is in her speech:Quote from: 2015The first minister went on to say there was a "triple lock" on a further independence referendum, adding: "Before it's inserted in a manifesto, something has to change. Then people have to vote for the manifesto - if it is in it - and then people have to vote for independence."Before it's inserted in a manifesto, something has to change. Then people have to vote for the manifesto. Yet looking at her conduct, she completely skipped this, failing to provide a manifesto to the Scottish people that said she intended to campaign for a second referendum. I wonder how it is she forgot this? Why is she now claiming the SNP campaign has nothing to do with independence? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/nicola-sturgeon-becoming-laughing-stock-claim-general-election/)
Why would it be? It's a British election. Last time out the SNP won 56 of the 59 Scottish seats. What did that say about independence? How will those 59 seats, representing a touch over 9% of the seats in parliament, influence British politics to favour Scottish independence?
QuoteHer intervention came as a new opinion poll found support for independence has dropped to 40 per cent and only one in four Scots support her demand for a second referendum between autumn next year and spring 2019.It's awfully mercenary to recognize that an independence referendum would need to be put before voters in a manifesto only to ignore that when you dislike your voters' intentions.
There was mention of the "material change" in the SNP manifesto for 2016 (https://www.snp.org/manifesto) (on page 23, if you don't care for the rest ;)) with the example used as Scotland being taken out of Europe against its will, which I mentioned in my previous post was something they had been talking about since the 2015 British elections concluded.
(As an aside, the only reason they didn't get a majority was because of a quirk of the election system put in place by Westminster, in which the number of regional votes a party receives is divided by the number of constituency seats they won in that region, plus one. There are seven representatives per region, so this continues until all seven are chosen, with the divisor increasing for the parties that receive a regional seat. The SNP won 59 of the 73 constituency seats, hamstringing them a bit in the regional vote.)That they also didn't get a majority of votes no doubt helps, woe is the south - the SNP won 56 parliamentary seats with 4.6% of the vote, UKIP with 12.6% of votes got 1 seat :P
The pain is real
We went over that at the time :o the SNP won 50% of the vote (http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results/scotland) in the 59 seats they stood in, while the UKIP vote was spread out over the hundreds of seats they stood in.
Also, the Tories got a majority with only 37% of the vote. I'll agree that the British system is worse than the Scottish system :P
The SNP didn't hide from the fact that they lost the 2014 referendum.I'll have you know I have shown extraordinary restraint in making jokes in regards to the whole once in a lifetime referendum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R__GiEc5wc) every 3 years
Let's not pretend that the SNP have a monopoly on misleading rhetoric (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/04/flashback-all-times-theresa-may-said-snap-election-was-terrible-idea) :P
It took until March - 9 months after the EU referendum - for the SNP to bring a vote to the Scottish parliament on a second independence referendum (https://www.ft.com/content/195d9986-13d1-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c), during which time the UK government ignored their offer of a compromise.When she put indyref2 on the table, it would be little consolidation that she wanted to block Brexit in return. What has Sturgeon ever offered in compromise? Seriously m8 she's compromised on nothing I've seen, even tried blocking the Great Repeal Bill and stopping the triggering of article 50. British when she wants to override the British, Scottish when Westminster needs her help, says Theresa May doesn't have a mandate to Leave the European Union despite Leave winning yet claims to have a mandate for indyref2 or blocking brexit despite not having a mandate.
As mentioned previously, she's a Scottish politician, Scotland voted to Remain. She doesn't want to block Brexit in return for an independence referendum, she wants the Scottish people offered the choice between leaving the EU and being independent. She doesn't want Brexit stopped, she wants to stop Scotland being dragged out against the wishes of its people.
She said there's no mandate for a hard Brexit, not that there was no mandate for Brexit. This was at a time when it wasn't clear that May was of the opinion that a hard Brexit was the only option, though.
What unreasonable resistance has she offered anyway? There's 56 SNP MPs in parliament, nowhere near enough to have any great influence on anything. They can table amendments, which get voted down by the other 600 MPs. The Scottish government got a say in the supreme court case, but so did NI and Wales. The Scottish parliament rejected Brexit in a purely symbolic vote.
There is nothing that she can reasonably do that will affect whether or not Brexit happens. This doesn't mean she won't fight for what Scotland voted.
My expert says otherwise (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/29/scotland-remain-eu-brexit-european-union-scots-england-wales) :PI think the EU has precedence over expertsI didn't say it would be easy, and neither are the SNP. It would require a great deal of compromise between Scotland and the UK, and the UK and the EU.That's not a compromise, the SNP would assume de facto full sovereignty despite losing indyref and euroref, England and Wales would remain subject to EU law, sovereignty and would lose control of its borders to the EU. That's not a compromise, that's a list of surrender terms haha, Britain would lose everything despite the British voting against every single one of those proposalsShould you want to read it, the Scottish government's position on Scotland's place in Europe (http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00512073.pdf).Cheers, that was helpful. The Greenland-Denmark example they bring up is not particularly helpful, given that Greenland is a Danish territory, while Scotland is not - the free trade deal the UK is negotiating is for the UK, of which Scotland is constituent. In particular this:QuoteAs we set out in more detail later in this chapter, nothing in this proposal prioritises the European Single Market over free movement and free trade within the UK nor places such free movement and free trade on any different footing from presently undertaken. Our proposal would secure for Scotland the benefits of the European single market in addition to – not instead of – free trade across the UK.Is the critical divergence between Westminster and Holyrood. There is only one way in which Scotland can remain a member of both the UK and the ESM, and that is if the UK is subject to the EU. The only alternative is if Brussels compromises, which they refuse to do. If Brussels allows Scotland to remain in the ESM without the UK, then Britain will able to as a European country, have total free trade with the EU without any of the obligations or sovereignty loss other European countries face in order to have free trade with the EU - simply by exporting to Scotland and from Scotland to the EU. Hence why the EU told us it's not on the table, it would be entirely to our advantage.
I will be blunt and say my hope is that the various EU officials know that pretty much any discourse they've had with or about the UK since the result is going to affect negotiations. They can be hard on Scotland because they know there's a pro-independence, pro-EU government in power there, and that the Scots want to stay in Europe. By being hard, they can weaken the UK's position (I imagine it's quite hard to to concentrate with a highland terrier nipping at your ankles, yipping loudly) and potentially strengthen their own.
Taking that into account, I don't think there's anything stopping the EU from amending any of the rules that apply to the UK and applying them to Scotland instead, though probably sans vetoes and opt-outs. New regulations can be put in place to deal with the new situation (for example, stamping products from rUK saying they were produced there, applying necessary taxes and tariffs even if they are exported via Scotland) as part of the negotiations that will be happening anyway.
All it really requires is the UK government to bring it to the table and push for it, which won't happen because none of the major parties really have anything to lose in Scotland.
He was invited in July and December last year (http://www.parliament.scot/newsandmediacentre/103299.aspx), both times his office said he was busy. He was even offered the chance to have a video conference than have to travel to Edinburgh...From your link:
His assistant was offered instead... he backed out too (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15127049.David_Davis_treating_Holyrood_with__quot_contempt_quot___say_SNP/), until after Article 50 got triggered.
The committee in question would be remiss in their duty to examine Brexit and what it means for Scotland (http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/100259.aspx) by talking to the British minister responsible for overseeing withdrawal negotiations. A duty they can't really perform if he won't talk to them.QuoteIt is understood UK Government ministers involved in Brexit have been ordered to cancel visits outside London around the March date in case the House of Lords rejects their Brexit plan.Before article 50 was triggered the UK Brexit plan could have died in the HOC or HOL, meaning neither would have been able to give any answers as to what was going to be, as they had no idea whether the gov's plan would actually go through. I certainly know the SNP haven't been in the dark on this, having seen Salmond yesterday morning in the Parliament Brexit talks, or for that matter trying to kill those plans in the HOC. Thus there is no insult, it would be rather embarrassing to send a top minister with nothing to say, or worse, to say and risk undermining the government whilst negotiating with yurop
PPE: this next bit reads a bit passive-aggressively, but I'm too tired to change it. None of it directed at you, just so you're aware.
Why should it matter if their plan may or may not be voted against? If they have a plan, they should be sharing it with the devolved administrations (all of them, not just Scotland) so they, in turn, can make plans on how to deal with various degrees of success of the UK government's plan, as well as the people of Britain, considering there's a vote about to happen on what direction Brexit is going to take. Really, you would hope that the various parties have an idea of what they want to happen during the next two years, 'cause that is pretty much what the election is about.
I mean, there was 9 months between the result and Article 50. They had a bit to deal with: Tory leadership drop-outs, court cases, various back-and-forths with Europeans and belligerent natives. They made a shady deal with Nissan, who were essentially threatening to shut down a factory that employs 7,000 people and has impact on 28,000 more jobs, but also refuse to release any details about that deal, 'cause Tories apparently don't know how to redact sensitive information from a letter.
Perhaps all that means is they don't actually have a plan to share, yet, 'cause there's no reason they shouldn't be sharing what they want to happen during negotiations.
I think engaging in discourse would be a good start, but it's been almost a year since the referendum, and Article 50 has already been triggered, so it'd be a token gesture if anything at this point. The SNP aren't saying the Tories should fuck off and die, they want what's best for Scotland, and if the Tories aren't even willing to talk about it... what's the point of Scotland having any say at all?Westminster is chock full of SNP MPs who've been exceedingly involved in Brexit, if they don't want to have a say in how things are run then they're doing it in an awfully loud way. As to why, it should seem obvious. As we approach negotiations our ministers must have a clear understanding of what industries are at stake, thus all the MPs have been voicing concerns for their local constituents' industries and services needs. If the SNP wants the UK to remain in the EU, Westminster can't deliver on that without becoming arbitrary and despotic, however it can ensure Britain gets a free trade deal that suits Britain and Europe (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/27/eu-trade-commissioner-says-bloc-will-do-post-brexit-free-trade/). By not participating, that would make it exceedingly difficult to do a deal bespoke to Britain, there'd be an information blackspot in the shape of Scotland, which is naturally helpful to no one.
Westminster has 56 SNP MPs, out of a total of 650. That is not "chock full", and there's no reason for the SNP MPs that are there to not take part in debates and such re: Brexit. I'm not sure how you think that's what is (or that I think should) be happening.
What I was talking about was the abject silence that the UK government have given the Scottish government in regards to the proposals that they've presented in order to start a discussion on what should happen. How are they supposed to interpret that?
Post by: TD1 on April 28, 2017, 06:26:57 pm
She's a Scottish politician representing the Scottish people. What do you propose she do when her constituents categorically reject something their bigger, louder neighbour is forcing them to do
You assume there is categorical rejection. Just how many Scottish leave voters is she representing?
Scotland wears big boy trousers now. It has to take responsibility - it can't play the game then toss the board on the floor when it doesn't go its way. Its leave voters contributed too - if Scotland had categorically voted stay, we would be staying.
Post by: smjjames on April 28, 2017, 06:33:08 pm
She's a Scottish politician representing the Scottish people. What do you propose she do when her constituents categorically reject something their bigger, louder neighbour is forcing them to do
You assume there is categorical rejection. Just how many Scottish leave voters is she representing?
Scotland wears big boy trousers now. It has to take responsibility - it can't play the game then toss the board on the floor when it doesn't go its way. Its leave voters contributed too - if Scotland had categorically voted stay, we would be staying.
I remember a map of the results with most of Scotland being bright blue (for no), which didn't indicate 100% no votes, but a large majority of them did.
Post by: Starver on April 28, 2017, 06:52:03 pm
Scotland wears big boy trousers now. It has to take responsibility - it can't play the game then toss the board on the floor when it doesn't go its way."Britain ... can't play the game then toss the board on the floor when it doesn't go its way." Except that it did. And it wasn't even as if we didn't get a lot of things to go our way....
Quote
Its leave voters contributed too - if Scotland had categorically voted stay, we would be staying.It more categorically voted Remain (62% to 38%) than any of the other nations voted their own way. Even the honorary sub-nation and Brexit 'hotbed' of Cornwall (fired up by both fishing and farming discontentment, apparently got only to 56.5% to the contrary.
And I'm forming the conclusion that UKIP's machinations will lead to the loss of the Pound. Assuming Europe has the constitution to survive and thrive without the UK (not an impossible dream, for them), the resulting hurt that is more concentrated upon the "rebellious Brits" pushes us back towards the EU. If we're lucky, it's by aborting the Art 50 (something the remains of UKIP will vehemently oppose), otherwise we're "the country that cried Brexit" and the price of readmittance included full subservience, none of those hard-fought-for special conditions, and (once we're economically stabilised) we will have to convert to the €...
Post by: Starver on April 28, 2017, 07:02:09 pm
An interesting aside for any readers not familiar with the intricacies of our regional parties and FPTP system: In the last General Election, the SNP received 1,454,436 votes (in Scotland, as one would expect). UKIP received more than double that, with 3,881,099 votes (spread across Britain as opposed to just Scotland, though more concentrated in England).Problems with FPTP aside, the SNP basically wiped the floor with everyone else in their target territory and received no votes at all (not officially, at least) in England, Wales and NI becausr they never even asked for them. UKIP, theoretically if not actually, sought support across the entire four nations and didn't get past that post except in just one place (having previously had two seats, IIRC).
And the SNP did not lose two seats, they disbarred the people who had won them in their name. Nobody has yet had the opportunity to vote in anybody else (for or against the SNP) to make it official.
I have not much time for the SNP or the prospect of splitting off from the Union, but I have even less time for UKIP and this prospect of splitting from the superset Union. And sauce for the goose, etc...
Post by: hector13 on April 28, 2017, 07:09:17 pm
Ninja'd, to an extent. I think Gibraltar had a 90%+ for Remain, but that's unsurprising given the location.
@Covenant: remember, the SNP received 50% of the vote in the 59 constituencies they stood in. UKIP should've got more than the one seat they did get, though, however much I dislike them.
Oh ffs Starver :P anyhow, the two folk the SNP disbarred (and are not endorsing for the next election) were doing bad things. McGarry is being investigated for fraud regarding financing for a property, and I can't remember off the top of my head what the other one did, but I think it's in a similar vein.
Post by: smjjames on April 28, 2017, 07:18:19 pm
Also, funny that Farage accepts that result, but wouldn't accept it if it was reversed. Can't have it both ways.
Post by: Sheb on April 29, 2017, 01:55:12 am
But then, that kind of huge difference for regional parties only apply to party that have a base in a small portion of the country and can concentrate their votes a lot. Almost by definition those are the ones that cannot win and decide to rule the UK, so I'm not sure the comparision with the EC really hold in that aspect. A better parallel with the EC is the fact that the Tory rule Parliament with 37 % of the votes.
Post by: hector13 on April 29, 2017, 04:28:08 pm
Then David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, proceeded to lie about the Scottish government wanting to keep the letters unpublished (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-wanted-response-to-scots-brexit-deal-call-kept-secret-1-4423898).
Post by: Neonivek on April 30, 2017, 08:31:21 pm
When everyone here said assimilation... did they mean integration or assimilation?
I want to be fair as there is a huge difference but they are similar enough to be confused with one another.
Post by: martinuzz on April 30, 2017, 09:17:10 pm
Post by: Azzuro on May 01, 2017, 07:49:28 am
-Queen Victoria (apocryphal)
Post by: scriver on May 01, 2017, 08:00:38 am
Just checking
When everyone here said assimilation... did they mean integration or assimilation?
I want to be fair as there is a huge difference but they are similar enough to be confused with one another.
There isn't any kind of noteworthy difference. In the end, integration into a nation means assimilation the nation. The kind of people who thinks otherwise are the kind of people who thinks culture only pertains to food and music.
Post by: Neonivek on May 01, 2017, 08:11:26 am
Just checking
When everyone here said assimilation... did they mean integration or assimilation?
I want to be fair as there is a huge difference but they are similar enough to be confused with one another.
There isn't any kind of noteworthy difference. In the end, integration into a nation means assimilation the nation. The kind of people who thinks otherwise are the kind of people who thinks culture only pertains to food and music.
Assimilation is to what degree someone's culture, religion, and beliefs are molded to that of the society they are in.
While Integration is to what degree are they included, can navigate it, can conduct themselves, intermingle, and at least follow the precepts / Be respectful of others.
Typically an assimilated culture is also somewhat integrated (Well ok, SOME of the time), and no integrated culture can avoid some degree of assimilation (it is impossible and not entirely undesirable as cultural exchange helps fight stagnation)... But there is a very significant difference. Mostly in what you are trying to accomplish, or rather what your goal is.
When Canada forced Native Children to go to special schools... That was forced assimilation. Not forced integration.
Post by: scriver on May 01, 2017, 08:28:24 am
When Canada forced Native Children to go to special schools... That was forced assimilation. Not forced integration.
This is the reverse situation from wanting immigrants to assimilate; e.g. the immigrants forcing the natives to assimilate.
Post by: Neonivek on May 01, 2017, 08:32:12 am
When Canada forced Native Children to go to special schools... That was forced assimilation. Not forced integration.
This is the reverse situation from wanting immigrants to assimilate; e.g. the immigrants forcing the natives to assimilate.
Well... Sort of.
Since according to Canadian Law the Natives were never conquered and we are two separate societies that have chosen to co-exist. So this would more similar to if the USA abducted Mexican Children and forced them to attend a harsh Orwellian business school.
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 01, 2017, 09:01:56 am
Since according to Canadian Law the Natives were never conquered and we are two separate societies that have chosen to co-exist. So this would more similar to if the USA abducted Mexican Children and forced them to attend a harsh Orwellian business school.So besides the whole encroaching military occupation and subsequent administration and establishment of law over a seized territory involving the crushing of rebellions agitating for independence with the inevitable creep of colonists and the betrayal of promises for the ceding of land
No conquering
wat
Post by: Neonivek on May 01, 2017, 09:18:56 am
A bit like corruption. It's not corruption if it's not against the law!Since according to Canadian Law the Natives were never conquered and we are two separate societies that have chosen to co-exist. So this would more similar to if the USA abducted Mexican Children and forced them to attend a harsh Orwellian business school.So besides the whole encroaching military occupation and subsequent administration and establishment of law over a seized territory involving the crushing of rebellions agitating for independence with the inevitable creep of colonists and the betrayal of promises for the ceding of land
No conquering
wat
It is some backwards logic that mostly smells of recreationist history... sort of...
But there are important reasons for this legally that actually matter in a court of law. So it is more like "This is how it should have gone! So we are going to uphold that legally"
Post by: Starver on May 01, 2017, 09:33:42 am
Integration
Post by: scriver on May 01, 2017, 09:58:34 am
Assimilation
Integration
So you're saying integration is apartheid? That's fucked up, man.
Post by: martinuzz on May 01, 2017, 10:10:58 am
Post by: Sheb on May 03, 2017, 01:48:14 am
Post by: Azzuro on May 03, 2017, 07:21:48 am
Post by: Neonivek on May 03, 2017, 10:11:15 am
I think that both terms are vague enough that you really need to have someone define what he means by either rather than pick one.
We defined them twice. The only person who was "confused" intentionally mixed up the definition as a joke.
I think everyone here knows the difference by now.
In fact the UK Government knows the difference because the programs created to help foreigners "fit in" are called integration. (which given the UK is 'generally' Conservative, that says something)
Use assimilate if you're arguing against a conservative, use integrate if you're arguing against a liberal. Simple!
I think they will honestly catch on.
When you start talking about strong separation of Church and State (which is Pro Integration and Con Assimilation) things start to become a tiny bit more obvious.
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 03, 2017, 12:24:21 pm
We defined them twice. The only person who was "confused" intentionally mixed up the definition as a joke.English definition of
I think everyone here knows the difference by now.
The absorption and integration of people, ideas, or culture into a wider society or culture. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/assimilation)
I know I will die before I see you post a source for anything
Viewing it in regards to Brexit, it kind of makes sense, no? They took back 2 at the loss of 3.Perhaps, but it's not a perfect fit - more a description of events than an explanation of things, moreover there is some difficulties in especial respect with the UK since it's gov is anti global institutions, yet in favour of free trade. Thus it has picked all three, but goes against political globalism, whether the two can be separated remains to be seen
Also, funny that Farage accepts that result, but wouldn't accept it if it was reversed. Can't have it both ways.'But wouldn't accept it if it was reversed?' What do you mean by that? Farage could hardly trigger article 50 if he lost the referendum, and likely wouldn't live to see a second one had he lost
This is a far cry from people who have lost and are actively trying to forget that fact - after abusing the rules to boot. Remain lost a fight stacked in their favour, now we just need to get those Tory MPs prosecuted for good measure and all is just. Fingers crossed we can even get Cameron, but given that Blair's still free, sadly unlikely
Post by: Neonivek on May 03, 2017, 12:27:39 pm
We defined them twice. The only person who was "confused" intentionally mixed up the definition as a joke.English definition of
I think everyone here knows the difference by now.integrationassimilation:
The absorption and integration of people, ideas, or culture into a wider society or culture. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/assimilation)
I know I will die before I see you post a source for anything
Sure I'll post a source... There done. I quoted you. Notice how they are different? there you go.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on May 03, 2017, 12:29:12 pm
We defined them twice. The only person who was "confused" intentionally mixed up the definition as a joke.English definition of
I think everyone here knows the difference by now.integrationassimilation:
The absorption and integration of people, ideas, or culture into a wider society or culture. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/assimilation)
I know I will die before I see you post a source for anything
Sure I'll post a source... There done. I quoted you. Notice how they are different? there you go.
ftfy
Post by: Neonivek on May 03, 2017, 12:30:28 pm
ftfy
Ohh no, you don't know what you done! Winter is coming.
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 03, 2017, 07:32:46 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 04, 2017, 07:03:01 am
-London and the National Government, Alfred James Henderson
Rather amused researching into the origins of modern day corruption, this is pretty much obligatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company)
Post by: smjjames on May 05, 2017, 09:51:32 am
Juncker uses French, BBC comments lose their mind while pretending to not care. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39816044)
Don't the French also complain about French language losing importance or otherwise taken over by English? They're pretty defensive about it apparently.
It looks more like the usual rivalry between France and England and the typical sillyness that goes on between the two. At least both countries are good natured about the rivalry these days and the rowdiest it gets is over a soccer match.
Post by: martinuzz on May 05, 2017, 10:27:05 am
Do keep in mind that French used to be the international lingua franca amongst diplomats in Europe up until not too long ago (up to the mid-20th century). It still persists in the IOC and the FIFA to today.Juncker uses French, BBC comments lose their mind while pretending to not care. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39816044)
Don't the French also complain about French language losing importance or otherwise taken over by English? They're pretty defensive about it apparently.
It looks more like the usual rivalry between France and England and the typical sillyness that goes on between the two. At least both countries are good natured about the rivalry these days and the rowdiest it gets is over a soccer match.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 05, 2017, 10:38:39 am
Post by: smjjames on May 05, 2017, 10:54:37 am
No, these are the BBC comments. The guys that comment seem to be a bit... strange. And slightly toxic.Juncker uses French, BBC comments lose their mind while pretending to not care. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39816044)
Don't the French also complain about French language losing importance or otherwise taken over by English? They're pretty defensive about it apparently.
It looks more like the usual rivalry between France and England and the typical sillyness that goes on between the two. At least both countries are good natured about the rivalry these days and the rowdiest it gets is over a soccer match.
One thing I've noticed about them is they seem to almost completely disagree with the Tories policies. Mass surveillance, defunding the NHS etc., yet the mere suggestion they vote for someone else makes them lose their shit.
Commentators on news articles are always dumb.
I think that at this point all major Europeam languages have been lingua franca at one point or another
I don't think Spanish has been. Italian (or a deriviative of it) certainly was at one point because Italian traders. German and French have definetly had their time as Lingua Francas.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 05, 2017, 11:24:12 am
Quote
I don't think Spanish has been
Spanish was very much a lingua franca back in the day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lingua_francas#Spanish). Srsly, this is like, basic European history.
Post by: smjjames on May 05, 2017, 11:27:39 am
QuoteI don't think Spanish has been
Spanish was very much a lingua franca back in the day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lingua_francas#Spanish). Srsly, this is like, basic European history.
Sorry.
Post by: scriver on May 05, 2017, 12:23:10 pm
Quote
Spanish was used as a lingua franca throughout the former Spanish Colonial Empire
Yeah, an Swedish is used all throughout Sweden too.
Post by: inteuniso on May 05, 2017, 12:35:51 pm
Post by: smjjames on May 05, 2017, 12:40:32 pm
Yeah other germanic languages never achieved the proliferation of English. Maybe in the future?
Or Spanish could have it's heyday again? Not really something that can be predicted.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 05, 2017, 02:53:50 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 05, 2017, 03:07:59 pm
I think China also has another problem. They're not that great at exporting soft power. Sure, their skill at leveraging economic dominance is pretty good, but they're an incredibly insular culture compared to Spain, France, Britain, or America. China's external culture power is honestly pretty low, and I'm not sure they have the societal values to grow it unless there are major changes. Without that, could it truly claim geopolitical dominance? And if Chinese economic growth does stagnate, what do they have left if there's not high culture power?
There's also another issue. The age of colonialism permitted the forceful spread of Spanish, French, and English all over the world. And the three traded places as the lingua franca as time went on. But those three are also all related languages. Mandarin both is of an entirely different language family and uses a different written form, not even just a different alphabet. It was way easier for Spanish, French, and English dominance to pass between one another than it would be for it to pass from English to Mandarin.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm still skeptical of these things. Our ability to project geopolitical futures has often been kind of...off. *glances at hundreds of stories of the Cold War continuing in perpetuity*
Post by: smjjames on May 05, 2017, 07:36:57 pm
Post by: Ghills on May 05, 2017, 07:51:42 pm
China has never really cared about what other lands thought of them so long as they were open to trade and/or conquering as the whim struck. For all people complain about American exceptionalism and arrogance, China can really take it to the next level. Also, China's huge. Geographically it's enormous, and population wise it's roughly 1/7th of the earth. I really doubt they're going to start worrying about projecting cultural power and getting actively, almost obnoxiously, involved in international politics like the US did post-WWII.
Post by: Neonivek on May 05, 2017, 08:01:35 pm
Since even the Japanese can't read Japanese :P
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 05, 2017, 08:28:45 pm
China is a global power right now, and they'll probably solidify that position some more. But until they shake the insular behavior, that's as far as the "Chinese Century" will ever go.
Or so I predict. Maybe something even weirder will happen and throw us all on our heads, but PRC dominance in the conventional sense is something I feel fairly convinced will not be in the future.
Post by: martinuzz on May 06, 2017, 02:59:12 am
Frankly the language that seems impossible to learn... is JapaneseApparently Japanese is one of the easier Asian languages to learn, for a westerner. Very logical grammar with relatively little exceptions.
Since even the Japanese can't read Japanese :P
Post by: Neonivek on May 06, 2017, 03:05:47 am
Very logical grammar with relatively little exceptions.
Well... sort of... kind of...
The exceptions are usually names... that and the language is full of words that are written the exact same way (Hominems? Synonyms?)
Post by: martinuzz on May 06, 2017, 04:24:55 am
Homonym is what you're looking forVery logical grammar with relatively little exceptions.
Well... sort of... kind of...
The exceptions are usually names... that and the language is full of words that are written the exact same way (Hominems? Synonyms?)
Post by: Starver on May 06, 2017, 05:29:02 am
Apparently Japanese is one of the easier Asian languages to learn, for a westerner. Very logical grammar with relatively few exceptions.FTFY :P
Post by: scriver on May 06, 2017, 06:52:18 am
Yeah other germanic languages never achieved the proliferation of English. Maybe in the future?
The point I was trying to make is that a conqueror using it's language throughout it's conquered territory does not a lingua franca make, so Spainiards making people in the Spanish Empire talk Spanish does not count.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 06, 2017, 07:16:04 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 06, 2017, 08:17:12 am
I think China also has another problem. They're not that great at exporting soft power. Sure, their skill at leveraging economic dominance is pretty good, but they're an incredibly insular culture compared to Spain, France, Britain, or America. China's external culture power is honestly pretty low, and I'm not sure they have the societal values to grow it unless there are major changes. Without that, could it truly claim geopolitical dominance? And if Chinese economic growth does stagnate, what do they have left if there's not high culture power?While China itself is poor at exporting cultural capital, its people have many historical links with countries across the world, old and new, both from before and after it went from being all under the sky to just another nation amongst nations. The North Americas, South Americas, Europe, SE Asia, S Asia and a great deal of North and South Africa can boast communities of various Chinese cultures, continually boosted by China's high rate of emigration, students, workers and businessmen. Thus while it does not boast the big brands and influences of French fashions and American superstars, there is a preexisting international network of culturally similar communities that diffuses Chinese cultural exports. The Chinese government also does fund projects to export its culture, most notably with the Confucius institute, but I haven't seen that be as successful yet as its relative counterparts in the USA or Europe. Very much a WIP, to quote an Indonesian, ancient China is awesome, but modern China sucks
There's also another issue. The age of colonialism permitted the forceful spread of Spanish, French, and English all over the world.Also notably was that within the respective European Empires, not only were schools set up teaching those languages, but as trade within respective European Empires was until the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, conducted within Empires exclusively, no other languages could compete
Mandarin both is of an entirely different language family and uses a different written form, not even just a different alphabet. It was way easier for Spanish, French, and English dominance to pass between one another than it would be for it to pass from English to Mandarin.It wouldn't be too hard, especially given China's standardization of language and pinyin, well, at least not harder than learning foreign languages already is. I imagine the greatest difficulty is in the sheer difference of grammar, with sentence structure and one verb form acting as all forms of that verb without conjugation for example being the immediate challenge. More than that though, is that languages like English have been the language of two consecutive world hegemons, whose languages have been taken up by shed loads of people. This creates a large, fluid network, which in turn encourages more people to take up the language. Anyone who learns English may never need to nor wish to visit an English speaking country, it will be sufficient to be able to speak with 2nd language English speakers, of whom vastly outnumber native English speakers and are spread on a vastly larger scale across the world. To use an example of the past, I once had a sensible chuckle reading an account of an English prince who, having learned French, tried speaking with a French diplomat in his own tongue. However, his accent was so incomprehensible, that they simply spoke in Latin instead. English is this bastard hydra that outgrew the control of the USA 40 years ago and the UK 100 years before them, now there are many Englishes all across the world. In the future, I find it is more likely for English to become a family group of languages, than for "THE" English language to be replaced
inb4 future communication is interpreted not with language, but ironic dance routines and minimalist cave paint memes
Post by: smjjames on May 06, 2017, 08:32:52 am
Post by: wierd on May 06, 2017, 08:49:19 am
Then again, we dont have near the same density of govt monitored CCTV cameras per square meter that you guys do. You guys are following 1984 like an instruction manual more closely that we are!
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 06, 2017, 09:34:53 am
In the future, I find it is more likely for English to become a family group of languages, than for "THE" English language to be replaced
I think this is true of all widely distributed languages. Heck, even in the Iberian Peninsula, it's hard enough to understand people from the far south.
For that matter, it doesn't even take widely spoken languages: I recall this nurse I had in my first workplace. She was very fluent in Basque, and was also very insistent that I should at least try to speak to Basque-speaking patients in Basque (sometimes I tried, with mixed results), as apparently she found my cultural alienation as her personal mission.
Anyway, up came this patient, from deep in the mountains. After trying several times in Spanish, and a few more in my rudimentary Basque, to no avail (and some funny misunderstandings), I called my nurse for help. And, after berating me for not exploiting this chance to further practice the tongue of my ancestors, she walked into the room.... only to find that she couldn't understand him either. You see, my nurse spoke"Batua", which is basically a consensus grammar composed by parts of the major Basque dialects, and is what you're actually taught in school. This guy, however, was from some remote village in the Pyrinees, and spoke an obscure Basque dialect which was near-unintelligible to her.
TL, DR: you can see large divergences even in minority languages.
Post by: scriver on May 06, 2017, 11:22:22 am
Post by: Neonivek on May 06, 2017, 11:34:53 am
Then again to my knowledge the UK already had this power to spy on private chats of its citizens. I guess this is more a requirement for IP providers to give a better avenue?
Post by: wierd on May 06, 2017, 01:03:51 pm
Do they want the moon, a pony, a winning lotto ticket, and a bag of crisps to go along with it, because that is how absurd that demand is.
Protip UK MPs: good encryption takes longer to brute force than the life expectancy of the sun. No, really, the sun will literally have exhausted all of its fuel before you will be assured to have that key. It is designed to be that way. Any encryption you can trivially bypass is not worth the compute cycles it uses. People who know this, know this. You will not put the genie back into the bottle, and it is idiotic to try. Making absurd demands betrays your lack of understanding of the situation.
Post by: Neonivek on May 06, 2017, 01:13:55 pm
For example an excellent thing for the UK to do. Labor in power? Well if someone really hates Labor maybe put them on a watch list.
Post by: wierd on May 06, 2017, 02:24:58 pm
To parallel with your sentiment: it sure would be nice if I won the lottery! I will demand (at gunpoint) that the lottery commission declare me the winner, or else.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 06, 2017, 04:32:29 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 06, 2017, 06:25:09 pm
Well there are many reasons why the government would want your personal information and conversations beyond just terrorism and crime fighting. For example an excellent thing for the UK to do. Labor in power? Well if someone really hates Labor maybe put them on a watch list.Who is Labor and why does everyone hate him
I really don't understand the hard-line antics the UK has against end users employing encryption. To me, it just screams "we don't trust our own citizens" with a heavy side of "we are too incompetent to break it ourselves, and MANDATE that you, the telecom industry, do it for us.That would be because the UK Gov doesn't trust its citizens, and if it can break it themselves, it will not tell the public it can
Probably with a side dose of "hurr durr we're not spying on you it's the private companies we're not liable blame google"
Our understanding of modern cryptographic systems is so bad, we expect real-time monitoring within 24hrs of our demand."Fortunately (unfortunately?) the UK is leading the world in infosec
Quote
Surveillance of some mobile phone user data in "as near real-time as possible" has already been available to law enforcement authorities for many years, noted Dr Steven Murdoch at University College London.It uses its world expertise to watch its people, who are a rowdy bunch at times
Protip UK MPs: good encryption takes longer to brute force than the life expectancy of the sun. No, really, the sun will literally have exhausted all of its fuel before you will be assured to have that key. It is designed to be that way. Any encryption you can trivially bypass is not worth the compute cycles it uses. People who know this, know this. You will not put the genie back into the bottle, and it is idiotic to try. Making absurd demands betrays your lack of understanding of the situation.They are not seeking the powers or resources to attempt brute forcing encryption, they are seeking companies who run shit like Whatsapp to remove encryption altogether by installing backdoors into their own shit, despite them already having the tools needed to surveill specific targets
Basically it's a shit policy that benefits no one and harms the public so it shouldn't happen. Probably won't happen. Politicians and civil servants will still pursue it anyways, worryingly. #1 surveillance state in the world
Post by: Neonivek on May 06, 2017, 06:31:08 pm
Who is Labor and why does everyone hate him
It is a UK thing.
Though not everyone hates him.
Post by: wierd on May 06, 2017, 06:40:00 pm
There is no other way, aside from brute force (or some obscure technical exploit) to defeat actual, real, honest encryption systems-- and it will be very hard to force their backdoors into foss software. Even if that means the sofware becomes illegal in the UK (due to lack of back doors), its use will not go away. The US tried that battle in the 90s by treating strong encryption as a munition. It did NOT work.
The UK Govt is going to run up against somebody that knows what they are doing, is using actually vetted, GOOD encryption without obvious back doors, and will issue their bullshit 24hour demand to the telecom, who will have no choice but to reply "Sorry mate, Can't."
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 06, 2017, 06:53:30 pm
It is a UK thing.What kinda thing
Though not everyone hates him.
There is no other way, aside from brute force (or some obscure technical exploit) to defeat actual, real, honest encryption systems--And their intention is to make real, honest encryption systems illegal
and it will be very hard to force their backdoors into foss software. Even if that means the sofware becomes illegal in the UK (due to lack of back doors), its use will not go away. The US tried that battle in the 90s by treating strong encryption as a munition. It did NOT work.I don't doubt its use will not go away, what I'm concerned with is how much damage they can wreak in attempting it. Look at it this way, the UK gov failed to make VPNs and Tor go away, but it its efforts to do so, expanded the scope of its powers to be able to snoop on everyone not protecting their privacy. Useful comparison is China, they have failed to stop VPNs or encryption, yet their drives to control both allows them to consolidate their information control on the vast majority of their public who don't give a/f about their information
The UK Govt is going to run up against somebody that knows what they are doingThere is a joke to be made here
At any rate, any failures they meet usually gets shored up with grabbing something else. For example they used the Snowden leaks, wherein it was ruled their surveillance regime was illegal (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/17/uk-security-agencies-unlawfully-collected-data-for-decade) as impetus to make it legal (https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/23/13718768/uk-surveillance-laws-explained-investigatory-powers-bill)
Post by: Neonivek on May 06, 2017, 07:22:34 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK))
I'd have explained what I meant, but as you have complained. I try to tell you things.
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 06, 2017, 07:27:38 pm
Well I never thought I'd have to link this for someone from the UKI asked for Labor, not the Labour Party. Typical tricksy hobbit, never linking his proper sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK))
I'd have explained what I meant, but as you have complained. I try to tell you things.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 06, 2017, 07:47:55 pm
Well I never thought I'd have to link this for someone from the UKI asked for Laor, not the Laor Party. Typical tricksy hobbit, never linking his proper sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laor_Party_(UK) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laor_Party_(UK))
I'd have explained what I meant, but as you have complained. I try to tell you things.
Post by: Neonivek on May 06, 2017, 07:55:13 pm
Post by: Starver on May 07, 2017, 03:39:17 am
Pat Labor, the Irish mecha-pilot.Well there are many reasons why the government would want your personal information and conversations beyond just terrorism and crime fighting. For example an excellent thing for the UK to do. Labor in power? Well if someone really hates Labor maybe put them on a watch list.Who is Labor and why does everyone hate him
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 11, 2017, 05:57:02 am
Honestly I don't think this is going to be bad for them, on everything I've read thus far it seems like a really well-done manifesto. Hell, it'd convince me to vote for comrade corbachov if he wasn't in favour of unlimited migration and against nuclear arsenal renewal, and my own ideological predisposition towards supporting the party most likely to deliver Brexit (it is worth noting, that we have not yet left the European Union, and I will not consider a success before it's been finally achieved).
Post by: Starver on May 11, 2017, 07:28:58 am
And the "refusing to make false promises about immigration" is hardly a negative, because it would be nice to not have false promises (unless the promise to not falsely promise is false, but if you're not even promising in the first place then that won't happen), even ignoring my contrary view on the 'dangers'... (And how's that "getting more control over our borders" working out (https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/theresa-may-admits-future-calais-border-checks-discussion/), again?)
I don't see it persuading enough people to jump from blue to red to change government, the outlines I've seen, but if there's not some good counter-manifesto from May's team (they do now have the advantage of getting their reaction in earlier than if it hadn't leaked, and revising their own bumf before going to print) I think there's attractiveness in there to potentially draw down the Tory majority, which I think would be the best situation. Leavers can still jolly themselves with a Leave-party, but we don't get the "hey, while we're here, let's created Grammar Schools and hunt
Post by: Dorsidwarf on May 11, 2017, 07:30:30 am
Post by: TD1 on May 11, 2017, 07:32:08 am
A reintroduction of fox hunting can be repealed. A bad deal with Europe? Much harder.
Post by: Starver on May 11, 2017, 07:44:56 am
Post by: TD1 on May 11, 2017, 07:56:57 am
Of course it's a bid for power, but a five year powerful Tory government is preferable to what could be a permanent Europe deal contested over by Labour and the Tories. It would be their own little power play.
Post by: Starver on May 11, 2017, 08:23:19 am
Post by: smjjames on May 11, 2017, 10:18:20 am
I think May's line was "vote us for a stronger hand in negotiations."
A reintroduction of fox hunting can be repealed. A bad deal with Europe? Much harder.
But Fox hunting is a staple of British culture! Stereotypically so!.
(just ribbing you guys)
Post by: TD1 on May 11, 2017, 10:21:57 am
Post by: wierd on May 11, 2017, 10:27:56 am
OF COURSE, you GITS! ONWARD!
[20 horses stampede into china shop. Great cacophony of broken dishes is heard)
Post by: martinuzz on May 11, 2017, 07:46:01 pm
London owes much of it's status as the world's financial center to the fact that most of the world's largest clearing offices have settled there. A forced move to the EU would cost the City 83 thousand jobs, according to a studies done by consultancy club EY in 2016.
Three quarters of the world's financial derivatives that are denominated in euros are currently being taken care of by London clearing offices. 850 billion euros flow through each day.
If a clearance agency gets into trouble, the consequences for the financial markets can be huge. This is why the ECB wants that clearing houses trading in euro derivates are settled within it's own sphere of superintendence. This means that they will be forced to move from London, when the Brexit becomes fact, or cease trading in euro derivates (not an option).
However, the US fear 'balkanization' in other words, fragmentation of the financial markets, when every country or monetary union decides to take care of it's own clearing. This would lead to higher overhead costs for financial institutions when trading stocks or derivates. Apart from that, they think that fragmentation will make monitoring the clearing offices become less effective.
The discussion is not new. In 2015, the British were put in their right by the EU Court of Justice, which ruled that clearing offices in London were still allowed to handle transactions in euros.
The US openly threatening with sanctions in support of the UK is new though.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/vs-sancties-als-eu-londen-hard-aanpakt-na-brexit~a4494188/ (http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/vs-sancties-als-eu-londen-hard-aanpakt-na-brexit~a4494188/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_(finance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_(finance))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Trading_Commission
Post by: hector13 on May 11, 2017, 08:09:12 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 12, 2017, 06:26:30 am
Kinda have to question the cheekiness of the US investigating a foreign nation interfering with their politics while they interfere with Brexit.When they interfered with Brexit, they were supporting Remain. Now this isn't interference, this is just diplomacy, laffin if you think multilateral relations will never have the USA present somewhere, this has been the state of things since WWII
Post by: hector13 on May 12, 2017, 06:42:49 am
A bit pedantic there eh :P that was the Brexit referendum, this is Brexit negotiations.Kinda have to question the cheekiness of the US investigating a foreign nation interfering with their politics while they interfere with Brexit.When they interfered with Brexit, they were supporting Remain. Now this isn't interference, this is just diplomacy, laffin if you think multilateral relations will never have the USA present somewhere, this has been the state of things since WWII
They're trying to influence things they're not directly involved in to get an outcome they desire. I think that's a fairly common definition of interference.
Post by: hector13 on May 12, 2017, 12:29:19 pm
A bit pedantic there eh :P that was the Brexit referendum, this is Brexit negotiations.Kinda have to question the cheekiness of the US investigating a foreign nation interfering with their politics while they interfere with Brexit.When they interfered with Brexit, they were supporting Remain. Now this isn't interference, this is just diplomacy, laffin if you think multilateral relations will never have the USA present somewhere, this has been the state of things since WWII
They're trying to influence things they're not directly involved in to get an outcome they desire. I think that's a fairly common definition of interference.
Hah, that's like saying that a Korean election and the Korean war are the same because they both begin with the word Korean.
The referendum was an internal matter - the people of a country deciding its future path. The negotiations are basically just more moves in the Great Game (particularly given today's Schrodinger's Putin, who is simultaneously the puppet-master behind every side in every conflict), so it's natural the USA, being our closest ally, would show their hand.
Well... the negotiations are the conclusion to the referendum, so I totes reject the analogy. A fair point otherwise, though.
Even so, I don't think the US are trying to intimidate for altruistic reasons. If the EU succeeds in making clearings for Euro transactions go through the EU rather than London, it'll cost murrican companies a pretty penny in altering their business to be able to conform to those regulations.
Post by: Strife26 on May 12, 2017, 05:18:56 pm
*Should* any nation state act out of purely altruistic reasons?
Post by: smjjames on May 12, 2017, 06:46:46 pm
Do any nation states act out of altruistic reasons?
*Should* any nation state act out of purely altruistic reasons?
Purely altrusitic with no politics or other motivations involved? It'd be hard to tell if a decision was purely selfless as a whole because politicians and the complexities of geopolitics.
Though the closest could be global cooperation over something, like say combatting global warming, or fixing the Y2K bug.
Post by: Neonivek on May 12, 2017, 06:50:07 pm
Do any nation states act out of altruistic reasons?
*Should* any nation state act out of purely altruistic reasons?
Purely altrusitic with no politics or other motivations involved? It'd be hard to tell if a decision was purely selfless as a whole because politicians and the complexities of geopolitics.
Though the closest could be global cooperation over something, like say combatting global warming, or fixing the Y2K bug.
Nation States act out of Altruism all the time.
Post by: Strife26 on May 12, 2017, 06:56:22 pm
Do any nation states act out of altruistic reasons?
*Should* any nation state act out of purely altruistic reasons?
Purely altrusitic with no politics or other motivations involved? It'd be hard to tell if a decision was purely selfless as a whole because politicians and the complexities of geopolitics.
Though the closest could be global cooperation over something, like say combatting global warming, or fixing the Y2K bug.
Nation States act out of Altruism all the time.
So we should be looking at immediate invasions and stablizations of all the shithole and chaotic places in the world?
Post by: Neonivek on May 12, 2017, 07:08:51 pm
Do any nation states act out of altruistic reasons?
*Should* any nation state act out of purely altruistic reasons?
Purely altrusitic with no politics or other motivations involved? It'd be hard to tell if a decision was purely selfless as a whole because politicians and the complexities of geopolitics.
Though the closest could be global cooperation over something, like say combatting global warming, or fixing the Y2K bug.
Nation States act out of Altruism all the time.
So we should be looking at immediate invasions and stablizations of all the shithole and chaotic places in the world?
I don't know how that is related and I am not sure what you are getting at.
Post by: Strife26 on May 12, 2017, 07:14:20 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 12, 2017, 07:22:37 pm
In general, nations acting out of altruistic purposes are trying to ensure the general security of the world, or in the most pure-hearted cases, based on altruistic demands of the people. Neither of those are especially altruistic at their core, because the general security of the world generally requires the squashing of neophyte powers, and the will of the people is very shitty very frequently.
Yeah but if we go to "Altruistic at their core" we start to open up a can of worms. We should just give a benefit of the doubt for some things.
For example the classic purpose of "Gifting" was a show of power. You thrust immense amounts of food on a rival or neighbor to show just how well off you are.
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 16, 2017, 03:14:25 pm
Do any nation states act out of altruistic reasons?No, but Sweden comes close. As to whether they should act out of purely altruistic reasons, my opinion is nah. Running on the basis that altruism is concern for the welfare of others without concern for welfare of the self, that can be applied to a great degree of success to individual relations, but on the international scale is not particularly feasible, and I suspect prone to nation collapse. Governments more concerned with showing virtue than running the wheels of the country don't tend to lead to wheels turning smoothly, the theocracy never was all that successful
*Should* any nation state act out of purely altruistic reasons?
Yeah but if we go to "Altruistic at their core" we start to open up a can of worms. We should just give a benefit of the doubt for some things.Don't know about that, the classics purposes of gifting were threefold: Social, sexual & diplomatic. Social, for if you were giving someone something valuable without expectation of a return in favour or exchange in goods, you were expressing an exchange of goods without all the haggling or profit seeking of market merchantry, reinforcing or establishing a new relationship through this ceremonial activity. There's a sheer wealth of epics, documents and whatnot detailing how everyone from merchants to princes would gift one another, just look to Chinese or Greek officers in classical antiquity exchanging arms and weapons to build relations and respect amongst one another. This connection would even apply to diplomacy, so you get some interesting stuff where for example in the Iliad the two warring sides exchange gifts, weapons and armour incredibly frequently, and this helps to ensure that at the end of the day, despite the two seeking to kill one another - they'll still respect truces and burial rites, allowing the other to recover their dead and wounded. And in seeking alliances, relations or marriages, it helps to send a gift to a representative beforehand! This practice still continues to this day, and is a problem the USA has had to tackle with through the ages. In its founding years the USA wished to not send diplomatic gifts for fear of corruption, yet realized the simple reality that to not send diplomatic gifts would be to insult many of the nations they intended to deal with! And the most recent gaff involved our former Prime Minister Gordon Brown giving Barack Obama a pen holder carved from the wood of HMS Gannet, one of the Victorian ships which crushed the slave trade - the sister ship of HMS Resolute, whose wood was carved into the Oval Office desk. In return Obama gave him a DVD boxset. Obama's endorsement of Remain boosted Leave :]
For example the classic purpose of "Gifting" was a show of power. You thrust immense amounts of food on a rival or neighbor to show just how well off you are.
The final reason of course is simply sexual, and is a practice unlikely to go away for thousands of years. Suitors will woo with gifts, whether in nature or civilization
Thrusting immense wealth in the direction of your neighbour with no expectation of returns is overawing your neighbour, however that is a practice that occurs after gifting - it certainly was not a cheap affair, and only one available to the richest of Empires. I can only think of one big instance of overawing through gifts and that would be China's treasure fleet, which displayed the might of Imperial China and won many tributaries
Hah, that's like saying that a Korean election and the Korean war are the same because they both begin with the word Korean.Pretty much, the USA is the most important flank country of Europe and they are always involved in these affairs, were involved in this affair from the start and were invited to act by Nigel and Theresa. The alternative then is to say that we must willingly diplomatically isolate ourselves from our friends, which is simply nonsensical and likely to result in chuckling EU negotiators for days on end ;P
The referendum was an internal matter - the people of a country deciding its future path. The negotiations are basically just more moves in the Great Game (particularly given today's Schrodinger's Putin, who is simultaneously the puppet-master behind every side in every conflict), so it's natural the USA, being our closest ally, would show their hand.
Even so, I don't think the US are trying to intimidate for altruistic reasons. If the EU succeeds in making clearings for Euro transactions go through the EU rather than London, it'll cost murrican companies a pretty penny in altering their business to be able to conform to those regulations.Of course, the USA and UK are family yet policy is informed by reality, self-interest and calculation more than fondness or cultural ties - though, such things certainly factor in immensely under an Anglophile president. If London were to lose its centre as the place where most euro denominated swaps take place, the country that would directly benefit the most would be the USA itself, so it's nice to see they're backing us anyways
I can sympathize with the EU too, since the notion of London retaining vital European financial infrastructure whilst remaining outside the bloc's regulations even nominally would be a major headache for them. It would be especially embarrassing for example if some crisis in London caused the entire European financial system to collapse because they couldn't legally regulate their own system
Though I can say for certain this is not anything new. The EU's been trying to regulate London since forever and has failed consistently (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11448887/Britain-wins-landmark-ruling-against-ECB-on-banks.html) so this is a notable moment where that could change, thus the USA is stepping in to pressure for the status quo which saves them effort and money needed to adapt to whatever new challenges could emerge. In the long run if we had stayed in the UK, eventually the EU would have acquired the legal right to force the UK either to accept the euro or to move all euro clearing to the Eurozone... So everyone is forced into this awkward boat. I think even after Brexit the EU will continue to raise this issue if it does not succeed now
Post by: martinuzz on May 22, 2017, 12:07:59 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/20/dutch-invaders-stonehenge-ancient-britons
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 22, 2017, 03:00:00 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 22, 2017, 05:08:44 pm
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html?cmpid=facebook-post (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html?cmpid=facebook-post)
Is this overblown or a genuine concern?
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 22, 2017, 05:23:29 pm
So apparently the UK is going to cause the end of the world or something?You know I really don't think ██ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ █ █████ ██ ███ ██ █████. Such is this ██████ ██ █████ ███████ that any ██████████ ██ discourse █████ ██ is ███ inherently limited to ███████ "acceptable limits," with the vast collection of ████ █████████ ██ metadata ███████████ ███ to capture terrorist & pedophile communications. To say nothing of how ████ █████ ██ easily ████████, I █████ support any ██ ███ endeavours suggested, ███ I do not have any reason ██ ███ to ███ distrust such ministers that ███ powers ████ ██████ ██ assumed will ███ be ██used ██ ████, by successors, ██ ███ ██████ that intend to work ███████ ████ to keep us safe.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html?cmpid=facebook-post (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html?cmpid=facebook-post)
Is this overblown or a genuine concern?
Post by: hector13 on May 22, 2017, 05:26:05 pm
... right?
Post by: Grim Portent on May 22, 2017, 05:33:22 pm
Post by: Starver on May 22, 2017, 05:52:12 pm
So apparently the UK is going to cause the end of the world or something?If totalitarian (YMMV) China can't lock down everything behind their Great Firewall 100%, I feel safe in saying that this will not come to pass.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html?cmpid=facebook-post (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html?cmpid=facebook-post)
Is this overblown or a genuine concern?
I keep hearing politicians (mostly Amber Rudd) being oh so wrong about how the internet works. Like "the necessary hashtags" to stop dubious images (supposedly meant "hashes", but even that's naïve in the face of obvious counter-countermeasures...), and of course the expectation that P2P encrypted messages can be made P2Government2P.
It's like that elderly relative who still worries that electricity will pour out of any sockets left switched on without a plug in them.
Post by: Neonivek on May 22, 2017, 05:59:51 pm
It's like that elderly relative who still worries that electricity will pour out of any sockets left switched on without a plug in them.
Didn't we know what electricity was when he was a lad?
Post by: Starver on May 22, 2017, 06:25:53 pm
It was a standing joke when I was young, and those people probably haven't managed to age fully as much as I have, since then, so it probably isn't a widespread misbelief any longer.
Post by: smjjames on May 22, 2017, 06:26:50 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/europe/manchester-arena-incident/index.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-40007886
Post by: Sheb on May 23, 2017, 02:17:06 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 23, 2017, 02:20:49 am
Post by: TD1 on May 23, 2017, 07:48:49 am
Post by: Strife26 on May 23, 2017, 08:03:55 am
We should have a referendum to know if the UK should remain in the EU thread, go to the Non-EU (Russia and Australia included) thread or stay in the Brexit thread.
I expect the write-in campaign for the Terrible Jokes thread to emerge victorious.
Post by: Sheb on May 23, 2017, 08:51:43 am
Not European Union donnae mean not European.
But it's a EU thread, not a European thread. :p
Post by: Neonivek on May 23, 2017, 04:03:39 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-police-explosion-ariana-grande-concert-england (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-police-explosion-ariana-grande-concert-england)
A Suicide bomber blew himself up in a Ariana Grande Concert, killing at least 22 people and wounding over 50 more.
Post by: Starver on May 23, 2017, 04:25:00 pm
Well more fuel for the fireBrexit connection? YetAnotherHomegrownAttacker, if Salman Abedi really was the perpetrator...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-police-explosion-ariana-grande-concert-england (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/22/manchester-arena-police-explosion-ariana-grande-concert-england)
A Suicide bomber blew himself up in a Ariana Grande Concert, killing at least 22 people and wounding over 50 more.
Post by: Neonivek on May 23, 2017, 04:30:17 pm
Brexit connection? YetAnotherHomegrownAttacker, if Salman Abedi really was the perpetrator...
Well there are a few angles one could go for this a good one is that the terrorist attack does play into exactly the sort of rhetoric surrounding Brexit and affirms the Leave side.
Yet personally my reason is that this attack is going to be used as the impetus for changes that follow. I guess I might be, being a bit premature, but I don't think it is an outlandish assumption.
That and this is a pretty big tragedy. I think it deserves some attention, even if it was slightly on topic.
Edit: PLUS this topic has sort of become an informal UK topic.
Post by: Starver on May 23, 2017, 05:22:56 pm
8)
Post by: Neonivek on May 23, 2017, 07:55:23 pm
But Brexit thread means Brexit thread!
8)
Should I change the name? The UK doesn't have a thread since it isn't part of the EU.
Post by: scriver on May 24, 2017, 06:21:57 am
If anything I'd prefer we merged them all back together now that the non-eu threads aren't being closed every other week. I prefer my politics threads to cover a lot of space.
Post by: Sheb on May 24, 2017, 07:50:14 am
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on May 24, 2017, 01:13:30 pm
Post by: Strife26 on May 24, 2017, 01:16:56 pm
Post by: Starver on May 30, 2017, 09:55:31 pm
YMMV, but it's based upon my personal sampling of voiced opinions. I'm not sure that a Crooked Corbyn meme could really fly, and could even boomerang back on the Tories, unexpectedly.
Post by: Starver on May 31, 2017, 08:26:31 am
If they tried exactly the same visuals with Corbyn, the connotations would probably be the opposite.
Anyway, is this an Election thread, now? Well, arguably the election is a "whose Brexit do we (not) want anyway?", with a sideline of properly electing President May, and much less thought to the rest of the policies and direction and than it should be.
(Although the Conservatives going hard-left on certain things, like the socialist seizing of senior citizens' assets, and trying to be the catch-all on the right for the rebounding UKIPpers who just want their <whatever it is they voted Leave for> now that it's happening but not <the things they didn't vote Leave for>, it's going to be a messed up future parliament unless they luck out and actually find themselves in opposition against a coalition.)
Post by: Starver on May 31, 2017, 09:01:19 am
Though I didn't realise it, it seems that this is not the first time on this page that I questioned the thread-drift. I fully see the irony, given my own tendency to drift things on my own flights of fancy.Anyway, is this an Election thread, now?Kinda become "British politics general" now.
So (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40103601), anyway (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-40099397).... Unrelated (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40105324).
Post by: Neonivek on May 31, 2017, 10:07:23 am
Post by: smjjames on May 31, 2017, 02:25:03 pm
Holy shit, a BBC article where people are criticising the Tories and saying that May's a terrible choice? And they're the most upvoted?Though I didn't realise it, it seems that this is not the first time on this page that I questioned the thread-drift. I fully see the irony, given my own tendency to drift things on my own flights of fancy.Anyway, is this an Election thread, now?Kinda become "British politics general" now.
So (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40103601), anyway (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-40099397).... Unrelated (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40105324).
What the fuck did you DO, May?
Skipped a debate apparently. From what I can tell over here on the other side of the pond.
Post by: TD1 on May 31, 2017, 02:26:16 pm
There's someone out there who loves Winged Hussars.
Post by: smjjames on May 31, 2017, 02:29:34 pm
Wait, you're American? Why'd I assume you were Polish?
There's someone out there who loves Winged Hussars.
Lol, I've said I'm American multiple times.
And for the one who loves Winged Hussars you're thinking about Kot, though he's not the only Polish Bay12er.
Post by: Sheb on May 31, 2017, 02:31:05 pm
Wait, you're American? Why'd I assume you were Polish?
There's someone out there who loves Winged Hussars.
Kot
Post by: TD1 on May 31, 2017, 02:32:01 pm
Post by: smjjames on May 31, 2017, 02:47:11 pm
Post by: martinuzz on May 31, 2017, 08:20:42 pm
Didn't see Kot post for a while now. Hope he / she is still with us.Wait, you're American? Why'd I assume you were Polish?
There's someone out there who loves Winged Hussars.
Kot
Post by: Strife26 on May 31, 2017, 11:25:07 pm
Wait, you're American? Why'd I assume you were Polish?I like them, but simply because they spearheaded the largest cavalry charge in history and Sabaton did a song about it.
There's someone out there who loves Winged Hussars.
Objection! Cavalry charges should be considered in weight, with heavy cavalry being significantly more impressive (and therefore "larger") than the use of light forces. Back of the envelope, if we call the winged hussars the heaviest horseman ever fielded, they *might* round to a ton a piece. This is significant weight of metal, certainly, but little compared to other charges described by Sabaton.
Quote
Under this sun no shadows will fall, piercing our eyes as we charge . . .
Thousands of tons of armor and guns, making it's way through the sand
Post by: Dorsidwarf on June 01, 2017, 06:21:07 am
I should know, I get like an email a day saying "the tories have failed the UK May cannot be trusted donate to labour today" and cant figure out how to get off the damn mailing list
Post by: TD1 on June 01, 2017, 06:45:52 am
Post by: Starver on June 01, 2017, 08:08:46 am
Everyone also does the whole "..and, what I say to you is, that in the fullness of time, at the appropriate juncture, when all conditions are right and we have our full and proper mandate, then we shall ensure that our export of floggletoggles and humgrummits to the Republic of Potarneyland properly balances our trade deficit, reduces our debt and increases employment and the standard of living for all working families in the inner citiy supurb of Ballykissangel!" thing. And stating what happened in the past (especially that annoying phrase "...that we inherited from the last government..." which I heard just a few days ago, despite that actually refering to three governments, and a global crisis, ago...), which has as much or as little relevence as you care to personally give it, even assuming you agree with the 'facts' being given.
Post by: smjjames on June 01, 2017, 08:25:19 am
Theres a small chance that the Russia investigation could go international, well, more international than it already is, since Nigel Farage has been named a person of interest in the probe (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/335887-nigel-farage-person-of-interest-in-fbi-probe-report). He hasn't been accused of anything, but it's well known that he has connections to Trump and his staff as well as Assanage. It's entirely possible that he simply got caught in the middle of all this and did nothing wrong.
Post by: Loud Whispers on June 01, 2017, 09:28:51 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Regarding Farage, it's hilarious that he's being treated as Russian until proven British. He's gonna get proper roasted for appearing on RT
Post by: smjjames on June 01, 2017, 09:38:02 am
Post by: smjjames on June 01, 2017, 09:59:34 am
To be fair, he willingly inserted himself into the whole situation.Wait, are you victim blaming Farage? :P
Nobody has accused him of anything yet, I even said he could very well be innocent in all this and just caught up in the many threads emanating from the investigation that the investigators are following.
Post by: Neonivek on June 01, 2017, 01:14:23 pm
Yeah I think he is absolutely scummy (and a bunch of other things), yet I always took him as a patriot.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 01, 2017, 02:10:42 pm
Post by: smjjames on June 01, 2017, 06:38:20 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 01, 2017, 06:57:19 pm
That recent poll is definitely more closely resembling the "Theresa May fucks up and self-destructs the Tories" scenario than the "Corbyn's pinkos are finally ousted for good, the Brexit Imperium is now" scenario.
Post by: smjjames on June 01, 2017, 07:03:11 pm
Post by: TD1 on June 01, 2017, 07:33:49 pm
Post by: hector13 on June 01, 2017, 08:25:50 pm
Post by: smjjames on June 01, 2017, 08:29:04 pm
Post by: hector13 on June 01, 2017, 09:30:10 pm
Post by: smjjames on June 01, 2017, 09:34:41 pm
Post by: scriver on June 02, 2017, 01:47:33 am
Post by: Sheb on June 02, 2017, 04:18:42 am
No, just sheer economic power. A lot of those exceptions are about things designed to profit France or Germany, but the UK was big enough to go lol no about.
Uh, not really, stuff like opt-out on immigration have nothing to do with economics. And powerhouses like Denmark also got them. It's mostly that the UK has been historically less euro-enthusiast than other countries, and in the sausage-making of treaty crafting other countries often found it easier to give the UK an exemption and move forward.
Post by: scriver on June 02, 2017, 06:42:59 am
Post by: Helgoland on June 02, 2017, 07:31:35 am
And powerhouses like Denmark also got them.
Post by: Necrothurge on June 02, 2017, 07:42:13 am
Post by: Frumple on June 02, 2017, 07:48:47 am
Post by: Necrothurge on June 02, 2017, 07:59:26 am
... and that, ladies and gents, is (one of the ways) how your preferred political party loses an election :P
Like I say, my constituency is 100% predicted win for Labour. No point in voting, really.
I made a snap election thread: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=164378.msg7472758#msg7472758
Post by: Starver on June 02, 2017, 08:00:17 am
I thought Labor and Corbyn were against Brexit? I think I read somewhere that he is in favor of giving the Falklands back to Argentina, so, I don't know.Labour was split Remain/Leave, just like the Conservatives were split during the Referendum, more than once the Referendum was referred to as the Cameron/Osbourne vs Johnson/Gove Conservative Leadership Campaign Open To All Voters Of All Party Allegiances And None.
Corbyn, himself, was nominally Remain, "7 out of 10 swayed towards Europe", but was criticised for not actually putting his weight into convincing people of that. Meanwhile, May was Remain-but-mostly-absent.
Anyway, Labour now has the problem of having to garner support from its old/potential supporters who were Leavers (who may have voted UKIP, and are now tempted to vote for President May because they like the cut of her gibb) and old/potential supporters who are still Remain-inclined, and would probably wander in the direction of the LibDems if that gave the message (that voting Labour wouldn't, whatever else they think about Corbyn) that No Exit is still their preference.
The Tories have a degree of Remain haemorhraging to deal with, but are simultaneously likely being infused by UKIP voters, if that party doesn't stop its own bleedout, like it didn't for the Local Elections.
Post by: Sheb on June 02, 2017, 08:50:17 am
The size of your economy has everything to do with how much influence you have in the great eco-dick measuring contest which is the EU, and how much influence you have decides how much you can get away with.
Lisbon changed it a tiny bit, but historically almost all decisions needed to be taken by consensus. If a country really doesn't want something, it won't happen, or they'll get an opt-out. Of course, other countries are going to try to negotiate to move things forward ("Well, if you don't want to back our migration rules, we'll not cooperate on justice with you...") but that's it. Economics got much less influence than you seems to think it has, political will has. Look at how Sweden punched way above its economic wiehgt when Carl Bilt was FM for exemple.
Post by: scriver on June 02, 2017, 09:16:41 am
And powerhouses like Denmark also got them.
All countries have exceptions. The UK has the most because it is one of the most powerful members.
The size of your economy has everything to do with how much influence you have in the great eco-dick measuring contest which is the EU, and how much influence you have decides how much you can get away with.
Lisbon changed it a tiny bit, but historically almost all decisions needed to be taken by consensus. If a country really doesn't want something, it won't happen, or they'll get an opt-out. Of course, other countries are going to try to negotiate to move things forward ("Well, if you don't want to back our migration rules, we'll not cooperate on justice with you...") but that's it. Economics got much less influence than you seems to think it has, political will has. Look at how Sweden punched way above its economic wiehgt when Carl Bilt was FM for exemple.
It's nice that you followed up your argument with pointing out why just flat out refusing isn't possible in reality. You have to negotiate, and the leverage you have to negotiate with depends on the size of your economy.
Also Carl Bildt is a sociopath responsible for genocide in Ethiopia.
Post by: Sheb on June 02, 2017, 09:27:24 am
I'm also not sure all countries have exception. Not aware of any significant one for Belgium for exemple. It seems to be more correlated with euroscepticism and date of membership than anything. Which is why Danemark got so many, from the Euro to defense to migration. Although you could make the argument that Danemark wouldn't have gotten so many if it couldn't ride on the UK's coattail. Not sure if that's how it worked out at the negotiations, it'd be nice to know.
But the dirty truth is that a lot of the time, when national politicians tells you the EU forced them to do something, it just means they don't want to take the fallout but actually didn't disagree much with the proposal. When they are determined, even small countries can get their way (Look at how Greece took the entire enlargement of 2004 hostage to get the EU to accept a split Cyprus as a member).
Post by: scriver on June 02, 2017, 09:41:35 am
And yes Carl Bildt was director or board member of what I recall as being an oil or mining company at the time it's been gleefully murdering locals in Ethiopia region.
Post by: Frumple on June 02, 2017, 10:05:25 am
Post by: Starver on June 02, 2017, 10:15:36 am
All countries have exceptions. The UK has the most because it is one of the most powerful members....and now they're all thrown away. (Or will be. And slim chance of ever regaining. If we leave and then rejoin, we won't be able to resist the change to the Euro, which'll annoy a certain party with the "£" symbol in their logo...)
Post by: Helgoland on June 02, 2017, 09:04:49 pm
Yeah it's almost as if politicians have a different agenda in the EU regardless of what their people think and that the EU works against people's ability to democratically self-determinate.When folks are gullible or willfully uninformed enough for that trick to work, they deserve to be duped, really. It's not like there's some secret mystic wisdom being kept away from The People (tm) here.
Post by: scriver on June 03, 2017, 06:17:54 am
Yeah it's almost as if politicians have a different agenda in the EU regardless of what their people think and that the EU works against people's ability to democratically self-determinate.When folks are gullible or willfully uninformed enough for that trick to work, they deserve to be duped, really. It's not like there's some secret mystic wisdom being kept away from The People (tm) here.
Yeah there's definitely no deliberate obfuscation going on in the EU, that's why opacity is a cornerstone - oh wait it isn't.
Post by: Sheb on June 03, 2017, 07:23:52 am
Yeah it's almost as if politicians have a different agenda in the EU regardless of what their people think and that the EU works against people's ability to democratically self-determinate.When folks are gullible or willfully uninformed enough for that trick to work, they deserve to be duped, really. It's not like there's some secret mystic wisdom being kept away from The People (tm) here.
Yeah there's definitely no deliberate obfuscation going on in the EU, that's why opacity is a cornerstone - oh wait it isn't.
I'm having trouble parsing that sentece. Are you complaining that opacity isn't a cornerstone of the EU? :p
Post by: scriver on June 03, 2017, 07:59:55 am
Post by: Starver on June 03, 2017, 08:17:45 am
Post by: scriver on June 03, 2017, 08:28:36 am
Post by: Starver on June 03, 2017, 09:20:41 am
Post by: Max™ on June 03, 2017, 02:40:22 pm
Top quality banter right here, tippity toppity too!Pat Labor, the Irish mecha-pilot.Well there are many reasons why the government would want your personal information and conversations beyond just terrorism and crime fighting. For example an excellent thing for the UK to do. Labor in power? Well if someone really hates Labor maybe put them on a watch list.Who is Labor and why does everyone hate him
Post by: Max™ on June 03, 2017, 04:57:31 pm
Post by: smjjames on June 03, 2017, 05:15:10 pm
Didn't that happen already?
You're probably thinking of the one near Parliament recently, forget the name offhand, W something.
Edit: Westminster bridge is what I was thinking of.
Post by: Starver on June 03, 2017, 05:19:38 pm
Ah, edit-ninjaed
Post by: Lagslayer on June 03, 2017, 05:21:00 pm
Spoiler: It keeps happening. (click to show/hide)
Post by: smjjames on June 03, 2017, 05:22:30 pm
Post by: Starver on June 03, 2017, 06:11:11 pm
I thought London Bridge was the iconic one. *shrug*A lot of people do. Partly why I mentioned Tower Bridge for context.. Though it's an urban myth that the London Bridge that was sold to wherever-it-was in America was thought to be the Tower one by the purchasers. They knew they were getting a 'standard' river-crossing, and not even the original London Bridge at that, just one of the various incarnations ("New London Bridge", at the time, c.f. the medieval "Old" one, that was the one that was immortalised in song as burning down), being about to be re-re-re-replaced
(This lesson in transpontine terminology is given freely whilst the information about the incident is still far too fluid to say much for certain. I see reports of "at least one fatality", but this may well change even by the time I save this edit...)
Post by: martinuzz on June 03, 2017, 06:27:55 pm
At one point there were reports of another incident at Vauxhall, but that turned out to be fake.
Post by: Starver on June 03, 2017, 06:42:32 pm
I was seeing hints of the additional reports, but the confusion over Vauxhall1 took most of my attention.
It is way too early to talk politics, but how the politicians handle things (so close to the election that a 'day off campaigning' is effectively impossible) could be make-or-break. I will give big credit to anyone who gets the balance right. It could also go wrong.
Shut up Covenant, your bias is showing.
1 Vauxhall Bridge is the second bridge further upstream of Westminster, possibly a useful secondary target by a group fearing security around Westminster would be too great, so instead aim to flank that with seprate attacks)
Post by: smjjames on June 03, 2017, 07:11:24 pm
Post by: Starver on June 03, 2017, 07:13:36 pm
Spoiler: @Cov (click to show/hide)
Post by: Lagslayer on June 03, 2017, 07:27:17 pm
Quote from: greatorder
Also, are you serious? "If you kill your enemies, they win"
Surely you can't be such a walking meme as this.
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on June 03, 2017, 07:29:10 pm
Post by: Starver on June 03, 2017, 07:47:08 pm
And it's nth-generation immigrants that are the problem. The offspring, or offspring's offspring, who are probably being told (not entirely with integrity from the one telling) how the grass was greener on the previous side the fence. Not the original immigrants who knew what it was they were leaving, and at least once had a high opinion of life here, possibly still do.
It's not totally a current problem to solve. Bad/unhelpful attitudes in the past kept the families from properly integrating, or current rabble-rousers turn the impressionable youth off of the path of the (at least marginal) integration of the parents.
You can't demand homogeneity. It would just increase the pressures to de-conform. Also, the Jehovah's Witnesses a few doors down would suffer, and (as a non-theistic person, even before I consider my possible offset from the system's preferred universal constant) I'm not seriously looking to do that to them,
Post by: smjjames on June 03, 2017, 07:55:25 pm
Also, we can't do anything about the past (as much as people like to strawman, "if X's parent's hadn't immigrated here, then Y wouldn't happen" (it'd just be someone else who ends up doing it)), but we can do something about the right now.
Post by: Starver on June 03, 2017, 08:22:05 pm
Post by: hector13 on June 03, 2017, 08:25:17 pm
Also, we can't do anything about the past (as much as people like to strawman, "if X's parent's hadn't immigrated here, then Y wouldn't happen" (it'd just be someone else who ends up doing it)), but we can do something about the right now.
Well you've been told about the fallacy you do too, "someone would end up doing it anyway" :P
Post by: TD1 on June 03, 2017, 08:34:01 pm
Post by: smjjames on June 03, 2017, 08:50:21 pm
Also, we can't do anything about the past (as much as people like to strawman, "if X's parent's hadn't immigrated here, then Y wouldn't happen" (it'd just be someone else who ends up doing it)), but we can do something about the right now.
Well you've been told about the fallacy you do too, "someone would end up doing it anyway" :P
I was thinking of it as a time paradox type problem, so, it's time paradox logic.
Too late. They're already here to stay. Why? Because they aren't the one's that are coming- they're the kids, and the kids of those kids, who grew up in the same places that you call home. Deporting them would be stripping them of any citizenship, and that is simply not allowed by your government. If you want to make a difference, you can ban immigration from the troublesome areas for the next... 40 years or so. That'll start making an impact on the number of potential terrorists.
Exactly, you still have to deal with the ones still there/here, and the obvious solutions like deporting them and/or stripping them of citizenship simply aren't politically workable.
A lot of solutions (that I've seen on the forum anyway) deal with those that can be deported, but not really any that deal with those that are still there, and can still make babies btw. (that last bit was tongue in cheek sarcasm).
Anyways, we have yet to know the identities of those behind this, wouldn't be surprised if they were also nth gen immigrants since that's the trend.
Post by: Leafsnail on June 03, 2017, 09:01:41 pm
What if your enemy is an ideology that thrives on martyrdom?If they are 2nd and 3rd gen, they should have assimilated by now.Quote from: greatorder
Also, are you serious? "If you kill your enemies, they win"
Surely you can't be such a walking meme as this.
Post by: Starver on June 03, 2017, 09:07:41 pm
The recent Manchester Bomber had close/recent family links to Libya, and trips there (and maybe Syria?), but a number of the people involved in similar activities haven't gone anywhere more foreign than Wales1, physically. Though with the power of the Internet they have travelled into a shared mindscape with fellow antagonists of all nationalities, and none.
Anyway, that's likely the issue behind this. But far too early to be anything but baldly speculative about this recent incident.
1 A bonus joke there for the etymologists amongst you!
Post by: Neonivek on June 03, 2017, 09:17:32 pm
Nobody's demanding homogeneity
Not by that name specifically.
Yet when you demand that people shouldn't be able to practice their culture, that people should be vetted according to whether their beliefs match the home country, and limitations on the visibility of said culture... Do you really need to say that?
I mean I guess I could say that all those people are white supremists and it isn't like the UK doesn't have its own issues with racism and rivals or possible exceeds that of the US... Yet I don't exactly think that is the case.
Yet let me see EXACTLY how many people in the UK are calling for homogeneity... and the numbers suggest... 38%. This is separate from the people in the UK who find that multiculturalism has been executed poorly (Which is extremely high. Yet "Multiculturalism has failed" and "Multiculturalism itself is bad" are two separate ideas though often spoken of in the same breath or as if they are the same)
Though... Oddly enough there is a split between party lines. apparently a solid majority of people in UKIP, they are also the people who most strongly believe that Muslims themselves are a dangerous entity.
Goodness the UK Independence Party sure does attract a very specific kind of person.
Post by: Reelya on June 03, 2017, 09:17:59 pm
The extremes of this on the right are that guy who gunned down a whole church full of black folks, or Timothy McVeigh level terrorists. Or the Joker cinema shooter in Colorado. People who are disassociated and want to cause carnage, but it's a little easier to self-rationalize when you can throw a "cause" label on it.
Or that guy in Portland who stabbed people. A guy who randomly stabs people against Allah might have exactly the same personality type as someone who randomly stabs people for Allah.
Post by: smjjames on June 03, 2017, 09:30:20 pm
I still think there's some merit in the idea that the same sort of social disenfranchisement that leads to MRAs, alt-right etc (perhaps antifida too) could be at play with "homegrown" islamic activists. You have young men who feel disenfranchised and they'll glomp onto anything: the causes they join might be bullshit, but that doesn't mean the sense of disenfranchisement isn't real. It's a real issue, and we're seeing the results on various sides of politics.
The extremes of this on the right are that guy who gunned down a whole church full of black folks, or Timothy McVeigh level terrorists. Or the Joker cinema shooter in Colorado. People who are disassociated and want to cause carnage, but it's a little easier to self-rationalize when you can throw a "cause" label on it.
The Aurora Cinema shooter wasn't left or right anything, he was just absolutely crazy, though evidently coherent enough to rig up his apartment as one big booby trap.
I thought MRA (Mens Rights Activists) was just an ironic reactionary thing to Feminism? Could also be WMS (White Male Supremacy) cloaked in another name though.
However, the disenfranchisement is definetly a major thread through all of what we've seen. There also seems to be another thread where it seems like a lot of them are mentally ill in some way or another, but it's more likely that such people are just more vulnerable to ISIS's manipulations than an actual thread to follow.
Post by: Reelya on June 03, 2017, 09:34:08 pm
MRAs are basically a type of postmodern feminism for men who feel alienated from society, it uses all the same types of rhetoric. They talk about feminazis/matriarchy the femocracy etc, they talk about misandry instead of misogyny, and how "the system" is stacked against men. They also talk about unfair outcomes: male suicide, males who suffer abuse, education system ingrained bias against boys, institutional rape of males. That's feminist speak except with genders flipped, it's not traditional masculinity.
Post by: smjjames on June 03, 2017, 09:44:54 pm
MRAs are too much playing the victim card to be a new face for male supremacy. Male supremacists play the alpha-male card, MRAs are whiny betas.
MRAs are basically a type of postmodern feminism for men who feel alienated from society, it uses all the same types of rhetoric. They talk about feminazis/matriarchy the femocracy etc, they talk about misandry instead of misogyny, and how "the system" is stacked against men. That's feminist speak except with genders flipped, it's not traditional masculinity.
SJWs being reactionary to Feminism then.
Still, the SJW/MRA/Feminist/antifa types aren't usually terrorists though, you'd have to look back to the 70's at least, maybe 80's, for anything that closely resembles those.
Post by: Neonivek on June 03, 2017, 10:03:30 pm
MRAs are too much playing the victim card to be a new face for male supremacy. Male supremacists play the alpha-male card, MRAs are whiny betas.
MRAs are basically a type of postmodern feminism for men who feel alienated from society, it uses all the same types of rhetoric. They talk about feminazis/matriarchy the femocracy etc, they talk about misandry instead of misogyny, and how "the system" is stacked against men. That's feminist speak except with genders flipped, it's not traditional masculinity.
SJWs being reactionary to Feminism then.
Still, the SJW/MRA/Feminist/antifa types aren't usually terrorists though, you'd have to look back to the 70's at least, maybe 80's, for anything that closely resembles those.
Well things pop up. Then again extremists exist in any political group.
I am sure if I looked hard enough I could find some sort of feminist killer (I specifically say that... because there are good examples of SJW and MRA murders/crimes. Yet I have no knowledge of a feminism motivated murder)
Post by: smjjames on June 03, 2017, 10:13:02 pm
MRAs are too much playing the victim card to be a new face for male supremacy. Male supremacists play the alpha-male card, MRAs are whiny betas.
MRAs are basically a type of postmodern feminism for men who feel alienated from society, it uses all the same types of rhetoric. They talk about feminazis/matriarchy the femocracy etc, they talk about misandry instead of misogyny, and how "the system" is stacked against men. That's feminist speak except with genders flipped, it's not traditional masculinity.
SJWs being reactionary to Feminism then.
Still, the SJW/MRA/Feminist/antifa types aren't usually terrorists though, you'd have to look back to the 70's at least, maybe 80's, for anything that closely resembles those.
Well things pop up. Then again extremists exist in any political group.
I am sure if I looked hard enough I could find some sort of feminist killer (I specifically say that... because there are good examples of SJW and MRA murders/crimes. Yet I have no knowledge of a feminism motivated murder)
I'm sure there are some sort of feminist killer somewhere because people can and have killed each other over dumb stuff.
I mean actual terror incidents, but there haven't been any terroristic attacks by anybody left wing or left wing sympathising since, I dunno, the 70s. Nevermind the fact that the Democrats aren't a true left wing party. There are left wing parties, just that neither of the two major ones are.
Though the Dems are feeling the pull that wants to take them leftward.
Post by: Max™ on June 03, 2017, 11:30:55 pm
Also didn't know MRA was actually a thing, thought it was just part of /pol/ leaking into the real world, but there's a big overlap between the "FUCK YEAH ANGLOSPHERE" crowd on there and the "fucking misandry!" crowd.
Post by: Neonivek on June 03, 2017, 11:35:41 pm
didn't know MRA was actually a thing
Arguably it isn't an actual thing.
It gets far more attention then it actually encompasses.
Post by: alway on June 04, 2017, 12:50:48 am
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study
(Is this mic on? Can we solve other problems by pretending terrorists did it and spending billions accordingly?)
But seriously, they're doing it for the attention; they aren't going to kill us all, they won't even be more deadly or disruptive than the rest of everyday life. Terrorism only feeds on stupid overreactions, so quit feeding it and move on with life. The only thing that will endanger you are the idiots who have decided to go along with their fear game, pretending they are enemies of the terrorists in a show of pointless bravado that simply feeds a cycle of hatred.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 04, 2017, 04:25:19 am
This is based on thr faulty logic of 'making it a law will make it happen'. But things are not so simple. Migrants WILL keep coming, in huge numbers, legally or not. Just look at what takes place in the Mediterranean. What has been taking place for the last two decades, really.
Post by: Starver on June 04, 2017, 04:34:02 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 04, 2017, 04:42:35 am
Mind you, I'm not saying that a "doors wide open" policy will work either.
I don't think this problem has easy solutions, and the first step to finding one is recognizing this fact.
Post by: Leafsnail on June 04, 2017, 09:07:26 am
Post by: TD1 on June 04, 2017, 09:12:08 am
Post by: smjjames on June 04, 2017, 09:17:51 am
I think it's safe to say that they formed their ideology because of a large Muslim peer group throughout their life toting violent tenets. They may as well not have been converts in that regard. It's a cultural and religious mix quite potent when concentrated. I don't know how many rural terrorists there are, but I'd assume it's so insignificant a number to be practically zero.
Well, the big targets just happen to be in the cities and migrants also tend to gather in the urban/suburban areas. Not sure what you mean by 'rural terrorist' here, those with rural backgrounds?
Post by: Starver on June 04, 2017, 09:39:44 am
Post by: scriver on June 04, 2017, 09:52:49 am
Also, we can't do anything about the past (as much as people like to strawman, "if X's parent's hadn't immigrated here, then Y wouldn't happen" (it'd just be someone else who ends up doing it)), but we can do something about the right now.
I'll just respond to this with my response to when you said this exact thing the last time.
How can you talk about fallacies with a straight face when you are making the argument that if this man would not have lived in the UK some other, completely unknowable, person, through completely unknowable means, would have just "done it instead". This is some shitty arse predeterminist logic you've got there. That kind of nonsense appeal-to-alternative-universes reasoning works great for all kinds of things. "If we had prevented him from owning a gun, somebody else would have accidently shot his kid while playing with it!" "If we hadn't built this pipeline without giving a damn about environmental concerns causing the destruction of this Indian holy ground and leaks into the drinking water, someosomeone else would have!" "If we hadn't released all these greenhouse gases and polluted the atmosphere, someone else just would have! Who? I dont know! Where? I don't know! Why? I don't know! When? I don't know! I don't know.That's the beauty of it, see, I don't have to know. I just have to say it would have happened anyway!"
Apparently some terrorists have decided to kill 26 people each day in London until they deal with air pollution:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study
(Is this mic on? Can we solve other problems by pretending terrorists did it and spending billions accordingly?)
But seriously, they're doing it for the attention; they aren't going to kill us all, they won't even be more deadly or disruptive than the rest of everyday life. Terrorism only feeds on stupid overreactions, so quit feeding it and move on with life. The only thing that will endanger you are the idiots who have decided to go along with their fear game, pretending they are enemies of the terrorists in a show of pointless bravado that simply feeds a cycle of hatred.
Please don't pretend that there is any kind of "us" in relation to terrorism in Europe that includes upperclass Americans in Texas.
Post by: Silverthrone on June 04, 2017, 10:08:40 am
O, Lord, our God arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall.
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all.
One can always hold hope. This is a war, and it naturally calls the government and the security forces to action. But I do think that it is important to remember, and to have hope. These murderous traitors keep returning, and these attacks keep happening, but they must not become a state of normality; a force of nature that one must live with. That is what they become, in a practical sense. Hence why one must always remember that it should not be like this.
It is not an inevitable force of nature, or chastisement from above for sins of the past. They are enemies that mean to kill us. Enemies can be defeated.
I do apologise for my ramble. I have not contributed much by it. But I maintain that is it important to remember: this is happening. That does not mean that it should be allowed to happen.
Post by: smjjames on June 04, 2017, 10:11:13 am
Also, we can't do anything about the past (as much as people like to strawman, "if X's parent's hadn't immigrated here, then Y wouldn't happen" (it'd just be someone else who ends up doing it)), but we can do something about the right now.
I'll just respond to this with my response to when you said this exact thing the last time.How can you talk about fallacies with a straight face when you are making the argument that if this man would not have lived in the UK some other, completely unknowable, person, through completely unknowable means, would have just "done it instead". This is some shitty arse predeterminist logic you've got there. That kind of nonsense appeal-to-alternative-universes reasoning works great for all kinds of things. "If we had prevented him from owning a gun, somebody else would have accidently shot his kid while playing with it!" "If we hadn't built this pipeline without giving a damn about environmental concerns causing the destruction of this Indian holy ground and leaks into the drinking water, someosomeone else would have!" "If we hadn't released all these greenhouse gases and polluted the atmosphere, someone else just would have! Who? I dont know! Where? I don't know! Why? I don't know! When? I don't know! I don't know.That's the beauty of it, see, I don't have to know. I just have to say it would have happened anyway!"
I missed that response last time, honest, and I see your point.
Quote
Apparently some terrorists have decided to kill 26 people each day in London until they deal with air pollution:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study
(Is this mic on? Can we solve other problems by pretending terrorists did it and spending billions accordingly?)
But seriously, they're doing it for the attention; they aren't going to kill us all, they won't even be more deadly or disruptive than the rest of everyday life. Terrorism only feeds on stupid overreactions, so quit feeding it and move on with life. The only thing that will endanger you are the idiots who have decided to go along with their fear game, pretending they are enemies of the terrorists in a show of pointless bravado that simply feeds a cycle of hatred.
Please don't pretend that there is any kind of "us" in relation to terrorism in Europe that includes upperclass Americans in Texas.
The article is about pollution killing people in London, not some group claiming 26 people will die a day until air pollution is fixed.
And not sure where upperclass Americans in/from Texas come into this, unless maybe you mean George W. Bush?
Post by: Wolfhunter107 on June 04, 2017, 10:21:25 am
Post by: scriver on June 04, 2017, 10:27:09 am
And the article is irrelevant, alway's point is that we shouldn't care that people are actively attacking and murdering us because we also damage ourselves through passive means.
By the looks of it, he's trying to shut the conversation down on the basis that you aren't European.
To be exact, I am trying to criticise alway's use of "us" applied to an argument that Brits shouldn't care about Brits being murdered (because "they won't kill all of us") when he is neither a Brit nor in the same boat as Europeans in general.
Post by: Leafsnail on June 04, 2017, 10:31:40 am
I think it's safe to say that they formed their ideology because of a large Muslim peer group throughout their life toting violent tenets. They may as well not have been converts in that regard. It's a cultural and religious mix quite potent when concentrated. I don't know how many rural terrorists there are, but I'd assume it's so insignificant a number to be practically zero.You seem to be making assumptions and speculating rather than making informed arguments. The Westminster attacker grew up in Rye and Tunbridge Wells, and only converted to Islam after a string of violent crimes.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 04, 2017, 11:05:09 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 04, 2017, 11:06:19 am
Post by: redwallzyl on June 04, 2017, 11:06:48 am
How come the converts always seem to be violent?Because their the only ones you hear about.
Post by: Sheb on June 04, 2017, 11:09:08 am
How come the converts always seem to be violent?
Because "Bob converts to Islam, still local bowling champion" makes for boring headlines.
Edit: If the question is "why do they seem to be more likely than born muslims to get recruited by ISIS", well, it's important to note that most of the Muslims that are recruited tends to be relatively unreligious and not intergrated in religious lives (Mosques, muslims charities, etc). Jut like your gut bacteria protect you from diarrea by taking up the space, religious life protect you from Takfiri. Converts for rather obvious reasons lack this to a greater degree than born muslims.
Post by: Leafsnail on June 04, 2017, 12:42:59 pm
Post by: smjjames on June 04, 2017, 01:49:07 pm
Post by: wierd on June 04, 2017, 01:52:24 pm
Post by: smjjames on June 04, 2017, 01:57:52 pm
Post by: scriver on June 04, 2017, 03:36:05 pm
Post by: wierd on June 04, 2017, 03:39:08 pm
In that respect, Terrorism has been profoundly effective in the first half of this century. I am deeply disturbed to have borne witness to my own country going stark raving mad (or perhaps, just deeper into insanity?) since september 11. I made the comment then, and I will say it again now-- going bonkers over terrorism is how the terrorists win.
Post by: smjjames on June 04, 2017, 08:24:09 pm
The police have acknowledged the claims, but haven't made any comments on it. They've definetly got the information locked down this time.
Post by: Sheb on June 05, 2017, 01:23:00 am
In those cases I think it's more that they converted because the violent ideology of Islamist extremism appealed to them.
Yeah, it struck me after writing that it's possible that the converts who turned to terrorism were specifically attracted by that. It should be a testable proposition though, anyone feels like digging a bit in their life history?
Post by: Starver on June 05, 2017, 03:22:28 am
Of course there's also probably equivalents to the more cultish Christian communities, but they tend to keep to themselves, and don't tend to relocate en-mass into the heathen lands (missionaries aside) and make their presence more obvious than than some would like.
The post-resettlement rebound into fervency by the offspring also depends on the availability of cultural reappropriation. Hard to compare with historic waves. The Pilgrim Fathers were self-exiling themselves and their beliefs, as a badly summarised example. And even in cases of colonisations that had not brought very definite views with them, their children and children's children would not have had the same near-instantaneous communications from the Old Country pressures to reconform to any baser belief from which the more open parent-settlers had drifted, out of inclination, inspiration and/or necessiry.
It's not an Islamic thing. It may be more obviously one due to the relative youth of Islam, in cultural terms (Christianity has largely gotten over its prosthelytising phase, Judaism doesn't really 'do' recruitment at all (Kabbalah aside), I don't know too much about Hinduism/Sikhism/etc, and there's issues with conflicting cultures there of course, but one can probably put them in the 'ancient and stable' camp. Buddhism and other popular targets for New Age spiritualities has its stable and ancient core and the potentially 'problem child' offshoots into conflicting cultures, but being mirrored by the contemporary Christian missionary excursions into China, and especially the House Churches (protestant) and Underground Churches (catholic) as separate from the state-sanctioned portals for each separate belief (protestantism and catholicism being considered very different from each other, over there, I understand, though not to sectarian levels).
Post by: Neonivek on June 05, 2017, 03:47:31 am
While likely more stereotype than truth, British police have a reputation of superior integrity and restraint compared to their US counterparts. For many years, they refused to carry firearms at all, I understand.
It should also be said that an American Police officer is well aware of a danger that a perp poses even after you fire.
There HAVE been instances where officers have been trained to keep shooting their target until the target is down.
Which isn't a bad thing mind you... People seem to have unrealistic ideals on how police should act in a fire fight (There is a reason why even Canadian police don't have standing shooting to disable orders)
Post by: scriver on June 05, 2017, 04:09:32 am
Post by: Sheb on June 05, 2017, 04:20:09 am
It has absolutely nothing do to with the "age" of the religion and everything to do with current trends of ideology within the religion - that is, violent, oppressive, and expansionist salafism fueled by Saudi ambitions of power.
That.
Post by: Starver on June 05, 2017, 04:43:18 am
It has absolutely nothing do to with the "age" of the religion and everything to do with current trends of ideology within the religion - that is, violent, oppressive, and expansionist salafism fueled by Saudi ambitions of power.You argue against something I didn't say, assuming that it is me you're arguing against.
And as the trends of the ideology are at least partially due to still being a young religion, not yet sufficiently reconciled to its own equivalent to the Reformation and all the associated argy-bargy, it is indeed something to do with its adolescence. Though, as a middle-aged man can brawl even where a youth can stay out of trouble, it's not 1-to-1 truism, just "more obviously" the case, as the child-prodigy hot-housed with its semitic family's intellectual prowess (that arguably kept the sanity whilst older sibling Christianity went through its own troublesome teens) now finds the hormones kicking in, and not all bits of its body maturing at the same pace. To take the loose analogy well beyond where I originally intended.
And this isn't really a Brexit thing (although I can analogise Brexiteers to moody teens, too, if you want me to!), as splitting from Europe has barely tenable connections with the Islamic world. There's a Snap Election thread and at least one Railgun thread, depending on where exactly we want to lead this issue.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 05, 2017, 04:55:39 am
I dont think I understand any of thatIt has absolutely nothing do to with the "age" of the religion and everything to do with current trends of ideology within the religion - that is, violent, oppressive, and expansionist salafism fueled by Saudi ambitions of power.You argue against something I didn't say, assuming that it is me you're arguing against.
And as the trends of the ideology are at least partially due to still being a young religion, not yet sufficiently reconciled to its own equivalent to the Reformation and all the associated argy-bargy, it is indeed something to do with its adolescence. Though, as a middle-aged man can brawl even where a youth can stay out of trouble, it's not 1-to-1 truism, just "more obviously" the case, as the child-prodigy hot-housed with its semitic family's intellectual prowess (that arguably kept the sanity whilst older sibling Christianity went through its own troublesome teens) now finds the hormones kicking in, and not all bits of its body maturing at the same pace. To take the loose analogy well beyond where I originally intended.
And this isn't really a Brexit thing (although I can analogise Brexiteers to moody teens, too, if you want me to!), as splitting from Europe has barely tenable connections with the Islamic world. There's a Snap Election thread and at least one Railgun thread, depending on where exactly we want to lead this issue.
Post by: Starver on June 05, 2017, 05:09:24 am
I'm saying that it isn't an either/or, and if you see the conflict within the Arab world, as well as from it, as exacerbated by the youthful nature of the religion (compare and contrast with 16th/17thC Europe?) then it isn't even a counter argument.
* - Which is not to say that there aren't other (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40116754) issues (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40116811) that I see mentioned on the world news.
Post by: martinuzz on June 05, 2017, 06:39:50 am
It has absolutely nothing do to with the "age" of the religion and everything to do with current trends of ideology within the religion - that is, violent, oppressive, and expansionist salafism fueled by Saudi ambitions of power.This.
Nothing to do with religion age. Islam is nearly 1400 years old now. They have had plenty of time for reforms and enlightenment, it's just that most of the reforms and enlightenment got massacred by those in power more efficiently then that reforms and enlightenment got massacred by western despots. And the one recent time it looked like islam was going to see an enlightened variant, it was destroyed by the CIA to please Saudi oil partners.
Post by: Sheb on June 05, 2017, 08:39:56 am
Post by: scriver on June 05, 2017, 11:17:12 am
Post by: Sheb on June 05, 2017, 11:58:04 am
Sounds pretty similar to Salafists :p.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 05, 2017, 12:25:24 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on June 05, 2017, 01:27:43 pm
It has absolutely nothing do to with the "age" of the religion and everything to do with current trends of ideology within the religion - that is, violent, oppressive, and expansionist salafism fueled by Saudi ambitions of power.
I'd like to point out that (since Christianity and Islam are fundamentally pretty similar) at the equivalent time in Christianity's development, it was about as violent as Islam is right now, sooo... It might be an age thing. 14th/15th centuries Christianity was pretty fuckin' brutal if you'll recall.
Post by: Sheb on June 05, 2017, 01:56:11 pm
It has absolutely nothing do to with the "age" of the religion and everything to do with current trends of ideology within the religion - that is, violent, oppressive, and expansionist salafism fueled by Saudi ambitions of power.
I'd like to point out that (since Christianity and Islam are fundamentally pretty similar) at the equivalent time in Christianity's development, it was about as violent as Islam is right now, sooo... It might be an age thing. 14th/15th centuries Christianity was pretty fuckin' brutal if you'll recall.
I really don't get how anyone could think that this religious age thing isn't garbage. Religions aren't people, they don't follow predestined path of growing, aging and dying along a certain timescale. Christianity was fucking brutal for much of its existence because humans were fucking brutal for most of our existence. Islam today is tame by historical standards, it's only violent compared to the Islam of the last century, where stuff like communisms and the like were all the rage in the muslim world and giving a non-religious outlet to violent people.
I mean, rather than just try to copy-paste our knowledge of Christiandom's history onto the Muslim world, maybe we should actually try to learn some fucking Islamic history if we want to pretend it makes sense.
Post by: Starver on June 05, 2017, 02:41:01 pm
BREEEEEEXXXXXXXIIIITTTTTTTT
That's me trying to draw a line under that argument, at least as far as I'm concerned. Please do add your own re-rebuttals as you feel necessary.
Post by: Sheb on June 05, 2017, 02:45:36 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on June 05, 2017, 02:45:54 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 05, 2017, 02:48:02 pm
Post by: smjjames on June 05, 2017, 04:50:18 pm
It has absolutely nothing do to with the "age" of the religion and everything to do with current trends of ideology within the religion - that is, violent, oppressive, and expansionist salafism fueled by Saudi ambitions of power.
I'd like to point out that (since Christianity and Islam are fundamentally pretty similar) at the equivalent time in Christianity's development, it was about as violent as Islam is right now, sooo... It might be an age thing. 14th/15th centuries Christianity was pretty fuckin' brutal if you'll recall.
Going off of the 'age of religion' thing, I don't know of Buddhism (which is roughly 600 years older than Christianity, give or take a century) ever going through such a reformation period as what Christianity went through. Judaism and Hinduism are far older, but I doubt they've gone through an equivalent of the reformation at the same 'age' as Christianity did. Sure, they've had their periods of growth, golden ages, reformation-like events, but all at ages completely different and independent of Christianity.
Post by: Starver on June 05, 2017, 05:56:35 pm
Oh my god Sheb, you can't just ask someone if they're Pathos!You rarely see Pathos without his friends, Orthos, D'aramis and Artangnan.
Post by: Neonivek on June 05, 2017, 09:17:29 pm
Then again people touting non-religious practices AS religious is a practice as old as freeken time! (The Crusades "Convert and die" for example)
I remember when Canada has a small rash of honor killings (I think 1-3 instances in a short period of time), it was a huge no no by the Muslim community.
Which is kind of funny about how much Muslims are left out of this conversation when you think about it. Their religion is considered a seditious element, even though I am sure they overwhelmingly chastise terrorist activity.
HECK even the whole "But they criticize Western Beliefs!" is EXTREMELY overblown given that anyone, ANYONE, who actually pays attention in Catholic school knows that... Yeah, pretty much all religions criticize secular beliefs and methodologies.
But the best part isn't even all that. It is the sheer irony of the effect of their treatment.
Post by: smjjames on June 06, 2017, 01:03:25 am
Post by: Neonivek on June 06, 2017, 01:11:24 am
The whole 'conversion by the sword' is way older than the Crusades.
Indeed it has a long history.
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2017, 04:02:38 am
The whole 'conversion by the sword' is way older than the Crusades.
But it took a whole new level of lawyering, because forced conversion is actually forbidden in canon law. Which of course led to people claiming that the Balts weren't really pagans, but had been converted before and were apostates. Not that different from the Takfir ideology of ISIS and co actually.
Post by: Necrothurge on June 06, 2017, 05:18:24 am
Isn't this electoral fraud?
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2017, 05:43:28 am
Post by: Silverthrone on June 06, 2017, 07:47:32 am
Further, it is impossible (for good reason) to know precisely how the security police do their work, but I do hope that they take the time to log and register each and every one in Britain who have openly expressed support for this attack on social media, et cetera. It is not illegal to hold a traitorous opinion, but any sign of wanting to act it out ought to be grounds for a visit from the flash-bang fairy.
As for the election, I am quite surprised to see how it has developed into Springtime for Corbyn. I do not know what the long-term effect of it will be for the Brexit agreement (I assume that it is binding, and that the only thing in negotiation is the manner in which it is carried out), but it will be frightfully interesting.
It is very odd. The lesson of 2016 was thus: anything is possible. Do not count out a candidate based on convention, for they can truly surprise. It is strange that the political clever-clogs forgot that it could possibly apply to 'the other side', as well.
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2017, 08:38:24 am
Post by: Starver on June 06, 2017, 09:26:18 am
The cleverer/luckier ones will slip beneath the radar of a cursory glance, whilst some false-positive reports will soak up effort just because of an inadvertent signal that "they're up to something" that the target never dreams is being picked up by the authorities.
(Having an affair? Leaving work to start your own rival business? Avoiding VAT? No longer an Arsenal supporter? ...you thought it was just your wife, family, colleagues, taxman or boys-down-the-pub that you were trying to hide things from, but your attempts to live a different life are picked up by the six guys on the current shift to watch your house and tail your movements in a taxi and on foot... All of whom ought to be watching the quiet one in the next street, but nobody yet knows that...)
Post by: smjjames on June 06, 2017, 09:35:26 am
One COULD resort to using AI, but who's going to trust the AI when it's going to be as biased as us humans. Yes, AIs have biases because the humans writing them have biases, even if they're subtle ones they aren't actively being aware of.
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2017, 09:35:29 am
Post by: smjjames on June 06, 2017, 09:37:58 am
Well, I'm not sure how many people are on a watchlist of some kind in the UK. I think in Belgium the number is a few hundreds, but that's still taxing our intelligence service. But yeah, that's why trying to bring downt he number of false positive is needed, and why adding everyone that said anything on twitter on the watchlist is counter-productive.
Belgium is TINY though, but yeah, I can see a few hundred being taxing for a country as small as that.
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2017, 09:40:16 am
Post by: Starver on June 06, 2017, 09:55:11 am
Post by: martinuzz on June 06, 2017, 10:03:13 am
The thing is that watching someone 24/24 requires maybe 10 agents per suspect.Indeed, I heard the estimate was even 20 people per 24/7 watchlist suspect. Combine that with the fact that there are currently about 30k people on the UK watchlist, and you'll see that keeping track of everyone on the watchlist is just not possible. Unless you want to get rid of your healthcare, or maybe your education, or the army, so you can fund an extra 600 thousand police officers.
Post by: Silverthrone on June 06, 2017, 10:04:28 am
Perhaps a wiser thing to do, something more carefully targeted, is to afford greater attention to their personal networks. Particularly those who know, but says nothing. Creating an atmosphere where it is both frightening and rather dangerous to be associated with radical Islamism. Of course, then follows the question if security by fear is worthy of a modern democracy, which I cannot answer. I suppose that the very foundation of the question is that they and their associates cannot go safe, unthreatened and unmolested year after year.
I must confess, the main reason why I am proposing an attitude registration is that I believe it ought to cost something to openly be a traitor, to openly support the crimes that the IS embodies. It ought to be a stain on one's character. But if a thing is too costly and labour-intensive for too little gain, then it simply is. One can always hope that such an attitude will punish itself one day.
Post by: smjjames on June 06, 2017, 10:11:21 am
Well, quite. On second thought, I has misjudged the amount of manpower that such a scheme would require. Perhaps more direct attention ought to be given to those already on the surveillance lists. Such things are of no use what so ever if nothing is done.
Perhaps a wiser thing to do, something more carefully targeted, is to afford greater attention to their personal networks. Particularly those who know, but says nothing. Creating an atmosphere where it is both frightening and rather dangerous to be associated with radical Islamism. Of course, then follows the question if security by fear is worthy of a modern democracy, which I cannot answer. I suppose that the very foundation of the question is that they and their associates cannot go safe, unthreatened and unmolested year after year.
I must confess, the main reason why I am proposing an attitude registration is that I believe it ought to cost something to openly be a traitor, to openly support the crimes that the IS embodies. It ought to be a stain on one's character. But if a thing is too costly and labour-intensive for too little gain, then it simply is. One can always hope that such an attitude will punish itself one day.
How will you separate the real threats from the false flags and those making false accusations in such a system? I'm sure you'd still want to make sure that innocent people don't accidentially get charged with said crimes, lest it spiral out of control a la Salem Witchhunt effect.
Watching out for false flags/false accusations is something you'd have to watch out for in any kind of monitoring or registration system, unless of course you don't care about the false flags (not saying you don't, just that's something that has to be considered).
Post by: Silverthrone on June 06, 2017, 10:26:48 am
Even a false flag does serve a certain purpose, if resolved correctly. It reveals that the authorities are searching, and are prepared to take such things seriously, while the fact that the case is fairly examined and then dismissed if it is false reveals that due process still applies. Quite invaluable, for building citizenship is very important in matters such as this.
Of course, the reaction should correspond to the degree of the threat. Carrying out an arrest is quite senseless if a rather unnerving telephone call or other contact would do.
Post by: smjjames on June 06, 2017, 10:31:26 am
It would take detective work. However, cutting the wheat from the chaff when it has already been selected to some degree is more worthwhile than my previous suggestion, which was more or less a great, unfocused trawl.
Even a false flag does serve a certain purpose, if resolved correctly. It reveals that the authorities are searching, and are prepared to take such things seriously, while the fact that the case is fairly examined and then dismissed if it is false reveals that due process still applies. Quite invaluable, for building citizenship is very important in matters such as this.
Of course, the reaction should correspond to the degree of the threat. Carrying out an arrest is quite senseless if a rather unnerving telephone call or other contact would do.
A rather unnerving phone call or other contact is something I'd expect from The Mob and not The Police. Or perhaps police in some authoritarian country.
Post by: Silverthrone on June 06, 2017, 10:45:36 am
Of course, it should not be carried out for the sake of fear alone. It cannot be the only tool available. The purpose of this fear and disinformation should be to make the alternative, being an upstanding citizen, being British, being part of a functional community, be that much more appealing. That, however, requires that such a community exists, and a possibility for a worthy life while following the rules. That is why a great investment in the civil British society is so dearly necessary. Employment, livable salaries, welfare, functional social service, affordable housing, all of those are more important than ever.
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2017, 10:48:56 am
Post by: smjjames on June 06, 2017, 10:57:37 am
As Sheb said, fear doesn't work if they plan on becoming martyrs. Did fear of getting thrown to the lions in the coliseum or getting crucified stop Christianity from being spread through the Roman empire? Nope.
Post by: Silverthrone on June 06, 2017, 11:11:00 am
Second, I do not think that it qualifies as a repressive regime unless parliament, government and law is greatly changed with it. If we escalate the scenario, stretch it to its very limit, and assume that applied fear in internal security means an automatic, simultaneous change in governance of the nation from democratic to autocratic, then no, I would not like to live in such a regime.
However, if I had been monitored to plot an attack, or being in the perifery of extremists societies meant to achieve political gains through attacks on civilians, or else being willingly associated with terrorism, being contacted and told of the consequences such actions may have further down the line, well. It is not something I consider particularly tyrranic nor unreasonable.
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2017, 01:12:31 pm
Post by: martinuzz on June 06, 2017, 01:16:36 pm
Post by: Silverthrone on June 06, 2017, 03:08:57 pm
The thing is, tool created to be used against terrorists will be deployed against other. For exemple, many people implicated in organizind protests against the labour reform law in France were detained under the emergency power granted after the Bataclan.
Well, that is true. Of course, the same could be said against any action taken towards anti-terrorism, although this is certainly one that would require a particular degree of monitoring. The dividing line, of course, is whether a group is extremist and proven to be violent and thus a great danger to the public.
Besides, how are you going to put fear into someone that has already decided they are going to detonate themselves or suicide by cop? Threaten them that you're going to keep them alive? Brrrrr scary!
Once more; there is little use of this particular scheme against those that have already commited to martyrdom. That is the point where an arrest would be prudent. Containment or rehabilitation would follow, depending on the subject and the decision of the court.
Post by: Leafsnail on June 06, 2017, 03:42:11 pm
*Shoot to kill has been misrepresented a lot in the media. It's not about how you deal with someone who's representing a clear threat - in that case you use reasonable force, possibly including lethal force. It meant that, if someone was identified as an IRA agent, they could be killed even if they were not at that point presenting a threat.
Post by: smjjames on June 06, 2017, 04:05:03 pm
You have to be careful with how you police terror suspects. Detention without trial and the shoot to kill policy* were hated by Catholics in Ireland and became a major reason that people joined Republican terrorists. It's no good detaining one possible terrorist if their unexplained incarceration turns two of their friends against you.
*Shoot to kill has been misrepresented a lot in the media. It's not about how you deal with someone who's representing a clear threat - in that case you use reasonable force, possibly including lethal force. It meant that, if someone was identified as an IRA agent, they could be killed even if they were not at that point presenting a threat.
I wonder how high the misidentification rate was. Kind of hard to ask a dead body if they really were IRA or not.
Post by: Strife26 on June 06, 2017, 04:15:37 pm
The thing is that watching someone 24/24 requires maybe 10 agents per suspect.Indeed, I heard the estimate was even 20 people per 24/7 watchlist suspect. Combine that with the fact that there are currently about 30k people on the UK watchlist, and you'll see that keeping track of everyone on the watchlist is just not possible. Unless you want to get rid of your healthcare, or maybe your education, or the army, so you can fund an extra 600 thousand police officers.
Easy solution, order 15,000 pairs of handcuffs, then handcuff each of the 30k watchlisted people to another watchlisted person. Boom. The monitoring requirements have now been halved.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 05:59:56 pm
Besides, how are you going to put fear into someone that has already decided they are going to detonate themselves or suicide by cop? Threaten them that you're going to keep them alive? Brrrrr scary!We could try something like this.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: TD1 on June 06, 2017, 06:27:24 pm
Post by: hector13 on June 06, 2017, 07:09:39 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on June 06, 2017, 07:30:11 pm
It would be brutal, but effective. They do it for paradise. If that's taken away....?It assumes that they are in it for that but how many really are? most people are probably broadly a bit more motivated by the good old rape and pillage.
Holy warriors can be a bit hypocritical sometimes. *Cough* Fourth Crusade
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 07:31:22 pm
Fiction (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp).Even if it is, it doesn't mean we can't try. We stand to lose very little by doing so.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Starver on June 06, 2017, 07:37:06 pm
Post by: hector13 on June 06, 2017, 07:39:58 pm
Can you guarantee that this won't be used as propaganda to recruit others? 'cause otherwise all that'll happen is their number swell, making the problem that much harder to deal with, needing more resources (human and otherwise) to sort it all out. There's a shit ton to lose, up to and including human life.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 07:53:04 pm
Such behaviour may even incite such hostlities... Even when not intended as an insult, and probably not much more than rumour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857#Tallow_and_lard-greased_cartridges).
I'm sure desecrating the corpses of their fallen will pacify those that believe the West hates Muslims. Seems like a fantastic idea.Well, NOT doing it doesn't seem to be doing the job.
Can you guarantee that this won't be used as propaganda to recruit others? 'cause otherwise all that'll happen is their number swell, making the problem that much harder to deal with, needing more resources (human and otherwise) to sort it all out. There's a shit ton to lose, up to and including human life.
You either...
1. Do nothing, and they say "You can attack them without fear of reprisal!"
2. Do the job half-assed, and they say "They are killing us! Do your duty and die, too!"
3. Kill them, and everyone they recruit until there is nobody left who will continue.
Options 1 and 2 just do nothing to solve the problem. That is the nature of propaganda. You can't kill an idea with bullets, but you can certainly stop the people who spout it.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 08:00:51 pm
So, genocide?If the extremists and moderates are too close to tell apart, what does that tell you?
Unless you think that there's a way that you could distinguish the extremists from those who aren't, or somehow think that it's impossible for an extremist to lie.
How many people have to die before it is deemed cost-effective to root out the killer?
Post by: redwallzyl on June 06, 2017, 08:02:37 pm
That they are good at blending in.So, genocide?If the extremists and moderates are too close to tell apart, what does that tell you?
Unless you think that there's a way that you could distinguish the extremists from those who aren't, or somehow think that it's impossible for an extremist to lie.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 08:03:35 pm
Now answer the second question.That they are good at blending in.So, genocide?If the extremists and moderates are too close to tell apart, what does that tell you?
Unless you think that there's a way that you could distinguish the extremists from those who aren't, or somehow think that it's impossible for an extremist to lie.
Post by: alway on June 06, 2017, 08:04:11 pm
So, genocide?That is generally the intended goal of people pushing this sort of hate against minorities, yes. When you've radicalized to the extent you believe a billion people are out to murder you for no real reason, what other than an ideology of extermination will satisfy your hatred?
Post by: redwallzyl on June 06, 2017, 08:06:41 pm
Killing an innocent is never worth it in that context. Their are plenty of less then lethal methods of hunting murders then blowing up random people. and if that's what you do are you any better than them?Now answer the second question.That they are good at blending in.So, genocide?If the extremists and moderates are too close to tell apart, what does that tell you?
Unless you think that there's a way that you could distinguish the extremists from those who aren't, or somehow think that it's impossible for an extremist to lie.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 08:08:58 pm
How many more will die in your quest to do so?
Killing an innocent is never worth it in that context. Their are plenty of less then lethal methods of hunting murders then blowing up random people. and if that's what you do are you any better than them?Cut off a finger to save the hand
Post by: Starver on June 06, 2017, 08:24:55 pm
If the extremists and moderates are too close to tell apart, what does that tell you?Continuum.
Now draw your line.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 08:31:50 pm
Tell that to the innocents you'll send to the slaughter. Tell that to their families, their children. I'm sure they'll take it well.Would I kill 9 innocents and a murderer, to save 100 innocents? You bet your ass I would. If you don't, you would condemn far more to death.
Unless you propose doing the same to them, in case they might be radicalized from your actions.
Would I kill an equal amount of the other guys, in order to save my guys? You bet your ass I would. If you don't, how do you reconcile betraying your own people?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
At the very least, deal with every single problem individual as it crops up, though, it may be more efficient to deal with larger chunks around the individual as well, to shock the now relative moderates into compliance. The alternative is that they all inevitably become extremists, or the current extremists continue indefinitely, unopposed. And I think we can all agree that "terror attacks are just going to be a part of daily life" is not an acceptable solution.If the extremists and moderates are too close to tell apart, what does that tell you?Continuum.
Now draw your line.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2017, 08:36:26 pm
Don't say they're just crazy fanatics, because true or not that's not enough. There are a lot of crazy fanatics in the world. Even among the group of violent crazy fanatics, only a portion of them commit terrorism. What draws the line between Heaven's Gate and Timothy McVeigh?
Well, Heaven's Gate wanted to go on the mothership and Timothy McVeigh wanted to destroy the US government. But Timothy McVeigh could not seriously have believed that the act of blowing up the Oklahoma City Federal Building, no matter how ridiculously successful it could have been, would destroy the US government.
So was he just stupid or something? Perish the thought. Someone who reads radical literature, learns how to gather weapons, learns how to handle explosives, and meticulously plans the act of terrorism isn't so stupid as to believe that their action magically leads to the goal unless it contains a path to that goal.
So why did he blow up the Oklahoma City Federal Building and kill over one hundred people? The answer is the "propaganda of the deed", as old school revolutionaries would have put it. The attack on Oklahoma City was plastered all over America's media, and reached everybody in the country. It, through happening, ignited a low-scale civil conflict between federal police and the nation's militia movements that before this point in time did not exist. The FBI kept tabs on those people, sure, but they were not concerned about them without the existence of actionable intel. Oklahoma City changed that for decades, such that only in the last few years have we seen militias start to operate openly again.
Islamic terrorists, then. What is their real goal? It's not to kill the infidel or attain Paradise. Those are a bonus at best, and anybody smart enough to pull off terrorism is smart enough to have some degree of doubt in their mind about God and what God wants. There is a greater geopolitical goal to Islamic terrorism, which at least terrorist suppliers know even if some of the triggermen don't.
And that goal is not a secret. I don't think it's controversial to say that the highest magnitude singular terrorist action is 9/11. 9/11 was planned but not personally executed by Osama bin Laden, and he told us exactly and in plain tongue what his goal of terrorism was. Funny that almost all of us just sort of glossed over that. He wanted the removal of America's influence from the Islamic world. How does 9/11 accomplish that goal, then?
I mean, we invaded two separate Islamic nations over it and basically never left, so it seems to be a failure in a military sense. Laden should have, as an educated person, known perfectly well that invoking American military strength is an unwinnable fight.
So was he just stupid or something? No. What is the goal of terrorism? What is the goal of radical Islamic terrorism?
I say it's to make the Western world kill itself. Not be invaded by Muslim refugees, not be meaningfully turned towards adopting Islam, but to invoke the West's own ideology and make that unstoppable cultural, economic, and military force turn on the West and destroy it.
So when people say "we're in a war with all Muslims, we need to take extreme action against them, they're not even our people anyway"? They're the goal of terrorism. It's a grand irony. The same people who say those concerned with human rights are the cat's paw of terrorists are themselves the cat's paw of terrorists. The "Clash of Civilizations" rhetoric is true, it's just not being applied correctly. The real clash is the West being told a message through terrorism, and that message is: "Hey, you see that huge gun you've got there? Man, you really want to kill me, and if you just put that gun to your head and pull the trigger I'll be gone forever. What do ya say?"
"Hell yeah, let's abandon our humanity to 'protect ourselves', the final war is now motherfuckers" reactions are the goal of terrorism. Why would Islamic terrorists ever want Muslims living in the West to become integrated with it? That's the end of their rope. They need the West to attack and reject Muslims in general, otherwise they'd run out of recruits willing to sacrifice themselves.
Post by: Starver on June 06, 2017, 08:38:52 pm
At the very least, deal with every single problem individual as it crops up, though, it may be more efficient to deal with larger chunks around the individual as well, to shock the now relative moderates into compliance. The alternative is that they all inevitably become extremists, or the current extremists continue indefinitely, unopposed. And I think we can all agree that "terror attacks are just going to be a part of daily life" is not an acceptable solution.Hard to parse what you said. Kill extremists, to possibly convert moderates over the line into extremism? No, you're probably likely to do this. And how does this even support your approach?
Post by: alway on June 06, 2017, 08:46:52 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 08:51:45 pm
You're not killing 9 innocents and a murderer, though. You're killing 10 individuals in the fear that one may turn into a murderer.Define "foreigner". If someone is technically, legally classified a citizen, but doesn't share any of the culture, history, or even the same language as you, can they really be considered kin? They would be foreigners in everything but name only.
Additionally, they are your own people. Unless you're going to tell me that they're all foreigners, and you know that's a lie.
muh fascismGo back to tumblr. We're trying to feign a civil discussion, here, and you're ruining it with your buzzwords.
Post by: alway on June 06, 2017, 08:54:48 pm
feign a civil discussionYou got the feign part right. Nothing civil about advocating the murder of a billion people.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 09:00:55 pm
Everyone in the thread knows what this is boiling down to, and it's against the rules to discuss it. One side hides behind this, comfortable in the though that any attempt to challenge them would lead to the thread being killed, or someone getting banned or otherwise censored.feign a civil discussionYou got the feign part right. Nothing civil about advocating the murder of a billion people.
Post by: Starver on June 06, 2017, 09:06:25 pm
In plainer terms- kill the extremists and possibly anyone else associated with them if it's easier, as a "shock into submission" strategy for the rest. Otherwise they'll all turn into extremists, eventually.
(edit: see
You can't see it, but I am laughing at you. I shouldn't be, but am assuming that you have no ability to institute such a terrible cascade of "kill those people, then kill the people who would bemupset at you killing the first people, then kill those who are upset that you've killed the second lot of people, then... oh look... there's some people upset at you for killing the third lot of people, you better kill them...."
And that's if you do this perfectly. Miss some people, and they come back to bite you. Kill some people not yet upset at you and you upset more people, more strongly, than you otherwise would have done at this stage...
You're familiar with Dwarf Fortress, and the concept of a Tantrum Spiral, yet don't see where your basic error lies here..?
Post by: Starver on June 06, 2017, 09:11:20 pm
I'm explaining what he said. I do not agree with what he said, but that is what he said.Darnit, I thought I'd clicked to reply to a Lagslayer message, sorry your quote got caught up in there. I was genuinely laughing so hard that I probably misclicked when my eyes came back to the screen.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 09:14:55 pm
You say this, and yet, countless wars have come to an end from exactly such a thing.In plainer terms- kill the extremists and possibly anyone else associated with them if it's easier, as a "shock into submission" strategy for the rest. Otherwise they'll all turn into extremists, eventually.
(edit: see below)
You can't see it, but I am laughing at you. I shouldn't be, but am assuming that you have no ability to institute such a terrible cascade of "kill those people, then kill the people who would bemupset at you killing the first people, then kill those who are upset that you've killed the second lot of people, then... oh look... there's some people upset at you for killing the third lot of people, you better kill them...."
And that's if you do this perfectly. Miss some people, and they come back to bite you. Kill some people not yet upset at you and you upset more people, more strongly, than you otherwise would have done at this stage...
You're familiar with Dwarf Fortress, and the concept of a Tantrum Spiral, yet don't see where your basic error lies here..?
Also, DF is a work of fiction. Makes you wonder why some people can't think outside their fantasy land.
HAHA! We made a rule that makes your opinions illegal! Give up and do what we say!This is why I'm investing heavily in cocytus.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on June 06, 2017, 09:20:24 pm
Post by: hector13 on June 06, 2017, 09:27:08 pm
Man, I worked hard on that post...
If it makes you feel any better, providing people with knowledge and information that challenges their belief just makes them more likely to believe what you're arguing against. Lagslayer seems to think that an eye for an eye is the way forward, regardless of who or how many are made blind.
Post by: Starver on June 06, 2017, 09:32:04 pm
You say this, and yet, countless wars have come to an end from exactly such a thing.Based upon such an asymmetric conflict? Without a third party/outside power capable of knocking everyone's heads together, but themselves staying self-restrained?
Maybe you're thinking of how something like the government/FARC(/right-wing paramilitaries) conflict has been recently dialled back, but that's really far from comparable a solution.
Quote
Also, DF is a work of fiction. Makes you wonder why some people can't think outside their fantasy land.My fantasy-land example is there to hold a mirror up to your fantasy-land 'solution'. Get over it.
@MSH: I liked your post. Though maybe we share the same Kool-Aid, who knows.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 09:34:00 pm
Man, I worked hard on that post...It's not that it isn't a well-written post, it's just that your point had already been thoroughly worked through several pages ago.
The discussion moved past both of our points, unfortunately.Your point was quickly addressed, but misconstrued as an attack, by someone who you otherwise supported. This was corrected, and we all moved on.
Everything else has been tried, to disasterous effect. Doing the same shit over and over and expecting a different result is foolish.Man, I worked hard on that post...
If it makes you feel any better, providing people with knowledge and information that challenges their belief just makes them more likely to believe what you're arguing against. Lagslayer seems to think that an eye for an eye is the way forward, regardless of who or how many are made blind.
Eye-for-an-eye is guaranteed to end eventually, when someone runs out of eyes, or gets tired enough of losing them.
Mostly because arguing by use of facts and information makes for poor rhetoric against a good emotional argument.Sad but true. The real debate here is who is on the side of facts, and the other of emotion.
Are you going to start quoting Harry Potter now?QuoteAlso, DF is a work of fiction. Makes you wonder why some people can't think outside their fantasy land.My fantasy-land example is there to hold a mirror up to your fantasy-land 'solution'. Get over it.
Post by: Starver on June 06, 2017, 09:37:00 pm
Are you going to start quoting Harry Potter now?I don't recall anything useful in such a derivative work. Wouldn't you like some Pratchett, instead?
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 09:50:49 pm
I'd love to if only I had the time. barely enough hours in a day to work, sleep, eat, keep up with current events, and browse dank memes.Are you going to start quoting Harry Potter now?I don't recall anything useful in such a derivative work. Wouldn't you like some Pratchett, instead?
No, no, that was me clarifying your point. I'm talking about the post where I made my own, which was right before that.I believe I did respond to that post. Perhaps it was overlooked? Or do you feel it didn't address your point?
As for "who is on the side of facts and who of emotion", it doesn't matter, because rhetoric isn't one side versus another. The strongest argument will fall if it stands on but a single rhetorical leg, when put up against a balanced argument. Problem is that we don't actually teach rhetoric anymore, so no one knows how to construct a proper one.
As for the rhetorical leg thing, that's what I was talking about when I mentioned illegal opinions, earlier.
Post by: hector13 on June 06, 2017, 09:54:47 pm
Everything else has been tried, to disasterous effect. Doing the same shit over and over and expecting a different result is foolish.Man, I worked hard on that post...
If it makes you feel any better, providing people with knowledge and information that challenges their belief just makes them more likely to believe what you're arguing against. Lagslayer seems to think that an eye for an eye is the way forward, regardless of who or how many are made blind.
Perhaps you can come up with some examples? Everything encompasses a lot of things, after all.
Eye-for-an-eye is guaranteed to end eventually, when someone runs out of eyes, or gets tired enough of losing them.
I (eye) imagine it'll be when the world turns it's eyes upon they that is doing all this eye-gouging and puts a stop to it.
To end my metaphor, I don't think wholesale murder is something that everyone finds tenable. The phrase "who'll be next" will come up a lot.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 10:09:00 pm
Perhaps you can come up with some examples? Everything encompasses a lot of things, after all.Throwing money at the problem doesn't work. It just gets squandered on something stupid, or whatever it's used for is torn down or neglected because they don't care about it.
Peace and love "Just stop the fighting, maaaaaan! *blunt*" never, EVER worked, because you can't stay hopped up on narcotics 24/7.
These people believe they get into heaven by forcing you to submit to sharia law, killing you, or otherwise wiping you and everything you stand for from history. They only care about your rules to the extent of how they can be turned against you. Where diplomacy and resources do not matter, all that is left is violence or surrender.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 10:11:05 pm
Can't find your response, unfortunately.
Was it this one?
You're not killing 9 innocents and a murderer, though. You're killing 10 individuals in the fear that one may turn into a murderer.Define "foreigner". If someone is technically, legally classified a citizen, but doesn't share any of the culture, history, or even the same language as you, can they really be considered kin? They would be foreigners in everything but name only.
Additionally, they are your own people. Unless you're going to tell me that they're all foreigners, and you know that's a lie.
Post by: smjjames on June 06, 2017, 10:16:06 pm
Besides, that's only ever a short term solution, unless you want to be fighting against them for decades. As has been said here and elsewhere, the only tenable long-term solution is to fix the problems which foster the terrorism in the first place.
Post by: Starver on June 06, 2017, 10:18:47 pm
and browse dank memes.Or dark minesigns (https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Mine_sign).
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 10:22:27 pm
Here we actually get to the root of the problem- people who feel out of place in a country they call home, being told a siren's song from the lands of their parents of a heritage they might actually recognize. Sure, we could kill the sirens, but these days such songstresses exist across the internet, so we could never get to them all. We could eradicate those who feel disenfranchised, and use it as an example to others who might follow a similar path, but wouldn't that make them feel more like outsiders than before? If they are foreigners due to a lack of shared culture, history, and language, have you considered challenging them on a cultural front? Maybe this whole crisis speaks to a lack of cultural pride and patriotism across your entire nation, which is starting to show in second and third generation immigrants who still feel like foreigners?
Maybe this whole crisis is nothing but a symptom of an even larger one, not fought in the minds of foreigners but all of your countrymen?
How did I miss that?
I agree with what I think you're implying. Different cultures shouldn't just be mashed together, because it just creates friction. And should a small culture find itself isolated within a large culture, this gets even worse. Sometimes, different groups of people are better of being separate from others. This is why nationalism is important. This is why the typical liberal version of "multiculturalism" does not work.
Post by: hector13 on June 06, 2017, 10:24:54 pm
Is it merely the timeline you object to, that the things that are tried don't stop the extremists in their tracks immediately, right now, not a second longer?
'Cause, I mean, you just seem to think that genocide will stop things. You mentioned this earlier:
You can't kill an idea with bullets, but you can certainly stop the people who spout it.
You can kill some of the people that spout the message at any one time. We live in a media world, though. Those killings will be reported.
"Why were these people killed?" you might hear.
"They believed the West hates them." will be the retort.
"Perhaps they have a point. What else did they say?"
You can't kill an idea, man.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 10:25:23 pm
You borked your quote attribution.i know, I know. Already spotted it.
I forgot how cumbersome it is to post on this site.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 10:28:52 pm
So... everything is money/capital and hippy culture from the 60s?In my attempt at breivity, I neglected the "send them back where they came, and actually enforcing national sovereignty" option.
Is it merely the timeline you object to, that the things that are tried don't stop the extremists in their tracks immediately, right now, not a second longer?
'Cause, I mean, you just seem to think that genocide will stop things. You mentioned this earlier:You can't kill an idea with bullets, but you can certainly stop the people who spout it.
You can kill some of the people that spout the message at any one time. We live in a media world, though. Those killings will be reported.
"Why were these people killed?" you might hear.
"They believed the West hates them." will be the retort.
"Perhaps they have a point. What else did they say?"
You can't kill an idea, man.
see
Here we actually get to the root of the problem- people who feel out of place in a country they call home, being told a siren's song from the lands of their parents of a heritage they might actually recognize. Sure, we could kill the sirens, but these days such songstresses exist across the internet, so we could never get to them all. We could eradicate those who feel disenfranchised, and use it as an example to others who might follow a similar path, but wouldn't that make them feel more like outsiders than before? If they are foreigners due to a lack of shared culture, history, and language, have you considered challenging them on a cultural front? Maybe this whole crisis speaks to a lack of cultural pride and patriotism across your entire nation, which is starting to show in second and third generation immigrants who still feel like foreigners?
Maybe this whole crisis is nothing but a symptom of an even larger one, not fought in the minds of foreigners but all of your countrymen?
How did I miss that?
I agree with what I think you're implying. Different cultures shouldn't just be mashed together, because it just creates friction. And should a small culture find itself isolated within a large culture, this gets even worse. Sometimes, different groups of people are better of being separate from others. This is why nationalism is important. This is why the typical liberal version of "multiculturalism" does not work.
Post by: smjjames on June 06, 2017, 10:29:41 pm
You borked your quote attribution.i know, I know. Already spotted it.
I forgot how cumbersome it is to post on this site.
I don't find it cumbersome, but things can get tricky when multiple quotes and quote pyramids get involved.
@Lagslayer: For those who were born in Britian, you can't exactly 'send them the way that they came', not without renouncing their citizenship.
Post by: hector13 on June 06, 2017, 10:31:36 pm
Post by: smjjames on June 06, 2017, 10:34:23 pm
That assumes first generation immigrants. What of second generation and beyond? What if they only have citizenship of the "host" country?
Exactly. Every time the argument 'Lets deport them all to where they came from!' gets used, the fact that you have to deal with the second generation onward comes up every single time, you can't escape that no matter how hard you try.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 10:38:23 pm
@Lagslayer: For those who were born in Britian, you can't exactly 'send them the way that they came', not without renouncing their citizenship.
This is the tricky part. They did not choose to be born here, any more than we chose for them to be born here. Yet, for whatever reason, their way of life is incompatible with ours. There would need to be some sort of repatriation deal with the countries involved, or someone will have to assimilate.That assumes first generation immigrants. What of second generation and beyond? What if they only have citizenship of the "host" country?
Exactly. Every time the argument 'Lets deport them all to where they came from!' gets used, the fact that you have to deal with the second generation onward comes up every single time, you can't escape that no matter how hard you try.
edit: Not that I'm British, because I'm American, but we have similar problems in some places.
Post by: smjjames on June 06, 2017, 10:42:07 pm
@Lagslayer: For those who were born in Britian, you can't exactly 'send them the way that they came', not without renouncing their citizenship.This is the tricky part. They did not choose to be born here, any more than we chose for them to be born here. Yet, for whatever reason, their way of life is incompatible with ours. There would need to be some sort of repatriation deal with the countries involved, or someone will have to assimilate.That assumes first generation immigrants. What of second generation and beyond? What if they only have citizenship of the "host" country?
Exactly. Every time the argument 'Lets deport them all to where they came from!' gets used, the fact that you have to deal with the second generation onward comes up every single time, you can't escape that no matter how hard you try.
edit: Not that I'm British, because I'm American, but we have similar problems in some places.
LOL, I thought you were British, seems like a lot of people may have been assuming the same as well.
But yes, the problems are similar and the root cause is the same.
Post by: smjjames on June 06, 2017, 10:57:49 pm
However, for France, their Empire glory days were much longer ago, so, in theory, their population would have gotten over it a couple generations ago.
Though for Europe in general, it seems like patriotism is equated as this: patriotism=nationialism= which eventually leads to = fascism. Germany in particular, for reasons I don't need to state.
The only ones who can really develop an answer for the lack of patriotism are the ones living in those countries since only they can define patriotism as it relates to their own country.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 06, 2017, 11:01:38 pm
Post by: Sheb on June 07, 2017, 07:01:30 am
Post by: Puzzlemaker on June 07, 2017, 09:11:48 am
Post by: Starver on June 07, 2017, 09:26:43 am
Post by: Lagslayer on June 07, 2017, 10:21:27 am
You really gotta admire the courage of people like lagslayer, who are willing to courageously sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of people they don't know to lower their chance of dying in a terrorist attacks from vanishingly small to vanishingly smaller. I mean, we refuse to face truth, but he's right: it's better to kill a few tens of thousands people today, than to have a handful of people die every year. On the long run, it's the humane thing, we just need to wait a couple millenias, but it's the right thing to do if you arent short-sighted.You still think this about mere terrorist attacks? Nevermind that they are coming at an ever increasing pace, but this is about something much bigger. They are being brought in explicitly as demographic replacement. And under international law, that qualifies as genocide of the native inhabitants. Long before that even happens, they will constitute an increasing majority of the voting demographic, as the flow of migration never seems to stop, and they breed so rapidly. This means they can force their laws, the laws of the shitholes they came from, on the natives, via the legal system, which will speed up the process even faster.
And their politicians don't even try to hide it anymore, instead just trying to say it's a good thing to kill off all the Europeans.
Post by: smjjames on June 07, 2017, 10:31:34 am
Also, that talk about immigrants replacing the natives being equivalent to genocide is the kind of thing white supremacists like to spout. Not accusing you of being one lagslayer, I'm just saying be careful with that kind of talk. And for the record, I'm white too.
edit: Also, since you're American, lets use an American example. We have a similar sort of issue, if you will, with hispanics and others, minorities will become the majority by 2050 or so, do you see them inflicting their laws on the natives? No.
edit2: And please point to me where it says in international law that doing this qualifies as genocide.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 07, 2017, 10:49:11 am
So breed faster :Phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide)
Also, that talk about immigrants replacing the natives being equivalent to genocide is the kind of thing white supremacists like to spout. Not neccesarily accusing you of being one lagslayer, I'm just saying be careful with that kind of talk. And for the record, I'm white too.
edit: Also, since you're American, lets use an American example. We have a similar sort of issue, if you will, with hispanics and others, minorities will become the majority by 2050 or so, do you see them inflicting their laws on the natives? No.
edit2: And please point to me where it says in international law that doing this qualifies as genocide.
As for the hispanics, the areas where they are the most numerous have very high levels of crime. While they are not as fanatical as those being brought into Europe, they still bring a considerable chunk of Mexico with them. A hijacking and subsequent change of government policy would be inevitable.
But the numbers just don't add up. I'm not sure what kind of time scale you think this plan has, but if such a plan existed, at current rates it would take centuries for it to actually work. If this was truly an effort to kill off the native population, as you said, there should be a hell of a lot more effort in actually... y'know, killing off the native population. Instead it's 10 people here, 15 there; every time resulting in the arrest or death of the perpetrator. It just makes no sense.Check the rate of births vs the rate of deaths. It's a game of waiting for the old people to start dying off, then suddenly the entire demographic is flipped on it's head. This could take 2-3 generations to feel the full effect, and you're already feeling huge tremors from the shift.
Also, see the link above.
Post by: Sheb on June 07, 2017, 10:51:27 am
Now I guess the next step in the discussion is you complaining when people call you a nazi.
Post by: smjjames on June 07, 2017, 10:53:16 am
So breed faster :Phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide)
Also, that talk about immigrants replacing the natives being equivalent to genocide is the kind of thing white supremacists like to spout. Not neccesarily accusing you of being one lagslayer, I'm just saying be careful with that kind of talk. And for the record, I'm white too.
edit: Also, since you're American, lets use an American example. We have a similar sort of issue, if you will, with hispanics and others, minorities will become the majority by 2050 or so, do you see them inflicting their laws on the natives? No.
edit2: And please point to me where it says in international law that doing this qualifies as genocide.
As for the hispanics, the areas where they are the most numerous have very high levels of crime. While they are not as fanatical as those being brought into Europe, they still bring a considerable chunk of Mexico with them. A hijacking and subsequent change of government policy would be inevitable.
Ugh, you're one of those types of people aren't you? Tell me honestly, what are you so afraid of in Mexican culture or Mexico that isn't in American culture or America? Besides the drug problems.
And this completely ignores the fact that we ALREADY have a chunk of Mexico, we took it from them in the 19th century.
Post by: Il Palazzo on June 07, 2017, 10:54:45 am
Post by: Lagslayer on June 07, 2017, 11:07:26 am
Ok, so you don't want to kill Muslims to stop terrorism, you want to kill them to preserve a white ethno-state.
Now I guess the next step in the discussion is you complaining when people call you a nazi.
I'm with Sheb on this one. Our brave, brave Sir Robin is so afraid of his imagined threat of genocide that he's willing to endorse actual genocide.Tell me this.
If whites are not allowed to have an ethnostate, they why does nobody seem to bat an eye at non-white countries trying to preserve their ethnostates?
Quote from: smjjames
Quote from: Ispil
1. It assumes the rate will continue to drop, or at least stay low, forever.
2. It assumes importing new people will solve this problem.
Option 1 doesn't make sense. The biological imperative will never allow that, unless outside forces pressure for it, which would be the aforementioned genocide.
Option 2 also doesn't make sense. If it's the economic model that causes it, then they will suffer the same fate. If the economic model is NOT the primary cause of declining birthrates, then this is forced demographic replacement, and therefor genocide.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 07, 2017, 11:15:45 am
My post mentioned explicitly that it only applies to those who actually consider themselves of the same culture as the country in question. A failure to integrate (due to aforementioned lack of patriotism, possibly stemming from a "glory days are behind us" attitude in culture) means that the new-coming immigrants would not also suffer this issue. It's a curious confluence of economics and culture.You edited it after I had started typing up my post, and I didn't realize it.
That is, it's not the economic model that hurts birth rates. It's the economic effect on culture that does.
As for Japan, it will stabilize. It's honestly way overcrowded, anyways. It will be a little painful getting there, but then the pain is gone, and they don't have to make irreversible changes to their people and culture to do it.
Post by: smjjames on June 07, 2017, 11:16:51 am
Ok, so you don't want to kill Muslims to stop terrorism, you want to kill them to preserve a white ethno-state.
Now I guess the next step in the discussion is you complaining when people call you a nazi.I'm with Sheb on this one. Our brave, brave Sir Robin is so afraid of his imagined threat of genocide that he's willing to endorse actual genocide.Tell me this.
If whites are not allowed to have an ethnostate, they why does nobody seem to bat an eye at non-white countries trying to preserve their ethnostates?
*ahem* Isn't every country in Europe a white ethnostate? Maybe you could look towards Iceland?
My post mentioned explicitly that it only applies to those who actually consider themselves of the same culture as the country in question. A failure to integrate (due to aforementioned lack of patriotism, possibly stemming from a "glory days are behind us" attitude in culture) means that the new-coming immigrants would not also suffer this issue. It's a curious confluence of economics and culture.You edited it after I had started typing up my post, and I didn't realize it.
That is, it's not the economic model that hurts birth rates. It's the economic effect on culture that does.
As for Japan, it will stabilize. It's honestly way overcrowded, anyways. It will be a little painful getting there, but then the pain is gone, and they don't have to make irreversible changes to their people and culture to do it.
I am a white person and you disgust me.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 07, 2017, 11:29:17 am
*ahem* Isn't every country in Europe a white ethnostate? Maybe you could look towards Iceland?>Just move to an increasingly smaller area. I SWEAR we won't come after you again like we did all those other times!
Isn't every country in africa a black ethnostate? Isn't every country in the middle east an arab ethnostate? Isn't every east asian country an oriental ethnostate?
Quote
I am a white person and you disgust me.I don't give a fuck what color you are. Your opinions are still shit.
Yes, but most other countries with the same issue don't have overcrowding as an excuse.My point still stands, perhaps even moreso. Those other countries should stabilize even faster
Post by: Lagslayer on June 07, 2017, 11:33:42 am
"Projection"Spoiler (click to show/hide)
"Stabilize"
Post by: smjjames on June 07, 2017, 11:39:35 am
Then how else would you prefer to argue the subject? Birth rates are declining, globally. Pure and simple. You expect there to be a rebound, but there's no evidence that such a rebound would happen.
The entire first half of that image isn't projection. It's actual estimate. You can see the decline for yourself.
Though Mali (I think that's Mali?) stays a bit high for a while compared to the rest of Africa for some reason.
Post by: Lagslayer on June 07, 2017, 11:45:07 am
Then how else would you prefer to argue the subject? Birth rates are declining, globally. Pure and simple. You expect there to be a rebound, but there's no evidence that such a rebound would happen.That is but a single model. Other projections are quite different.
The entire first half of that image isn't projection. It's actual estimate. You can see the decline for yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)
Post by: smjjames on June 07, 2017, 11:52:23 am
Then how else would you prefer to argue the subject? Birth rates are declining, globally. Pure and simple. You expect there to be a rebound, but there's no evidence that such a rebound would happen.That is but a single model. Other projections are quite different.
The entire first half of that image isn't projection. It's actual estimate. You can see the decline for yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)
It's not the only simulation/projection, that's true. Although, I wonder if any of them take into account the side effects of global warming, including the fact that food supplies will change. Though that'd probably just make it even more complex.
Post by: Toady One on June 07, 2017, 01:43:22 pm