Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

So fear mongering aside, best I can tell, Article 11 just gives automatic copyright to a digital article, so reposting the article in full or majority and not just linking and describing would violate the copyright, and Article 13 is basically a European equivalent to DMCA.

I mean, Article 11 just seems to be aligning it with how Copyright already tends to work (automatic and not needing registering), and Article 13 looks tamer than DMCA and leaves more wiggle room for smaller businesses. And it's all sufficiently vague enough to leave deciding exactly what it means as a sovereign decision for each state to make, so it's more about granting states the power to do what they want than actually enforcing it.

(Which if they're the kind of state to take a more hardline stance on, they'd be doing anyway without the EU but details).

Not exactly a fan since I think access to and sharing of information should be free on principle, but you don't have to agree with everything the EU does to think it's a better option than leaving.

To use another example in politics: I don't agree with every Labour policy, but I still voted Labour in the last general election because I think they were and are the better option. for example, I am of the opinion that large-scale manufacturing in Britain should stay dead and in the past.

But I support nationalisation of services for which avoiding an effective monopoly requires either ridiculous bureaucratic loops to make remotely possible, or just doesn't really work at all to prevent a monopoly (e.g trains, water, electricity), more investment in green energy sources, more investment into the NHS and public services...You get the idea.

But with the EU my point of view has always been that most of the things I dislike about the EU also tend to be the things the British government has been pushing and supporting since it joined, so at the end of the day all leaving does is take power from a set containing several assholes and gives it to the ones who have historically been some of the bigger assholes in the bunch.

[ChairmanPoo]

I can tell you that as far as recruiting "foreign talent" is concerned, it does make the British job market less attractive. The SM does cut a lot of red tape in regards to moving to another country in the EU; that makes things more straightforward and easier, which in turn makesnit more likely to accept a position abroad(which is always a risky and stressful consideration). I think many people haven't considered that angle.

[Loud Whispers]

???
It takes power from those arseholes since they won't be able to push unpopular policy upon Britain and subsequently blame the EU for the policy they pushed through the EU; any such policy will have to be executed with their head in the proverbial chopping block

[MorleyDev]

That's starting to get a little bit...erm, what's the term? Where you try and make things worse so the system destroys itself so you can build a new one.

There's an actual term for that, and I honestly can't remember it. But yeah, that's starting to sound a little bit like whatever that's called. It think it was mentioned somewhere in the America thread, but fuck me I'm not going to dig back through the 1000-odd pages for that xD

[Loud Whispers]

Might be accelerationism?

[ChairmanPoo]

???
It takes power from those arseholes since they won't be able to push unpopular policy upon Britain and subsequently blame the EU for the policy they pushed through the EU; any such policy will have to be executed with their head in the proverbial chopping block

Nah. They'll blame whatever happens on the terms of the Versailles Exit treaty (nevermind that this botched fiasco has two parents) and the Remainer traitors that stabbed GerUK in the back. Some people are already onboard of that sort of rhetoric

[MorleyDev]

Sounds right, at least as far as wikipedia says: "Accelerationism may also refer more broadly, and usually pejoratively, to support for the deepening of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse"

But yeah, the whole "well now they don't have a scapegoat" just feels a little bit like "giving them enough rope to hang themselves and hope they don't also get enough to hang you as well".

[TD1]

So it's a choice between a fixed status quo or a path which may remain the status quo, or could change.

And I,
I took the one less travelled by.
And that has made all the difference.

[MorleyDev]

Except I'd argue the EU is composed heart, body and soul, of the countries that form it. If you want to change it, you need to change those countries just as surely as you'd need to change those countries without the EU.

And the UK has been a big player in the EU since we joined with a historically strong negotiating position inside the EU, so was one of the countries with a solid chance of driving that kind of reform if it hadn't spent the last three decades bouncing between being governed by two neoliberal parties and playing it's part in pushing the EU down the path in the first place.

And that's the thing. I say you can't really blame the EU, because the EU is just the countries that make it just as suradly as the UK government is, intrinsically, the politicians that the people elect. That bill from earlier was voted through by the democratically elected MEPs after all. it was amended and debated by those democratically elected MEPs. And ministers nominated by the governments that compose the EU. So who is to blame? The EU? No. I'd go for the people elected to govern it, and the people who elected them.

It's a slower path sure, but I'd argue a better one. Change the economic philosophy of a country first, then after that'd happened if the UK had failed at fixing the mess it helped make, then I'd be more likely to accept a case for leaving. Otherwise the underlying problem just remains, and nothing is actually learnt.

[martinuzz]

Except I'd argue the EU is composed heart, body and soul, of the countries that form it. If you want to change it, you need to change those countries just as surely as you'd need to change those countries without the EU.

And the UK has been a big player in the EU since we joined with a historically strong negotiating position inside the EU, so was one of the countries with a solid chance of driving that kind of reform if it hadn't spent the last three decades bouncing between being governed by two neoliberal parties and playing it's part in pushing the EU down the path in the first place.

And that's the thing. I say you can't really blame the EU, because the EU is just the countries that make it just as suradly as the UK government is, intrinsically, the politicians that the people elect. That bill from earlier was voted through by the democratically elected MEPs after all. it was amended and debated by those democratically elected MEPs. And ministers nominated by the governments that compose the EU. So who is to blame? The EU? No. I'd go for the people elected to govern it, and the people who elected them.

It's a slower path sure, but I'd argue a better one. Change the economic philosophy of a country first, then after that'd happened if the UK had failed at fixing the mess it helped make, then I'd be more likely to accept a case for leaving. Otherwise the underlying problem just remains, and nothing is actually learnt.

+1

I sure am sorry to see the UK leave, because they could actually make a difference in te direction the EU is taking.

[Loud Whispers]

I sure am sorry to see the UK leave, because they could actually make a difference in te direction the EU is taking.

At what cost, for what prize? Winning is not worth it, losing means losing everything.

Nah. They'll blame whatever happens on the terms of the Versailles Exit treaty (nevermind that this botched fiasco has two parents) and the Remainer traitors that stabbed GerUK in the back. Some people are already onboard of that sort of rhetoric

And who would believe them? MPs who supported Remain blaming MPs who supported Remain is like MPs who were mired in expenses scandals being put in charge of investigating their opposition's expenses scandals. They can't do shit because what they send around comes immediately around. And so that leaves just MPs who supported Leave, of which we have none who aren't mercenaries in a position to secure leadership. In short, we have many bullets in the chamber, but whenever we choose to fire, our aim shall be entirely decided by a lady in a trenchcoat twiddling her moustache saying "trusssst meeeee," or an oiled up mime trying to persuade us with interpretive dance where to shoot.

Sounds right, at least as far as wikipedia says: "Accelerationism may also refer more broadly, and usually pejoratively, to support for the deepening of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse"
But yeah, the whole "well now they don't have a scapegoat" just feels a little bit like "giving them enough rope to hang themselves and hope they don't also get enough to hang you as well".

In this case, it was not accelerationism, at least in so far as it empowered the neoliberal factions of the United Kingdom. If we had lost the referendum, Cameron & Osborne would still be in power with their attendant ministers, the Conservative faction within the Conservative party would have been eliminated, the Conservative party would have been able to devote its full power towards miring Jeremy Corbyn's socialist faction in political dirt, the United Kingdom would have lost its last realistic chance to leave the EU in this lifetime with UK institutions intact, and all of this immediately prior to the EU's overt centralization drive towards statehood. By contrast, leaving the EU has already resulted in the Labour and Conservative neoliberals entering a delightfully precarious situation, whilst the pipeline of British politicians and civil servants into the European Union is to be severed permanently (in theory, we all know that UK civil servants will still end up in the European Union long after we've left).

Except I'd argue the EU is composed heart, body and soul, of the countries that form it. If you want to change it, you need to change those countries just as surely as you'd need to change those countries without the EU.
And the UK has been a big player in the EU since we joined with a historically strong negotiating position inside the EU, so was one of the countries with a solid chance of driving that kind of reform if it hadn't spent the last three decades bouncing between being governed by two neoliberal parties and playing it's part in pushing the EU down the path in the first place.
And that's the thing. I say you can't really blame the EU, because the EU is just the countries that make it just as suradly as the UK government is, intrinsically, the politicians that the people elect. That bill from earlier was voted through by the democratically elected MEPs after all. it was amended and debated by those democratically elected MEPs. And ministers nominated by the governments that compose the EU. So who is to blame? The EU? No. I'd go for the people elected to govern it, and the people who elected them.
It's a slower path sure, but I'd argue a better one. Change the economic philosophy of a country first, then after that'd happened if the UK had failed at fixing the mess it helped make, then I'd be more likely to accept a case for leaving. Otherwise the underlying problem just remains, and nothing is actually learnt.

I would not have the United Kingdom be governed by the United Nations in the hope that the United Kingdom could be reformed, to in turn reform the United Nations, to in turn govern the world. I have no desire to change France, or Germany, or Poland or Italy and so forth, and given the general lack of imagination in the majority of politicians who end up in power over any European nation, all our continued influence would achieve would be to see the European peoples submit to the spiritual yoke of the City of London.

I also cannot attribute blame to the electorate, nor take blame away from the European Union as a body of institutions which is so readily designed to command the European Continent, to bid for world hegemony, all without any regard for a single soul of any of the nations calling Europe home. To bring back the obvious example in the UK, our government has continually been dominated by neoliberal MPs, and all these MPs naturally being pro-EU. It is not the fault of the electorate if they vote in neoliberal pro-EU politicians when they have been given the choice to only elect neoliberal pro-EU politicians.
There is also a terrifying gap in logic wherein anyone from the UK can recognise that MPs are vulnerable to being isolated and influenced by lobbyists, civil servants and advisors, yet the EU with far greater resources, far less accountability, far more lobbyists, bureaucrats and advisors - seems to exist in some zone of blindness, wherein we can somehow fix the European Union's dysfunction in scales far larger than any one nation could devise.

So you have this fucking bill. It wasn't proposed in the EU parliament, because the EU parliament can't propose the laws that will govern European peoples - just in case they get crazy ideas and start thinking the European Union is supposed to derive its authority from voters. If the EU parliament had voted against article 11 or 13, the EU could have made the Parliament vote again under rebranded legislature, or incorporated such legislature into a treaty for example, disregarding any such theoretical opposition with ease. Then you have your MEPs, whose political parties vet the candidates from amongst their ilk beforehand, naturally ensuring voters pick the right candidates. Such MEPs with an £80k salary, a £213,000 allowance for Parliamentary assistance (which they can spend on hiring relatives and friends!) with additional allowance for £91,000 in general expenses... With no receipts required! What MEPs then will vote against the system keeping them employed so generously, or keep their pension so juicy? Is it any wonder that one of the EU's priority is to have the UK pay the EU billions, not for the benefit of European people, but to pay the pensions of EU officials!

Now consider that in the UK lobbyists spend £25M in the last 2 years on influencing British legislature. That figure won't include politicians being promised careers in the private sector or given ludicrous sums of cash for "speeches." In one year, the sum for EU lobbying was €1.7B.
£12,500,000 is a considerably easier thing to deal with than €1,700,000,000, not least in the bit because I can walk to my MP - but there's fuck all way I can compete with a lobbyist based over the channel speaking to an MEP or EU Civil Servant, least not if the MEP or Mandarin is already seeing eye to eye with corporate interests.

Realistically, I have no capacity nor do I see any capacity for the British people to be the doctor of all Europe's ills, not in the least when our elected leaders act as the doctor of Europe whilst prescribing nothing but opium, to profit from the sickness.

And for what profit?

Why try to build a superstate to fight America for world hegemony? Is it not enough to look after our people and our country, to advance in technology and culture, instead of wasting all of our resources trying to make a United States of Indistinct Provinces? The structure is inherently pitted in favour of whoever holds the most capital.

[SaberToothTiger]

Better Putin than Tusk, innit?

[Loud Whispers]

Better Putin than Tusk, innit?

This is like a salesman saying it is better to have hemorrhoids than gonorrhea, so open your rectum for hemorrhoids. It is a false choice when having good health of the bowels and genitals is the necessary combination

[SaberToothTiger]

I should have added an /s there, but oh well.

[Dorsidwarf]

They're the reason we can't call champagne champagne any longer, for example.

One of the less-known stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles. And its no different to all the modern laws protecting regional brands like Stilton from mass-produced rock-bottom foreign imitators.