**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

See above. Our economy will become weaker, the pound will fall. And you only see the good side of this.

I understand there's a bad side to it. But like I say, adapt your business model. A weaker pound only implies a weaker economy if business does not adapt. But it will, because capitalism is a great thing. If a business fails to adapt, they go bust, and the ones who do adapt or were already suited to the new economic landscape fill the void.

[OngBonga]

It's worth noting that Japan have the world's 3rd largest economy. It must be that Asian Union they're a part of.

Imagine if Japan allowed China to tell them who they can and can't trade freely with.

[Poopadoop]

It's worth noting that Japan have the world's 3rd largest economy.

EU economy is bigger than Japan's.

UK outside of EU is smaller than Japan.

[OngBonga]

Not all of us have time to be our own farmers.

Well done for completely missing the point once again.

Why do we need to import tomatoes? I could grow enough in my greenhouse to sell some to you. Holy fuck, I just adapted my business model to take advantage of the new economic landscape!

The leverage of being a bigger trade bloc than just one country. Generally speaking, if you have more goods to trade and more markets to offer, you can get a better deal.

A better deal with who? The countries we can't negotiate bilateral trade deals with?

EU economy is bigger than Japan's.

The EU is not a nation state. Does the UK benefit if Germany sells more cars to China?

UK outside of EU is smaller than Japan.

Correction. INSIDE the EU our economy is smaller than Japan's. The UK economy is not the EU economy. We don't even have the same currency.

Outside the EU, our economy will be smaller, but it might not remain the case. Regardless, we're not in competition with Japan to have the biggest economy. My point is that Japan are showing the world that being in an economic bloc is not a critical aspect of a strong economy. Japan manage just fine, without having to cede powers to the mainland continent.

[Poopadoop]

Well done for completely missing the point once again.

Oh sorry you said you were going to grow your own tomatoes in your greenhouse. Sorry I didn't realize the wider implications that you were also going to grow the whole country's tomatoes. How silly of me.

Looks like you've got a new career. Now also start a cattle farm, a pig farm, a dairy farm, etc. and everything else we need to make up that 30% we don't want to pay tarrifs to buy from the EU. And do it BEFORE Brexit because I don't want to have to pay more for my food while I wait for you to set up Ong Farms Inc. and get it in full production.

Why do we need to import tomatoes? I could grow enough in my greenhouse to sell some to you. Holy fuck, I just adapted my business model to take advantage of the new economic landscape!

lol, mbn to live in your simple little Brexit world where everything just works out peachy.

[OngBonga]

What specific powers are we ceding? I mean concrete things, not just some vague ideals of 'sovereignty'.

Um... the ability to negotiate bilateral trade agreements, the right to fish our own waters, the right to determine how many immigrants we admit, and from what nations... do some googling. It's like you're completely unaware of what the EU is. It's all trade, no politics, right?

[Poopadoop]

Um... the ability to negotiate bilateral trade agreements, the right to fish our own waters, the right to determine how many immigrants we admit, and from what nations... do some googling. It's like you're completely unaware of what the EU is. It's all trade, no politics, right?

Right. I knew all that already, I just don't see them as problems but rather as benefits.

I half-expected you to come up with some more tinfoil hat shit about being part of the EU Empire Army or summat.

[OngBonga]

Right. I knew all that already, I just don't see them as problems but rather as benefits.

I half-expected you to come up with some more tinfoil hat shit about being part of the EU Empire Army or summat.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ange...mplement-nato/

tinfoil my arse

[Poopadoop]

Correction. INSIDE the EU our economy is smaller than Japan's. The UK economy is not the EU economy. We don't even have the same currency.

Outside the EU, our economy will be smaller, but it might not remain the case. Regardless, we're not in competition with Japan to have the biggest economy. My point is that Japan are showing the world that being in an economic bloc is not a critical aspect of a strong economy. Japan manage just fine,

Do you have any idea of the value of having trade arrangements? The EU is a readymade trade deal: lack of tariffs and free movement of labour. Leave that and we are starting from scratch. It doesn't fucking matter if Japan did ok out of it 70 years after WWII ended. I'm not going to live long enough for the disruption and economic pain Brexit will cause to sort itself out.

without having to cede powers to the mainland continent.

What specific powers are we ceding? I mean concrete things, not just some vague ideals of 'sovereignty'.

[OngBonga]

And do it BEFORE Brexit because I don't want to have to pay more for my food while I wait for you to set up Ong Farms Inc. and get it in full production.

If I were actually a business owner then I would adapt my business before we leave, but not because I give a fuck about your short term finances, rather because I care about my business not going bust.

But you're being short sighted here. You surely understand that tomatoes grown in this country will be cheaper than imports, right? So, even if it takes me six months to get going, you pay more for your tomatoes for six months, then less for the foreseeable future.

Sorry I didn't realize the wider implications that you were also going to grow the whole country's tomatoes.

You're being deliberately obtuse here. I'm simplifying things massively. I'm not going to grow the nation's tomatoes in my greenhouse, but if I had a large enough greenhouse, I could maybe grow enough for 100 people, maybe 1000 people.

Now also start a cattle farm, a pig farm, a dairy farm, etc. and everything else we need to make up that 30% we don't want to pay tarrifs to buy from the EU.

Indeed. Now you're getting the idea. Produce more, import less.

[Poopadoop]

If I were actually a business owner then I would adapt my business before we leave, but not because I give a fuck about your short term finances

If you were actually a business owner you'd realize that it's not just one guy in SE England who is paying more for their food while you and the rest of the country sort out its food production. It's everyone, and that includes you.

You surely understand that tomatoes grown in this country will be cheaper than imports, right?

Why don't we grow all our own tomatoes already then? If it's cheaper, surely we should be doing it already?

I'm not an expert on this, but I'm guessing tomatoes grow better in Spain's climate than ours, and that overall it's cheaper to grow them in Spain and bring them here than grow our own, especially if we can use our land to grow other things that we are good at producing and can export them for a big profit.

I'm sure there's also things that won't grow here at all, like olives.

Indeed. Now you're getting the idea. Produce more, import less.

More like "produce less efficiently ourselves and export less things we're efficient at producing."

[OngBonga]

If you were actually a business owner you'd realize that it's not just one guy in SE England who is paying more for their food while you and the rest of the country sort out its food production. It's everyone, and that includes you.

Short term losses for long term gains.

Why don't we grow all our own tomatoes already then? If it's cheaper, surely we should be doing it already?

No idea. But home grown tomatoes do not require shipping. Furthermore, the money paid for them stays in the country, thus supporting the economy. If home grown tomatoes aren't cheaper than imports, something is wrong. Maybe we're paying slave labour to foreign farmers.

I'm not an expert on this,

Neither am I, and I'm not intending to give the impression I am.

but I'm guessing tomatoes grow better in Spain's climate than ours

This is why we have greenhouses.

especially if we can use our land to grow other things that we are good at producing and can export them for a big profit.

If this is why we import tomatoes, I have no problem with it. Is that what's happening?

More like "produce less efficiently ourselves and export less things we're efficient at producing."

We're talking about tomatoes here, not pineapple. We can grow tomatoes no problem. My Nan did so when I was a kid, and they were the best.

[Poopadoop]

Short term losses for long term gains.

Only the short-term losses are certain, the long term gains are questionable.

This is why we have greenhouses.

The price of tomatoes just went up then. Pretty sure most large scale tomato production in Spain is done in open fields. And their growing season is longer, so they get more tomatoes per hectare. Hence, cheaper tomatoes.

If this is why we import tomatoes, I have no problem with it. Is that what's happening?

Seems like a logical explanation to me.

We're talking about tomatoes here, not pineapple. We can grow tomatoes no problem. My Nan did so when I was a kid, and they were the best.

I'm sure she was lovely but your Nan isn't relevant here - unless she was growing tomatoes on an industrial scale in her back garden.

[OngBonga]

google > EU army

Do that before accusing people of tinfoling when they express concerns about such a thing.

[Poopadoop]

google > EU army

Do that before accusing people of tinfoling when they express concerns about such a thing.

Simple question: Would membership in the EU Empire Army be mandatory or voluntary? Would every country in the EU be required to participate whether it wants to or not? Who would command this army? Who would decide where to send it?

I also remind you of what I said before about this: talking != doing.

[OngBonga]

Simple question: Would membership in the EU Empire Army be mandatory or voluntary? Would every country in the EU be required to participate whether it wants to or not? Who would command this army? Who would decide where to send it?

I also remind you of what I said before about this: talking != doing.

So if I said in 1995 that they wanted a single currency, I'm tinfoiling?

I would imagine it would be voluntary, just like the currency. That's not the point. It shows that the EU is not just about economics.

Who would command the army? Germany and/or France, probably.

Yeah we had this conversation before, but I'm still not quite sure where you think the UK fits into it. Would we be required to provide troops to the EU Imperial Army that hasn't actually been formed yet?

We refused to get involved with their currency, so I would expect us to refuse to get involved with their army. But this isn't the point. I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about the EU becoming a superstate, rather than an economic bloc. If the EU was pure economics, I would have voted to remain. I do actually see the benefit of being economically integrated with our neighbours, but not at any cost.

I'm a little more concerned with concrete things that are actually happening than some vague ideas politicians float around

Macron and Merkel would love you.

[Poopadoop]

I would imagine it would be voluntary, just like the currency. That's not the point. It shows that the EU is not just about economics.

If our foreign policy is independent of the EU Empire, then whether they exist as a Superstate or not is also independent of whether or not we have a customs agreement with them. The two are unrelated issues that Farage has tried to tie together to scare people.

[OngBonga]

The price of tomatoes just went up then. Pretty sure most large scale tomato production in Spain is done in open fields. And their growing season is longer, so they get more tomatoes per hectare. Hence, cheaper tomatoes.

I wonder what they'll be sprayed with to protect them from pests? Greenhouses are not expensive, certainly not to the point where it impacts on prices, and certainly not compared to regular shipping. If I were talking about hydroponics, with lighting, then yes, it would be more expensive.

I think tomatoes can be grown year round. Obviously the summer will be peak season, but if the growing season is a problem, then bigger greenhouses. We can grow enough for our needs.

I'm sure she was lovely but your Nan isn't relevant here - unless she was growing tomatoes on an industrial scale in her back garden.

The pint is that it is very easy to grow quality tomatoes in the UK.

The two are unrelated issues that Farage has tried to tie together to scare people.

Sir Farage to you. My point is that the army demonstrates that it is more than a customs agreement. We're already politically integrated into the EU, which is exactly why we had to conduct those election we just had, despite voting to leave.

[OngBonga]

btw, that's what NATO is for.

[Poopadoop]

I'm a little more concerned with concrete things that are actually happening than some vague ideas politicians float around.

[OngBonga]

If you think an EU army is a good thing, fair enough, I can respect your opinion. But don't sit there and tell me it's not something they want, when Merkel and Macron have explicitly stated it is something they want. You come across as lazily misinformed.

[Poopadoop]

If you think an EU army is a good thing, fair enough, I can respect your opinion. But don't sit there and tell me it's not something they want, when Merkel and Macron have explicitly stated it is something they want. You come across as lazily misinformed.

Yeah we had this conversation before, but I'm still not quite sure where you think the UK fits into it. Would we be required to provide troops to the EU Imperial Army that hasn't actually been formed yet?

[Poopadoop]

btw, there's only one country the EU Empire Army would foreseeably be used against and that's Russia. And that only in self-defense.

[OngBonga]

btw, there's only one country the EU Empire Army would foreseeably be used against and that's Russia. And that only in self-defense.

What utter bollocks. You say Farage is trying to scare people?

[Poopadoop]

So in your imagination, what grand empirical projects is the EU Army intended for? Conquering Africa?

The EU Army as I see it is just a means of organising the armed forces of allied nations more efficiently. It's a lot easier to have one army under a single command than several different armies each going off in their own direction.

[OngBonga]

So in your imagination, what grand empirical projects is the EU Army intended for? Conquering Africa?

Let's not be ridiculous. The intention is likely to make it much harder for nation states to leave the EU. But that's just a guess. You'll have to ask Merkel and Macron. One thing I do know is it has fuck all to do with Russia, since France and Germany are already members of NATO.

The EU Army as I see it is just a means of organising the armed forces of allied nations more efficiently. It's a lot easier to have one army under a single command than several different armies each going off in their own direction.

The point of an army is national security. If your army is tied up within the superstate, what happens if you have a military dispute with a fellow member state? And no it's not a lot easier, since there are now multiple sources of command. Who commands Spanish troops? Spain or Germany? If it's Spain, who commands German troops? If Germany, then we have a clusterfuck. Who commands Spanish and German troops? Who commands Spanish, german, french, Irish and Swedish troops? Messy as fuck.

Also, who is accountable? What if the EU army does something bad? Who's to blame? More clusterfuck.

IIRC the idea of having an EU Army would be because we can't rely on the US under Trump to honour its obligations to NATO.

More nonsense. You're just using Trump hysteria here to justify things that were being discussed before Trump was a thing.

I once again remind you that you accused Farage of spreading fear.

[Poopadoop]

Let's not be ridiculous. The intention is likely to make it much harder for nation states to leave the EU.

The EU Imperial Army wouldn't negate the right of states to leave the EU. You think they're going to use the EU Army to occupy Luxembourg so they can't leave? Lol, this isn't the 1700s.

The point of an army is national security. If your army is tied up within the superstate, what happens if you have a military dispute with a fellow member state?

You have to trust that you're not about to go to war with your Ally. In WWII for example, the US had 3 millions troops on UK soil. No-one said "ZOMFG what if we suddenly went to war with the US?" You're just grasping at straws here.

And no it's not a lot easier, since there are now multiple sources of command. Who commands Spanish troops? Spain or Germany? If it's Spain, who commands German troops? If Germany, then we have a clusterfuck. Who commands Spanish and German troops? Who commands Spanish, german, french, Irish and Swedish troops? Messy as fuck.

It is easier from the perspective of command and control. That is not to say that is their main reason for proposing it. As i said, it's likely a message to Trump that if you try to bully us around by threatening to leave NATO, we have the power to create our own army and look after ourselves.

Also, who is accountable? What if the EU army does something bad? Who's to blame? More clusterfuck.

Whoever took part gets the blame. They're not ceding complete control of their army.

It's also very unlikely the EU Army is going to happen, so I wouldn't worry about it.

I still don't see what all these hypotheticals has to do with Brexit. If we're not joining the EU Imperial Army either way, why does it matter what its problems might be?

More nonsense. You're just using Trump hysteria here to justify things that were being discussed before Trump was a thing.

Ok, whatever. I don't really care if they talk an EU Army all they want. Until it is actually formed and starts invading places it won't keep me up at night.

I once again remind you that you accused Farage of spreading fear.

I know, because that's what all this Superstate crap is - fear mongering.

[oskar]

I think the chances of an EU army just going on crusades for economic position america style are kinda low. I honestly haven't thought much about an EU army. It totally makes sense from an administrative standpoint. Most european armies are a money pit. Our military does domestic humanitarian aid when the same two backwards villages get covered in mud and someone has to shovel them out. You outsource that and you're left with a handful of alcoholic youths elevating the suicide statistics at the border.

We unfortunately need a military. I do see potential problems, but in the end we kind of have an EU army already, just a badly managed one that's not pulling together very effectively.

All things considered, I'm less worried about an EU army than current-time UK or US armies. Even under a central command I think an EU army would have a much higher bar of accountability.

[OngBonga]

The EU Imperial Army wouldn't negate the right of states to leave the EU.

It would make it much harder, just like the Euro. But like I say, I was guessing. Maybe it has more to do with budgets. Military is big business, an EU army would allow the EU to demand yet more money from member states, and that money will be spent on military hardware and all that jazz, lining the pockets of those who have vested interests in this sector. In fact, that's more likely that simply trying to tie member states to the superstate.

In WWII for example...

Need I add to this? This was a time of, wait for it... world war.

Even still, we have plenty of US troops here, so there's some validity to this. However, this is two nations in military cooperation, not 28.

It is easier from the perspective of command and control.

Only if smaller member states are willing to be dominated by Germany and France.

As i said, it's likely a message to Trump

It's got fuck all to do with Trump, and fuck all to do with Russia. USA isn't leaving NATO, it's just not in their interests at all. USA threaten that rubbish in an attempt to get more money from other NATO members. But NATO is just too useful for American military strategy... American troops can use any NATO nation as a base in the event of war. Why would they give that up? It's worth paying for.

It's also very unlikely the EU Army is going to happen, so I wouldn't worry about it.

I have no idea how you can say this. Would you have said the same about a common currency in 1995 or whenever? If Spain and Holland were talking about it, I wouldn't be concerned. But this is Germany and France, the two major powers of the EU.

I still don't see what all these hypotheticals has to do with Brexit.

Then you're not very good at reading. I've said it twice. The point is that even talking about it demonstrates that the EU is not just about trade. It is a superstate, or at the very least strives to be. I don't want to be a part of that. If you do, fair enough, but I don't.

I know, because that's what all this Superstate crap is - fear mongering.

It's like you're willfully ignorant on the matter. What would you call a large collections of nations that have a common currency, common trade policy, and want a common army? I appreciate "superstate" is a buzzword, do you have a better word?

[Poopadoop]

Even still, we have plenty of US troops here, so there's some validity to this. However, this is two nations in military cooperation, not 28.

Two nations? Try at least a dozen. Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, South Africans, Free French, Poles, to name a few. Any of one them could have attacked us using your logic that allies suddenly turn on each other for no reason.

It is a superstate, or at the very least strives to be. I don't want to be a part of that. If you do, fair enough, but I don't.

Better tell Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland to fuck off then.

[OngBonga]

A superstate implies they have a common foreign policy

Does it? Or did you just decide that because it's something the EU doesn't have yet?

Here's the google definition...

a large and powerful state formed from a federation or union of nations.

Now tell me the EU is not a superstate.

[Poopadoop]

Does it? Or did you just decide that because it's something the EU doesn't have yet?

Here's the google definition...



Now tell me the EU is not a superstate.

I was using the dictionary definition, not the wiki one.

1 : an extremely powerful nation or governing body having power over subordinate states

2 : a union or federation of nations under a supergovernment

[Poopadoop]

What would you call a large collections of nations that have a common currency, common trade policy, and want a common army? I appreciate "superstate" is a buzzword, do you have a better word?

An alliance.

A superstate implies they have a common foreign policy, that one of the members dominates that policy and that the rest are forced to go along with it (as in how England dominates the UK). Nobody afaik has said the EU Army would be under control of only one of the member countries, or even that being part of such an army would be obligatory for member states.

Really, you're making this out to be a big deal when it isn't. It's like Oskar said, they're just trying to make it easier for different countries' armies to cooperate, not form them up into one gigantic Army Europa to go out and conquer places with.

[OngBonga]

Better tell Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland to fuck off then.

Dear me. Are you really comparing the EU with the UK? An island nation in a very long and mostly peaceful historical union, vs a continent that has had two major wars and several smaller ones in the last century. The UK is not a superstate, not remotely close. We have a grand total of two languages in use today, one of which is spoken by around half a million people (of which nearly all speak English).

Besides, I'm no against the break up of the UK. If that's what the other nations want, and vote for, then good luck to them.

Two nations? Try at least a dozen. Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, South Africans, Free French, Poles, to name a few. Any of one them could have attacked us using your logic that allies suddenly turn on each other for no reason.

Fair point, but again this is incomparable to a common army. This is merely military cooperation that can be ended with the swipe of a pen.

[Poopadoop]

Dear me. Are you really comparing the EU with the UK? An island nation in a very long and mostly peaceful historical union

Imma have to stop you there.

England invaded the other three countries and conquered them. End of story. We are no less a superstate than the USSR was, than Austria-Hungary was, the Ottoman Empire, or...the list goes on.

So what you're really saying is "I don't want to be part of a superstate - unless I can be the dominant power in said state."

[OngBonga]

I was using the dictionary definition, not the wiki one.

Where does it refer to common foreign policy?

[Poopadoop]

Where does it refer to common foreign policy?

Seems implied to me.

[OngBonga]

Haha, it's like these are obscure historical countries.

The British Empire can be compared to USSR, the Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungary, if you want. The British Empire no longer exists.

[OngBonga]

England invaded the other three countries and conquered them. End of story. We are no less a superstate than the USSR was, than Austria-Hungary was, the Ottoman Empire, or...the list goes on.

Centuries ago. And we're not forcing them to stay. Scotland just voted to stay, and they might vote again soon. Wales aren't interested in a vote, while NI is contentious. They don't want to leave, but it's a colony, of course they don't.

I like how you compare the UK to large communist superstates of the past.

So what you're really saying is "I don't want to be part of a superstate - unless I can be the dominant power in said state."

Did you miss the bit where I said I'm not against the break up of the UK? If the other nations decide they don't want to be a part of this country, that's fine by me. So no, you're completely wrong here.

[Poopadoop]

Centuries ago. And we're not forcing them to stay. Scotland just voted to stay, and they might vote again soon. Wales aren't interested in a vote, while NI is contentious. They don't want to leave, but it's a colony, of course they don't.

The EU isn't forcing anyone to stay either.

I like how you compare the UK to large communist superstates of the past.

Only one of those examples I gave was communist. Fucking read a book once in a while.

[Poopadoop]

So either you're ok with being part of a superstate with voluntary membership, where countries can come and go as they please, or you don't consider such an entity a superstate. You can't have it both ways.

[OngBonga]

So either you're ok with being part of a superstate with voluntary membership, where countries can come and go as they please, or you don't consider such an entity a superstate. You can't have it both ways.

The UK is not nearly large enough to be a superstate. Maybe when we had an actual empire we were one.

The UK has a common culture, common language, common history, we share the same island (mostly).

I'm not pretending the UK is a perfect nation, I acknowledge the NI issue is a problem. That should belong to RoI, not the UK. But Wales and Scotland, they are part of the same landmass and have been part of this country for a long time. It's also a small country. It's incomparable to a large continental union.

[Poopadoop]

The UK is not nearly large enough to be a superstate.

It's the fifth largest economy in the world.

The UK has a common culture, common language, common history, we share the same island (mostly).

All of which resulted from invasion and conquest. This is like saying the Ukraine had a common culture, language and history with Russia after Russia conquered it.

But Wales and Scotland, they are part of the same landmass and have been part of this country for a long time.

Not a valid reason for having a superstate. Canada and the US are also part of the same landmass.

It's also a small country. It's incomparable to a large continental union.

It's not really about geography though is it?

[OngBonga]

The EU isn't forcing anyone to stay either.

This is open to debate. Ireland voted to leave, they were made to vote again until they made the "right" decision. And that's precisely what they're trying to do with us.

Only one of those examples I gave was communist. Fucking read a book once in a while.

Sorry, I should have said socialist. Silly me.

Seems implied to me.

Yeah, to you.

[Poopadoop]

This is open to debate. Ireland voted to leave, they were made to vote again until they made the "right" decision. And that's precisely what they're trying to do with us.

The EU is forcing countries not to leave by forcing them to continue holding referendums on whether or not they really want to leave. Gotcha.

Sorry, I should have said socialist. Silly me.

Haha, it's not like these are obscure countries from ancient history.

Seriously, go read a book. Learn something about history. It will give you some perspective on things which you sorely lack.

[Poopadoop]

Ireland voted to leave

Not actually what happened either.

[OngBonga]

Not actually what happened either.

Forgive my historical inaccuracy. All I remember was the Irish voters getting shafted.

[Poopadoop]

All I remember was the Irish voters getting shafted.

Apparently they don't share your sentiments.

Euroscepticism is a minority view in Ireland, with opinion polls between 2016 and 2019 indicating between 70% and 90% support for continued membership of the European Union (EU).

[OngBonga]

It's the fifth largest economy in the world.

21st in terms of population.

All of which resulted from invasion and conquest.

Sure, but that doesn't make us a superstate. And we don't share the same island as a result of conquest.

Not a valid reason for having a superstate. Canada and the US are also part of the same landmass.

Yeah, a massive landmass compared to an island.

It's not really about geography though is it?

Partly. It is when you're arguing that the UK is a superstate.

[Poopadoop]

I guess Canada is a superstate too then. I mean Quebec is mostly French and it's a large country.

[Poopadoop]

So your objection to a superstate is mainly that it has a lot of territory?

As long as a state's constituent countries are geographically small, and more or less conjoined, and the main conquest took place a whlie ago, then it's ok for one country to dominate others in a political union?

[OngBonga]

So your objection to a superstate is mainly that it has a lot of territory?

No, we're just splitting hairs over what "superstate" means. It's a complete distraction and is irrelevant. The UK and the EU are not similar entities. Whatever you want to call them, that much is obvious. The EU is not a country, it is a political and economic union. The UK is a country, and island nation, a sovereign state. Just because we have an imperial history, and just because we're a country made of a handful of nations, that doesn't make us in any way a similar entity to the European Union. So whatever you want to call them is besides the point.

My objection is with an expanding political and economic union the size of a continent dominating my island nation's internal affairs at the expense of what I consider to be our national interest. We might disagree on what's in our national interest, and that's fair enough. But I do not think it is in our national interest to be part of an economic and political union the size of a continent, something I call a "superstate" because I'm lazy and like words rather than entire sentences to describe things.

And I also object to the complete disregard for democracy by people whose idea of democracy is to keep voting until they get what they want.

[boost]

P: So it's about size?

O: No, the EU and UK are fundamentally different because of their size.

[OngBonga]

The EU and the UK are fundamentally different because one is a country and the other is not.

How do you even pipe in with that?

[OngBonga]

You guys are insane, I swear it. On the one hand, poop says the EU is just a customs union and not in any way a superstate, and on the other he's arguing it's similar to the UK, which is a superstate.


So the UK is just a customs union between England Scotland, Wales and NI?


And boost comes in mocking me as though poop is making a valid argument about how the EU and UK are similar entities?

Do you people even know what a country is?

[OngBonga]

Maybe you think the EU has the hallmarks of a "country". In which case, perhaps you guys think I shouldn't object to my nation being conquered by a bigger country. Maybe you think I should just suck it because we're imperialist bastards.

[Poopadoop]

You're the one who brought up the idea of a superstate. I just pointed out that the UK is by your own definition a superstate. Until you changed the definition, that is.

[OngBonga]

You're the one who brought up the idea of a superstate. I just pointed out that the UK is by your own definition a superstate. Until you changed the definition, that is.

No, you're the one who insisted in picking at my use of the word "superstate" because of your deluded belief that the EU is a customs union and nothing else.

How is the UK by my own definition a superstate? This just goes to show you are completely incapable of using your brain to figure out for yourself what I mean when I use a particular word. Completely incapable. It's like you have more of a problem with my use of that word than you do about me not wanting to be a part of it. You're nuts.

And boost is just trolling, obviously.

[boost]

You say A is bad. You seem happy with the status quo of B. B seems oddly similar to A in the ways in which you think A is bad.

This inspection of logic does not necessitate that Poop thinks A is or isn't XY or Z.

[Poopadoop]

Haha, ok both of us are wrongly pointing out a logical inconsistency in your argument that doesn't exist.

[OngBonga]

No, you're both suggesting that my inability to define "superstate" to your satisfaction means there is no distinction between a nation state and a political and economic union.

It would be much easier if you understood that by "superstate" I mean something that isn't a nation state, instead of trying to tear apart what the word means.

Like I say, you are more concerned about what "superstate" means than you are about anything else, like the use of the word is the result of Farage fearmongering, or some stupid shit like that.

The EU is not a country. The UK is. There is no logical inconsistency there.

A logical inconsistency is to argue the EU is only a customs union, while saying it's similar to the UK, which is a superstate.

[Poopadoop]

The EU is not a country. The UK is. There is no logical inconsistency there.

But you seem concerned with the idea that a number of separate countries could form into something akin to a larger political union. My riposte to this was that is exactly what the UK is.

[OngBonga]

But you seem concerned with the idea that a number of separate countries could form into something akin to a larger political union. My riposte to this was that is exactly what the UK is.

This is where the similarities end.

[Poopadoop]

How do you interpret this?

The Lib Dems, Greens, the SNP, Plaid and Change UK - all backers of a second referendum - collectively gained the support of 39.1 per cent of the public in England, Wales and Scotland, against no-dealers Ukip and the Brexit Party's collective 33.7 per cent.

[OngBonga]

I've also made it clear that I'm not against the break up of the UK. I'm also not against the UK remaining in union. Whatever we democratically decide between us, that's fine by me.

Just like it's (reluctantly) fine by me if the UK votes to remain in the EU. We didn't, we voted to leave. Now my idea of democracy is not to keep voting so that people can change their minds. My idea of democracy is to make your decision and live with it.

[OngBonga]

against no-dealers

I interpret that as stunning. I didn't think "no deal" had anywhere near this level of support, I figured most people want us to leave with a deal. Those who do want to leave with a deal are less likely to vote Brexit and more likely to vote Tory or Labour.

Meanwhile, those who want to remain and normally support Tory or Labour, they're very likely the reason why the Libs did so well.

Here's a question for you... do you think Scotland should have another vote with regards to their membership of the UK? If they leave, how do you think that impacts on the EU debate in what remains of the UK?

[Poopadoop]

I interpret that as stunning. I didn't think "no deal" had anywhere near this level of support, I figured most people want us to leave with a deal. Those who do want to leave with a deal are less likely to vote Brexit and more likely to vote Tory or Labour.

Meanwhile, those who want to remain and normally support Tory or Labour, they're very likely the reason why the Libs did so well.

Here's a question for you... do you think Scotland should have another vote with regards to their membership of the UK? If they leave, how do you think that impacts on the EU debate in what remains of the UK?

Yeah that figures. You assume all or at least most of the people who didn't vote strongly one way or the other are Leavers, just not no-deal Leavers.

[Poopadoop]

Here's a question for you... do you think Scotland should have another vote with regards to their membership of the UK? If they leave, how do you think that impacts on the EU debate in what remains of the UK?

I think they should do whatever they want to do. It's not my place to say.

If they leave, how do you think that impacts on the EU debate in what remains of the UK?

It would reduce the number of Remainers. That doesn't mean I think we should force them to stay in the UK if they don't want to though.

[OngBonga]

Pretty much every country in the world is made of smaller regions. If you want to say the UK is a superstate, then so is England. I mean, Cornwall and Yorkshire are vastly different cultures. Spain is also a superstate, and so is Canada.

But obviously Canada and Spain are not in any way similar to the EU. You're failing to use your own brain to draw distinctions, instead demanding that I accurately define a word, simply because that word is a buzzword.

[OngBonga]

Ukraine should just accept being part of Russia, because after all, Ukraine is just a country made of smaller regions. Do you agree?

[Poopadoop]

Ukraine should just accept being part of Russia, because after all, Ukraine is just a country made of smaller regions. Do you agree?

I'm don't think any country should be forced to join with other, more powerful countries through conquest the way Wales, Scotland and N.I. were, if that's what you mean.

If the EU starts forcing other countries to join it, or forcing them to stay once they'd joined, then I'd be against that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The words ascribed to various levels of governance are pretty arbitrary.
Nation and state are often synonymous when talking about any country but the USA.

As ong pointed out, the fractal structure of the way humans govern makes it hard to put a real distinction on where is the "state" level.


IMO, this conversation is skirting around the central issue:
Ethnocentrism and the right of a culture to command its future.
ong thinks this is a good and proper way for humans to progress... that a culture of people has the right to their current state of affairs and the right to choose their future in total disregard to all other cultures.

The rest of us don't really like the black-and-white line in that... though I only speak for myself. That level of elevation for ethnocentrism is akin to Kierkegaard's ideas that statehood and state progress are both divine gifts, in a very real sense... that nations carry out the will of God... that the rise and fall of nations is the expression of God's judgement... this is a core philosophy that was being put out by one of Germany's great philosophers just before and during the rise of Naziism.
It's a pretty scary line of reasoning, IMO.

[OngBonga]

Yeah that figures. You assume all or at least most of the people who didn't vote strongly one way or the other are Leavers, just not no-deal Leavers.

No deal is actually pretty scary. Even I acknowledge that. It takes balls to vote for a party that is saying they will take us out without a deal.

No deal is better than remain, that's my position. That's the position of everyone who voted for Brexit Party or UKIP. Do you suppose there are people who voted leave, but think remaining is better than no deal? Who do you suppose they vote for? I'll give you a clue... one of the parties who want to take us out with a deal.

[OngBonga]

Further, if you want to remain at all costs, you're an idiot if you vote Tory when the Libs are campaigning under the promise of a second referendum.

[Poopadoop]

Further, if you want to remain at all costs, you're an idiot if you vote Tory when the Libs are campaigning under the promise of a second referendum.

Has it occurred to you that some people voted for reasons that weren't all about if/how/when Brexit happens? I appreciate that makes your little analysis a bit more complicated.