*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[oskar]

MMM: "What specific claims of fraud regarding the 2020 presidential election do you find credible?"

Spoon: "2016 democratic Iowa Caucus"

[spoonitnow]

I'm not asking you to catalogue the state of political factions for me.

There may have been a misunderstanding on this then. That's exactly what I took it for when you said, "I've been desperately seeking an intelligent person to explain the positions of the US political right for over a year, now."

I'm asking what you support and believe in.

I can do that, but I don't think you'll feel satisfaction at how non-specific a lot of it is.

Abortion is, to me, a medical issue, and I'm not a doctor. Or a woman.
I kinda don't think anyone who's neither a medical doctor nor a woman should be given a microphone on this issue.

Abortion cannot be seen as purely a medical issue because of its effects on the demographic makeup of the population. It's never been purely a medical issue in US history either. For example, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and massive fan of eugenics, didn't see it as purely a medical issue when she was giving talks to the Ku Klux Klan or when she was getting funding for her "Negro Project." It affects race, the economy, crime, eugenics and plenty of other issues here.

[OngBonga]

I kinda don't think anyone who's neither a medical doctor nor a woman should be given a microphone on this issue.

Without wanting to dip my feet into the abortion debate, I don't agree with this. Abortion affects men too. Every child, born and unborn, has a father. That father has a right to an opinion.

I keep my opinion to myself on this matter because abortion does not affect me, but it's not my place to decide who can speak out on this subject.

[Poopadoop]

Back in #MEGA news...I don't even know where to start.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/north...f-man-2230890/

[spoonitnow]

I'm asking what you support and believe in.

Well, since you wanted to open this can of worms so badly...

There's always going to be a powerful numerical minority with a disproportionate amount of power and influence, and they're always going to financially exploit the less powerful majority. Master-slave morality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master...slave_morality) does a good job of giving a moral basis to these two groups and why they support the things they do. The Pareto Principle and Price's Law do a good job of explaining why this happens.

If this exploitation goes completely unchecked, it's ultimately bad for the powerful minority because it destabilizes society and leads to war. However, if limitations on this exploitation are too severe, then it's ultimately bad for the less powerful minority because the powerful majority will simply leave and go somewhere else, taking opportunities with them.

Politics is fundamentally about deciding what to do about achieving a balance between these two extremes to avoid these two disastrous outcomes. It comes down to one question: To what degree should this exploitation be limited by government?

We can put this a different way to make the concept I'm getting at more clear. Suppose we call this system of exploitation a game of kickball. The ultimate goal of government is to make sure that the game as a whole keeps going because without it, everyone is fucked. If we don't regulate the game enough, the weak flip shit and blow up the game. If we regulate the game too much, the powerful take their ball and go home.

Government is here to make sure that neither of those outcomes happen. It's also influenced by both groups of people.

The powerful are in the numerical minority, so they can influence government policy by things like lobbying and strategy. The weak are in the numerical majority, so they can influence government policy by things like voting.

It's like walking on a balance beam. One side is pulling you in one direction, the other side is pulling you in the other direction, and the net result is hopefully that you remain stable on the beam as a result. If one side pulls you too far one way or the other, that's the end of walking on the balance beam.

Maintaining this balance so that we don't fall off of either side is what I support and believe in.

[spoonitnow]

Back in #MEGA news...I don't even know where to start.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/north...f-man-2230890/

That looks really cool and also simultaneously a complete waste of money.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There may have been a misunderstanding on this then.

OK. I didn't word that well. My bad.

I can do that, but I don't think you'll feel satisfaction at how non-specific a lot of it is.

More likely that is exactly what I'm seeking.

Abortion cannot be seen as purely a medical issue because of its effects on the demographic makeup of the population. It's never been purely a medical issue in US history either. For example, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and massive fan of eugenics, didn't see it as purely a medical issue when she was giving talks to the Ku Klux Klan or when she was getting funding for her "Negro Project." It affects race, the economy, crime, eugenics and plenty of other issues here.

Even a broken clock, eh?
Planned Parenthood has moved far from those racist beginnings, IMO.
FYI, my gal is the entire* marketing dept. for the St Louis Planned Parenthood so I can get more info for you at the drop of a dime if you'd like to know more about what PP is today.


I might as well say all police are racist because the formation of police departments in the US came out of self-appointed slave catchers chasing blacks across the North. Those self-appointed bounty hunters transitioned smoothly into police departments.

I don't think either statement is connecting the dots without skipping dots.


*Her boss accepted a position in the Biden administration not long ago and was a VP of Planned Parenthood, who is in the process of being replaced, but the position hasn't been filled, yet. Also, their graphics designer was a total slacker POS who either left them or was let go about a year ago and the company slacked hard on replacing him due to the COVID stuff.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Without wanting to dip my feet into the abortion debate, I don't agree with this. Abortion affects men too. Every child, born and unborn, has a father. That father has a right to an opinion.

I keep my opinion to myself on this matter because abortion does not affect me, but it's not my place to decide who can speak out on this subject.

No one said anything about anyone's right to speak out on anything.

All I said was that no one has the right to my time when expressing their opinions.


FYI, one of my ex's got an abortion of what would have been my child, and she did so despite my adamant arguing for her not to.
And of course I am entitled to my opinion on that matter, but NOT AS MUCH AS SHE IS. Men's opinions matter, but it's not a 50/50 weighting between each partner's opinion on this. Call it 55/45 or 75/25 or whatever. Ultimately, it's the woman's choice, IMO.

But, again, grain of salt. I'm neither a medical doctor nor a woman, and IMO, this issue is akin to the balance spoon was describing. The divide of opinions and ferocity of opinions on both sides of the abortion issue are intense, and unchanging for at least a century. Given that, I think the best move is to maintain a balance. Keep abortions legal, regulated, and allow the anti-abortion groups to speak their opinions and protest and push for more regulations where they see fit. Allow the anti-abortion groups the same and let the line between them jiggle over time.

The passions are just too high to allow either side to "win" on this. It is what it is, IMO.

[OngBonga]

All I said was that no one has the right to my time when expressing their opinions.

Fair enough, but they have a right to speak publicly about it. Whether you choose to listen is another matter.

And of course I am entitled to my opinion on that matter, but NOT AS MUCH AS SHE IS.

This is pretty much where I am on the debate. Ultimately it's her choice, not his. But if someone disagrees with that opinion, I'm not going to butt heads with them. If someone thinks it should be a 50-50 decision, that's their opinion and they have the right to air it. If someone thinks abortion should be illegal, that's their opinion and they have the right to air it.

You said "I kinda don't think anyone who's neither a medical doctor nor a woman should be given a microphone on this issue."

When you use the word "microphone" I interpret that as a public platform. This is what I disagree with. People are entitled to a public opinion, regardless of gender or occupation.

[Poopadoop]

That looks really cool and also simultaneously a complete waste of money.

That's just scratching the surface. Here's some of what's idiotic about it:

It's about 50x times as much tunnel as the Channel tunnel between England and France and would carry a fraction of the freight.

The Irish Sea is full of unexploded bombs from WWII, so there's no guarantee the construction wouldn't set one off, which would be a bad thing for the constructions crews working there, and possibly turn the whole thing into an giant drain sewer for the ocean.

The port in Scotland it's linking to has only limited infrastructure leading out of it, so no sensible way to get enough traffic running through it to make it worthwhile having there, unless you dump a bunch more money into building up that infra.

The Irish already told him they weren't interested. He can't make them agree to it (Ireland is outside of the UK), so there's no point after that in even talking about it, not that there ever was a point in the first place. And his own advisers are calling it things like "batshit crazy" and "nuts."

But, it looks like he's going to go ahead and spend a few hundred mill on some feasibility studies anyways. He actually has a history of ordering these kind of pie-in-sky project feasibility studies to be done when he was mayor of London. They never come to anything and were just a big waste of money.

Seriously, they should just put the guy in a room with a lego set and a toy train or something.

[Poopadoop]

Oh, and Imma gonna go out on a limb here and suggest there's a remote possibility that the feasibility studies he's ordering will be carried out by party cronies.

[OngBonga]

I laughed when I saw reports of plans for these tunnels. Then I went to google maps and imagined it was my decision and I got to decide where the tunnels went. It's fascinating.

I mean, there is absolutely no need for two tunnels to NW England. Heysham and Liverpool are connected by the M6 motorway and are an hour apart; even if this idea had merit you only need to pick one of those routes.

and possibly turn the whole thing into an giant drain sewer for the ocean.

lol this is just plain daft. Where's the water going to drain? You're not a believer in hollow earth are you?

Oh, and Imma gonna go out on a limb here and suggest there's a remote possibility that the feasibility studies he's ordering will be carried out by party cronies.

This isn't daft though. You've nailed it right here. Corruption, not incompetence.

[OngBonga]

and possibly turn the whole thing into an giant drain sewer for the ocean.

Ok I thought about it for more than three seconds and I see what you're saying here. Not as daft as I initially assumed.

[OngBonga]

The idea that tunneling will cause bombs at the bottom of the sea to explode does seem daft though. They should be tunneling well below the bottom of the sea. If they trigger a bomb, then they were already pretty fucked because they must be far too close to the water.

[Poopadoop]

Dude, you just had a crack at me in the other thread for arguing with you too much and the next thing you do is come over here and argue with me.

Have you ever heard the expression "It takes two to have a fight?" Maybe think about how your own behavour contributes to this thing you claim to be trying to hard to avoid.

[spoonitnow]

Have you ever heard the expression, "If you want to fight, then stick your head up my ass and fight for air?"

[OngBonga]

So every time I respond to something you say and comment in a way you deem to be "arguing" you're going to play this card, right?

How about you think about what I said and respond to that. Why would bombs go off because they're making tunnels? If the answer to that is obvious and I'm dumb for even asking it, then I can understand why you might think I'm just arguing for the sake of it.

I'm moaning at you because you argue with me when I talk about crypto with keith, you argue with me when I tiptoe around a story in a way to ensure I'm not making direct accusations about someone who is likely to soon be facing a court even though it's obvious what I'm getting at, you're just arguing for the sake of it.

I'm not. Your comment seems daft to me. Maybe it's me being daft. Help me understand who's daft here.

[spoonitnow]

Why would bombs go off because they're making tunnels?

They have to build through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort%27s_Dyke

The TL;DR is that the UK has dumped a ridiculous amount of shit there for a really long time. We're talking metric tons of radioactive waste along with several thousand metric tons of rockets, bombs and whatever else. Explosions have already happened there before that were mistaken as earthquakes. It's like trying to build a turnip farm on a massive mine field.

I remember reading about Beaufort's Dyke for some class in college, but I can't remember what. All kinds of crazy shit has happened with that like explosives washing up on the beaches of the Isle of Man.

[OngBonga]

So I am being daft. Well, kind of, it's not obvious, but it's a problem for sure.

Seems crazy this would even be discussed as a realistic project then given this problem.

This is probably the kind of thing they teach to kids everywhere except the UK, like Tiananmen Square in China.

[Poopadoop]

I also heard that the seabed there is solid granite whereas the seabed in the Channel is sedimentary. So basically, have fun blasting your way through that for 100 years, 500 sticks of dynamite and 50 feet at a time.

The giant roundabout under the Isle of Man is fucking hilarious too. I can imagine him telling them to make it 100 miles wide or something.

I don't know the details of all the goofy projects he dreamt up while he was Mayor of London that never happened. Something about a bridge and a floating airport is all I can remember.

It'd be funnier if he wasn't in charge of the entire country. Actually, that is kinda funny too.

[Poopadoop]

Oh, here's the airport - "Boris Island"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...t-boris-island

[Poopadoop]

£43m for a bridge they never built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Bridge

[Poopadoop]

The guy's fucking obsessed with unrealistic building plans.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...ppen-1.4182384

[OngBonga]

The giant roundabout aspect seemed to me like nonsense. But at the same time, fascinating. Imagine if they did it. It would be a remarkable engineering achievement, comparable to putting robots on Mars. I'd be pretty fucking impressed.

At the risk of pushing a button, I wouldn't give a huge amount of credit to the Guardian when it comes to political criticism of Conservative policy. An airport on the estuary is a reasonable idea. I mean they're in a lose-lose situation here. Heathrow badly needs expanding to meet demand. But that means compulsory purchase orders for entire villages, and green belt land being covered in tarmac. But if they try to come up with a solution, people find a reason to use it as a political weapon. It's "costly, risky and a potential failure"... is that really the best they've got? Heathrow's owners would have to be compensated? Just let them sell the land, that is literally worth billions.

Tokyo airport is built on the sea. It's not batshit like a roundabout under the Isla of Man. It's a logical solution to the problems airports cause communities.

[spoonitnow]

I think Brexit was a really good idea. The idea that the long-term benefits of nationalism should outweigh the short-term disadvantages from the change is not unfounded.

However, I think the chances of this working in practice died years ago. There are too many assholes there now who don't care at all about maintaining the culture, history and identity of the United Kingdom. You can't have national policy based around nationalism on a macro level without it being backed up on the micro level.

It would be like building a house with lumber that looks find on the outside but that's rotten on the inside. It just can't hold up what it's supposed to hold up even if it looks good on the surface.

[OngBonga]

The only part of United Kingdom culture under attack really is English culture. England has already become very much multicultural. Scottish and Welsh culture is still strong, but English culture is something that many outsiders seem to think we should be ashamed of. That comes with the territory of being historically dominant, both domestically and globally. Of course, like probably every culture on the planet, there are sources of shame and pride. That's human nature, people do shitty and wonderful things.

Nationalism has become a dirty word, used as a derogatory term for dominant cultures. But it's funny how the "oppressed" culture can have a brand of nationalism that's palatable. It's even funnier that they don't like being called nationalists. Boris Johnson has got into the habit of calling the SNP the Scottish Nationalist Party (It's National), and it winds them up, even though they are nationalists. He's clearly trolling them. This side of Boris I like, the guy has a sense of humour.

I'm not even proud to be English, it's not like nationalism to me is an exaggerated sense of pride of your own culture. Nationalism to me is knowing who I am.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah I should have specifically said English culture. That's my bad.

[Poopadoop]

What are the long-term benefits of nationalism, in your opinion?

To me, the positive possiblities of nationalism relate to achieving a sense of national community whereby a vast majority of the people feel at home, feel they are treated fairly and are generally trusting of other members of the community who they don't know personally (within reason). The citizens here are proud of their country and it's achievements while still acknowledging it's mistakes and areas in which it could use improvement, iow they accept that no country is perfect, even their own, and so they reject any notions of superiority, infallibiliity or exceptionalism. They favour those living in their own country, but they still care about those who live outside its borders.

I don't see how Brexit helps us to achieve any of those goals. It has split the country cleanly in half and encouraged separatist movements in UK member nations. The kind of nationalism many hard-core Brexters favour does not include acknoweldging any of the country's past mistakes by (say) pulling down a statue of a slave-trader.

[spoonitnow]

What are the long-term benefits of nationalism, in your opinion?

Survival of a culture. Higher rates of trust. Lower unemployment. Higher GDP per capita. Most of the positive stuff that happens in Japan.

But I can already tell you're one of those statue pullers like people who feel shame for their skin color rah rah or w/e, so I'm not going to get in a back and forth with you.

Tell me more about this undergrown tunnel deathtrap and other dumb civil works projects Boris what's his face has wanted to do.

[OngBonga]

I don't see how Brexit helps us to achieve any of those goals.

It doesn't. It's just there's a high correlation between those who value sovereignty with those who have a sense of belonging to a certain culture.

[OngBonga]

Tell me more about this undergrown tunnel deathtrap and other dumb civil works projects Boris what's his face has wanted to do.

haha

[Poopadoop]

Survival of a culture. Higher rates of trust. Lower unemployment. Higher GDP per capita. Most of the positive stuff that happens in Japan.

There's some advantages to having a genetically and culturally homogenous population for sure, if that's what you mean. That's hard to achieve in some countries for obvious reasons. I don't think nationalism is going to make the US or the UK genetically or culturally homogenous.

But I can already tell you're one of those statue pullers like people who feel shame for their skin color rah rah

Well that's not really the idea, though I hear that excuse from a lot of statue lickers.

If there's something bad my country did in the past I generally don't want a bunch of monuments around celebrating it. Your monuments should reflect your current values. You can put your history with its outdated values in museums and books.

You don't have to pull the statues down with an angry mob and a bunch of ropes like it's Saddam. Just quietly take them down and put them away somewhere.

Tell me more about this undergrown tunnel deathtrap and other dumb civil works projects Boris what's his face has wanted to do.

Last summer he had this bright idea that we should do 100 million covid tests a week, about two for every man woman and child in the UK. Every week, whether you need it or not. Got a cough? Get a test. Stub your toe? Get a test. Already have covid? Get a test. Dead and buried in the ground? Get a test. Test test test until you're blue in the face.

Obviously we never came anywhere close to that number. I think about 1.5 million a week was the most we've ever done.

"Operation Moonshot" it was called. Fuck me.

[Poopadoop]

To take the statue argument further, statues of Churchill and Nelson are fine, 'cause they led the country in wars where we were the defenders. It's hard to argue fighting Nazis is something to be ashamed of. Was Churchill flawed? Absolutely. He was a complete racist, but that's not what we're celebrating him for. The statues are him in his WWII outfit doing his anti-Hitler thing. If there was a statue where he's bending some Indian guy over and sodomizing him, then yeah take it down.

But, in Bristol thee was a statue of a guy named Colston, who made a fortune as a slave-trader. The statue was there because he helped make the port wealthy in the 1800s. Is the accumulation of wealth through the exploitation of black people something to celebrate? Not really. Take it down, put it in a museum.

There's some I feel pretty ambivalent about. General Lee would be one. Was he on the wrong side of history? Yeah, but he wasn't going around mistreating black people or saying racist shit afaik. He was just a kickass general. I guess you could say he associated himself with slavery when he could have stayed in the Union Army, so on the balance his statues should probably come down. But imo he's not at the top of the list or anything. IOW, I wouldn't be pissed if I went to Dixie and saw a statue of RE Lee. But Nathaniel Forrest? Fuck that, that guy was basically the KKK in a different uniform.

[spoonitnow]

Well that's not really the idea, though I hear that excuse from a lot of statue lickers.

Haha

Last summer he had this bright idea that we should do 100 million covid tests a week, about two for every man woman and child in the UK. Every week, whether you need it or not. Got a cough? Get a test. Stub your toe? Get a test. Already have covid? Get a test. Dead and buried in the ground? Get a test. Test test test until you're blue in the face.

Obviously we never came anywhere close to that number. I think about 1.5 million a week was the most we've ever done.

"Operation Moonshot" it was called. Fuck me.

Okay that's funny as fuck. With that said, aside from the entire logistical nightmare and waste of resources, it would definitely cut down the number of cases.

It seems like that whole "aside from the entire logistical nightmare and waste of resources" thing is his Achilles' heel.

[Poopadoop]

Oh, and about the testing. About a month ago they did what was called "surge testing", where they pick an area of the country where there's been a lot of cases lately and try to test everyone to see how prevalent it is. A lady came to my door, gave me a test kit, and came back later in the day to pick it up. I stuck the thing up my nose and swirled it around like I was digging for gold, filled in all the paperwork and followed all the instructions on how to put it in the vial, etc.

I'm still waiting for them to tell me the result. It's been a fucking month. I mean obviously the chance I had it are low 'cause I never had any symptoms, but what was the point of mass-testing people and then not telling them what their result was?

Possible I just fell through the cracks or something, dunno - should talk to my neighbors I suppose.

[Poopadoop]

Okay that's funny as fuck. With that said, aside from the entire logistical nightmare and waste of resources, it would definitely cut down the number of cases.

It seems like that whole "aside from the entire logistical nightmare and waste of resources" thing is his Achilles' heel.

Yeah the ideas themselves don't sound that bad until you actually stop and think about them for three or four seconds.

They're the kind of ideas someone comes up with when they're really stoned, writes down, then looks at the next day and goes "Oh wait, that's fucking retarded."

[spoonitnow]

To take the statue argument further, statues of Churchill and Nelson are fine, 'cause they led the country in wars where we were the defenders. It's hard to argue fighting Nazis is something to be ashamed of. Was Churchill flawed? Absolutely. He was a complete racist, but that's not what we're celebrating him for. The statues are him in his WWII outfit doing his anti-Hitler thing. If there was a statue where he's bending some Indian guy over and sodomizing him, then yeah take it down.

But, in Bristol thee was a statue of a guy named Colston, who made a fortune as a slave-trader. The statue was there because he helped make the port wealthy in the 1800s. Is the accumulation of wealth through the exploitation of black people something to celebrate? Not really. Take it down, put it in a museum.

All of that is fine.

For clarity, I don't give a shit about statues either way. I've never walked up to a statue and been like oh man this statue is the shit, I'm so glad it's here.

There's some I feel pretty ambivalent about. General Lee would be one. Was he on the wrong side of history? Yeah, but he wasn't going around mistreating black people or saying racist shit afaik. He was just a kickass general. I guess you could say he associated himself with slavery when he could have stayed in the Union Army, so on the balance his statues should probably come down. But imo he's not at the top of the list or anything. IOW, I wouldn't be pissed if I went to Dixie and saw a statue of RE Lee. But Nathaniel Forrest? Fuck that, that guy was basically the KKK in a different uniform.

Lee's choice wasn't about slavery. Lee associated himself with Virginia instead of the United States. Having a primary association with your state over the US was the most common sentiment at the time since the states were seen sort of like countries in the EU are seen now. If Virginia wouldn't have left the Union, he would have stayed and led the Union army.

Forrest is one of those that gets a lot of people tripped up because it's really easy to get just enough information to draw a bad conclusion about him. This gets into a discussion of things like the difference between the first Klan and the second Klan, the difference in goals/tactics/makeup, why Forrest disbanded the Klan (ie: they weren't doing what they were supposed to) and so on that foreigners probably don't give a shit about and that I don't care to type out. The TL;DR version is that the shit he did during the war (ie: Fort Willow) was much worse than anything he did or organized while leading the Klan.

There's a lot of good about Forrest that gets ignored in all of that. Unless I'm mistaken, he's the only man to go from private to general inside of a single war in written history. He also had an intuition about strategy that was one of the greatest to ever be known.

All of that aside, if you haven't seen videos online of these morons maiming and/or killing themselves while pulling down statues and whatever, it's funny as hell.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah the ideas themselves don't sound that bad until you actually stop and think about them for three or four seconds.

They're the kind of ideas someone comes up with when they're really stoned, writes down, then looks at the next day and goes "Oh wait, that's fucking retarded."

If him and his cronies are getting rich off of the back of them, then they may be more thought out than we thought lol

[Poopadoop]

Lee's choice wasn't about slavery. Lee associated himself with Virginia instead of the United States. Having a primary association with your state over the US was the most common sentiment at the time since the states were seen sort of like countries in the EU are seen now. If Virginia wouldn't have left the Union, he would have stayed and led the Union army.

I understand that about the US in those days, and there were very few generals who were from the South and stayed in the Union Army. So while I'm no expert on Lee, my sense is he was more loyal to Virginia than he was to slavery, if he even cared about slavery at all.

Forrest is one of those that gets a lot of people tripped up because it's really easy to get just enough information to draw a bad conclusion about him. This gets into a discussion of things like the difference between the first Klan and the second Klan, the difference in goals/tactics/makeup, why Forrest disbanded the Klan (ie: they weren't doing what they were supposed to) and so on that foreigners probably don't give a shit about and that I don't care to type out. The TL;DR version is that the shit he did during the war (ie: Fort Willow) was much worse than anything he did or organized while leading the Klan.

There's a lot of good about Forrest that gets ignored in all of that. Unless I'm mistaken, he's the only man to go from private to general inside of a single war in written history. He also had an intuition about strategy that was one of the greatest to ever be known.

Well yeah, I don't know much about him either. He still sounds like a bit of a cunt though, even if he was good at war.

All of that aside, if you haven't seen videos online of these morons maiming and/or killing themselves while pulling down statues and whatever, it's funny as hell.

gonna take a look.

[spoonitnow]

Man I've been reading more about ol Boris, and holy shit this guy is great. He's so fucking entertaining.

[OngBonga]

In case you haven't seen him barge over a goofy kid playing rugby...

[spoonitnow]

Fuck them kids rofl

[Poopadoop]

To be fair, I don't think he was trying to deliberately run the kid over. I think he's just too fat to negotiate his way around anything.

Still, if you're playing rugby with a bunch of 10 year olds, you'd think somewhere in the front of your mind would be to try your hardest not to squash any of them like a grape.

[OngBonga]

I'd like to see world leaders fight. I reckon Boris would surprise a few people. You gotta be tough to play rugby at boys schools if you don't want your arse to be regularly fucked.

He'd lose in a fight to Putin, obviously, but I'd love to see him slap Merkel about a bit.

[spoonitnow]

I'd like to see world leaders fight. I reckon Boris would surprise a few people. You gotta be tough to play rugby at boys schools if you don't want your arse to be regularly fucked.

He'd lose in a fight to Putin, obviously, but I'd love to see him slap Merkel about a bit.

lol what imagery

[OngBonga]

There's always at least one kid in these schools that has a funny walk and kills himself aged 19.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah we had a number of students banging teachers and other staff in our schools too. It happens a lot more than people think (even if they think it happens quite a bit).

[Poopadoop]

Fisherman looking for a job in the EU after Brexit. #MEGA

[CoccoBill]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/natio...de/january2021

Only £5bn losses in exports in a month, less than I expected.

[OngBonga]

#democracy

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/03/catalonia-the-eus-secret-shame/

My very real enthusiasm for the European Union had survived decades of sometimes bruising encounters with reality before being fatally holed by the strong political support given by European Council, Commission and Parliament to the brutal and violent suppression of Catalonia’s independence referendum. Subsequently, while I still view membership of the single market as beyond argument beneficial, I have been an enthusiast for membership of the customs union and EEA/EFTA, but agnostic on full EU membership and the political union.


This was reinforced on Monday with the shameful vote of the European Parliament to strip the legal immunity of those Catalan Members of the European Parliament in exile, to assist Spain in its efforts to extradite them to add to its list of Catalan political prisoners. There are today nine Catalan political leaders already enduring lengthy sentences in Spanish prisons for the “crime” of wishing their nation to be independent and attempting to hold a democratic vote on the idea. These are the EU’s highest profile political prisoners. Not even the much reviled Viktor Orban or Andrzej Duda treat democratic opponents in this way.


None of this has cowed the Catalans. The recent elections to the regional parliament resulted in the largest ever vote for pro-Independence parties, who had a clear majority of votes as well as seats. Part of the democratic expression of Catalan will has of course been the elections to the European Parliament, and nothing could send a clearer message than the decision of Catalan voters to elect three MEPs in exile whom the Spanish state wishes to jail for wanting a free Catalonie, which it calls “sedition”. Those are former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont MEP, former health minister Antoni Comin MEP and former education minister Clara Ponsati MEP, who now lives in Scotland.


The vote of the European Parliament to remove the legal immunity of these MEPs is the more shocking because this is precisely the kind of political circumstance in which the immunity is intended to protect MEPs.


I was interested to see which MEP’s had voted to lift the immunity, but on the European Parliament website I could find only a the result of the votes, with no indication how individual members voted. There were separate votes for each Catalan MEP and the results were all broadly similar to the vote on Carles Puigdemont MEP- 400 for, 248 against and 45 abstentions. I was genuinely shocked to discover that the reason that I could not see who voted which way, was that the vote was in fact secret.


When you are going to do something shameful, then it is best to do it in private. Parliaments do not generally take secret votes, for fundamental reasons of democracy – how can you know whether to vote for an MEP if you do not know how he votes in parliament? Nor is secret voting mandated in the official guide to this procedure for lifting an MEP’s immunity.


We do know that the move to lift immunity was initiated by the Spanish government and actively promoted by the Eastern European far right parties. I do not expect it to have practical effect, as judicial authorities in Belgium and Scotland have to date not accepted Spanish extradition requests on quite other grounds. But this shabby, grubby behaviour of EU parliamentarians in seeking, secretly and furtively, to enable further persecution of the Catalans, is another chapter in a truly shameful history for the EU.

[CoccoBill]

#democracy

You know, Britain used to have a say in that, not anymore.

[Poopadoop]

Britain might have a hard time claiming the moral high ground on human rights after continuing to sell arms to S. Arabia, and slashing their contributions to international aid lol.

[Poopadoop]

Apparently, #democracy is when you agree to a 500 page international trade deal one day and vote on it in parliament the next day.

[Poopadoop]

This is the gov't that left the EU cause it wasn't democratic enough.

https://ifex.org/uk-boris-johnsons-g...and-the-press/

[OngBonga]

Yes, the UK has plenty to be ashamed of. Nice "whataboutism" there from you there poop.

If British MPs voted in secret so nobody knew who voted on certain issues, there would rightly be outrage, and certainly poop would have plenty to say about it. I would too. But when it's your beloved EU, you're more interested in pointing to UK arms deals with Saudi Arabia, which incidentally is very much something I oppose and a significant reason why I can't vote for the Tories.

The EU should be deeply ashamed of their support for the Spanish govt in the Catalonia issue. I'm in absolutely no doubt that if the UK govt suppressed Scottish independence in the same way, you would be telling us how terrible it is, instead of pointing fingers elsewhere.

[OngBonga]

You know, Britain used to have a say in that, not anymore.

The UK govt are also complicit in the suppression of the Catalans. We didn't criticise the Spanish, we put no diplomatic pressure on them, we're assholes on this matter too. But of course, nobody expects any different from the Tories. If we support the Catalans, if we agree they have the right to self determination, regardless of what the Spanish govt say, then we have to apply the same to the Scottish, ie we have to accept they do not need our permission to hold a referendum. They don't need our permission, international law is quite clear on this. Catalonia is a nation, and so too is Scotland. It's not for us to decide their fate.

The EU have proven themselves to be no better than the Tories on such matters. Of course, we can vote the Tories out. That's the difference. The Tories are subject to the democratic will of the people. The EU are not, only their MEPS.

[CoccoBill]

The EU are not, only their MEPS.

You do realize that the MEPs are exactly the representatives of the EU members, aka the EU, and that the MEPs are voted in.

[Poopadoop]

Yes, the UK has plenty to be ashamed of. Nice "whataboutism" there from you there poop.

If British MPs voted in secret so nobody knew who voted on certain issues, there would rightly be outrage, and certainly poop would have plenty to say about it. I would too. But when it's your beloved EU, you're more interested in pointing to UK arms deals with Saudi Arabia, which incidentally is very much something I oppose and a significant reason why I can't vote for the Tories.

The EU should be deeply ashamed of their support for the Spanish govt in the Catalonia issue. I'm in absolutely no doubt that if the UK govt suppressed Scottish independence in the same way, you would be telling us how terrible it is, instead of pointing fingers elsewhere.

There's a lot of "ifs" and "thens" in there, not a lot of acknowledging that Catalan independence is perhaps not as an important issue to the UK as the debasement of democracy in the UK itself.

Your argument seems to be "EU bad at democracy so we shouldn't be in it." And yes, certainly they could do better on many things. But claiming they aren't meeting your standards for democracy seems pretty weak considering the party that runs your own country got well under half the popular vote and is undermining democracy itself on a regular basis.

A few pages ago you were talking about how important fishermens' livelihoods were to you. Do they not concern you anymore? Just wondering why you don't have anything to say about them since Brexit happened.

[Poopadoop]

You do realize that the MEPs are exactly the representatives of the EU members, aka the EU, and that the MEPs are voted in.

The UK population never took MEPs seriously, they just voted in dickheads like Farage to go in and make asses of themselves. Then they complained about being run by unelected bureaucrats. Hurr durr, wave flag, cogito ergo sum, etc.

[CoccoBill]

The UK population never took MEPs seriously, they just voted in dickheads like Farage to go in and make asses of themselves. Then they complained about being run by unelected bureaucrats. Hurr durr, wave flag, cogito ergo sum, etc.

That's much the same here, no one cares about the EU elections, and the MEPs are just thought to want to go there for the tax free income. Of course for a small country they have fuck all power there, but would think the MEPs from the larger members (tee hee) would have quite a bit more sway.

[OngBonga]

You do realize that the MEPs are exactly the representatives of the EU members, aka the EU, and that the MEPs are voted in.

I've been over this with poop already, but I'll tl;dr it for you.

MEPs are not the EU. The UK govt is formed by the party with the most MPs, which means that if we vote out these MPs, this affects who is in government. MEPs getting voted out does not change the EU govt. The EU remains in charge. The EU is essentially a political party that holds perpetual power, you're not voting out the EU, only the MEPs. The EU is not democratic for this reason. They always remain in power, regardless of election results. The only way to remove the EU from office is to leave. That's the only way to hold them to account.

[OngBonga]

But claiming they aren't meeting your standards for democracy seems pretty weak considering the party that runs your own country got well under half the popular vote and is undermining democracy itself on a regular basis.

This is fair. I've said multiple times that British democracy is far from ideal. I would certainly like to see some kind of reform. However, British democracy is far superior to EU democracy because we hold regular elections that have a direct effect on who is in government.

A few pages ago you were talking about how important fishermens' livelihoods were to you. Do they not concern you anymore? Just wondering why you don't have anything to say about them since Brexit happened.

I addressed this a few pages ago. I said let's have this discussion in five years. The transition is obviously going to be a bumpy ride, I never pretended otherwise. Nobody with half a brain expected things to suddenly be better the instant we left, that's tripe being promoted by remainers who just want something to argue about, something to point at and go "look".

Our fishing industry has been in decline for decades. It doesn't recover immediately. It takes time and investment. So, let's discuss this in a few years when we can see if positive change is actually happening. Right now it's a pointless discussion.

[CoccoBill]

I've been over this with poop already, but I'll tl;dr it for you.

Yes, I remember how you were told already why you are wrong. In your analogy, the EU is not a political party, the member states are. You can vote what kind of "party" you elect to the EU parliament.

[OngBonga]

I'm no more wrong than you are.

My analogy is not perfect, but your attempt to compare the EU with nation state democracies is heavily flawed. You can view the EU in one of two ways... a political party that cannot be voted out, or the state itself. If you don't want to view the EU as a one-party system, then you can instead view it as a state that has a perpetual coalition of a ridiculous number of parties with vastly different interests representing multiple cultures, with no one party dominating policy.

If this is your kind of democracy, good for you. For me, this isn't democracy. You can't influence policy by voting for members of a particular party in. So what's the point? The whole point of democracy is so that policy is ultimately in the control of the electorate.

[OngBonga]

It's not really a coalition though, since a coalition is formed by negotiation between parties to avoid a hung parliament. The coalition is formed to create a majority. That isn't what's happening in the EU.

The EU is unique, so it's very difficult to give comparisons to nation state democracies. No analogy will be perfect. But simply saying "you vote for MEPs so it's democracy and therefore you should like it" is ludicrous, and it seems like that's the message you're trying to send to me here.

People vote in North Korea. They even have "democratic" in their official name. That doesn't make them a democracy. To be a true democracy, an election has to bring about a decisive result. If no such decisive result is possible, then it's a democracy only in name, like the DPRK.

[OngBonga]

I could have worded that better. To be clear, I appreciate the EU is a great deal more democratic than North Korea. That ins't hard though, and hardly what a democracy should aspire to be. NK doesn't set the standard for democracies.

What I'm saying is that the EU is not the kind of democracy that I want to be a part of. That's why, when I had a chance to decide if we remain or leave, I chose to leave.

I would of course prefer to be in the EU than in NK.

[CoccoBill]

My analogy is not perfect,

Here we agree.

You can view the EU in one of two ways... a political party that cannot be voted out, or the state itself. If you don't want to view the EU as a one-party system, then you can instead view it as a state that has a perpetual coalition of a ridiculous number of parties with vastly different interests representing multiple cultures, with no one party dominating policy.

Sure you CAN view it in any number of ways, but only one of those is anywhere close to reality. If EU were a one party system, what would be the state in your analogy? Who's in charge of this party? The number of parties is precisely as ridiculous as the number of member states. Which member states do you feel should not have representation? You might not like the fact that you personally cannot dictate how the whole EU operates by your single vote, and not even by the votes of the UK, but that is how democracy works.

If this is your kind of democracy, good for you. For me, this isn't democracy. You can't influence policy by voting for members of a particular party in. So what's the point? The whole point of democracy is so that policy is ultimately in the control of the electorate.

You can precisely influence policy by voting for the members of a particular party in as MEPs. The electorate vote in the MEPs who have the power. This isn't difficult or complex.

[OngBonga]

The number of parties is precisely as ridiculous as the number of member states.

Incorrect. A member state does not send one MEP to the EU, they send many, and they can come from any internal party. In the case of the UK, we've sent Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP and probably independents. That's five or six from one member state.

Which member states do you feel should not have representation?

What you're essentially doing here is relegating the nation state to a mere constituency. I don't want to be part of a system that sends someone to represent our interests. I want to be part of a system that is our interests. Policy is under the direct control of those we vote in, not "represented" by those we vote in.

Representation is fine when we're talking about an economic bloc for the purpose of trade with other countries. I don't believe we should control European economic policy. It's not fine when it comes to national policy. For that, we don't vote in representatives, we vote in ministers.

You might not like the fact that you personally cannot dictate how the whole EU operates by your single vote, and not even by the votes of the UK, but that is how democracy works.

I don't have personal control of UK policy either. The point of democracy is accountability, and public control of policy. Without these two factors, democracy is a sham. The EU are not accountable, nor do the public have control of policy.

You can precisely influence policy by voting for the members of a particular party in as MEPs. The electorate vote in the MEPs who have the power. This isn't difficult or complex.

Not in the same way you influence policy by voting into direct power members of a party into office. MEPs do not form a governing party. MPs do. How can you not see this critical difference?

[CoccoBill]

Incorrect. A member state does not send one MEP to the EU, they send many, and they can come from any internal party. In the case of the UK, we've sent Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP and probably independents. That's five or six from one member state.

It's 1-n from each member state, yes. No one said each member can have representatives of exactly one of their parties, but on the EU level all of the MEPs, regardless of their political affiliation, are mainly supporting the interests of their own countries, so seeing them as a single party on the EU level is not all that incorrect.

What you're essentially doing here is relegating the nation state to a mere constituency. I don't want to be part of a system that sends someone to represent our interests. I want to be part of a system that is our interests. Policy is under the direct control of those we vote in, not "represented" by those we vote in.

You are aware that when you vote for your district representatives, or your town council, or your school board, there will be competing interests to your own? In all of those cases you send someone to represent your interests. There is no difference whether those competing interests are of other pupils, or a different part of the town, or the neighboring city, or a different EU member state. In effect the situation on all levels is fundamentally the same. What you want is not democracy, it's dictatorship.

Representation is fine when we're talking about an economic bloc for the purpose of trade with other countries. I don't believe we should control European economic policy. It's not fine when it comes to national policy. For that, we don't vote in representatives, we vote in ministers.

I don't have personal control of UK policy either. The point of democracy is accountability, and public control of policy. Without these two factors, democracy is a sham. The EU are not accountable, nor do the public have control of policy.

It's called representative democracy, which is used in practically all nations that call themselves democracies, apart from a couple that are just dictatorships masked as democracies (China et al). The other option is a direct democracy, where citizens would vote directly on each and every decision and no, that is not used anywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Not in the same way you influence policy by voting into direct power members of a party into office. MEPs do not form a governing party. MPs do. How can you not see this critical difference?

This'll be my last free civics lesson of the day. The MEPs form transnational Europarties, which are the governing bodies of the European Parliament. Think of the Parliament similar to the Congress in the US, or the House of Commons. Then there is the European Council, consisting of the heads of member states and functions similarly to the Senate or the House of Lords. When you vote in MPs to the House of Commons, they act in a strikingly similar role as the MEPs, as in they influence the Lords just like the MEPs influence the EC.

[OngBonga]

You are aware that when you vote for your district representatives, or your town council, or your school board, there will be competing interests to your own?

Yes. It's inevitable. And the larger the union, the more complex this problem becomes.

In all of those cases you send someone to represent your interests

Indeed, but each representative is (usually) part of a party, and the party with the most representatives forms a government. That government appoints ministers to oversee the economy and other matters of national administration. The party with the second most representatives becomes the opposition. They play an important role too, ensuring the majority party is sufficiently challenged.

In the case of the EU, the representatives do not form a government, and there is no opposition.

It's called representative democracy, which is used in practically all nations that call themselves democracies

You glossed over the point here with language corrections.

The EU aren't accountable, and policy is not under the control of the voters.

When you vote in MPs to the House of Commons, they act in a strikingly similar role as the MEPs, as in they influence the Lords just like the MEPs influence the EC.

The difference, one again, is that the MEPs are not forming a government. MPs do. And i remind you of the very first point in this post... the larger the union, the more complex these issues become, the more diluted the power of the representative. That means the democracy is weaker. Bigger isn't better.

[Poopadoop]

British democracy is far superior to EU democracy because we hold regular elections that have a direct effect on who is in government.

smh.

I said let's have this discussion in five years. The transition is obviously going to be a bumpy ride, I never pretended otherwise. Nobody with half a brain expected things to suddenly be better the instant we left, that's tripe being promoted by remainers who just want something to argue about, something to point at and go "look".

Our fishing industry has been in decline for decades. It doesn't recover immediately. It takes time and investment. So, let's discuss this in a few years when we can see if positive change is actually happening. Right now it's a pointless discussion.

Brexit was supposed to be the saviour of the declining fishing industry. Instead the opposite has happened because we can no longer sell our fish to the EU. These aren't "teething problems", they're a fundamental result of leaving. We're now a third party and we have to follow third party rules. The EU is a protectionist trade bloc. We've chosen to leave it. They're not going to start doing us any favours, even if they legally could. Especially not when we keep threatening to fuck them around over Ireland.

In five years, we can have this discussion if you want, but things won't magically get any better - there's no Brexit unicorn that can carry our fish to overseas markets. And while those five years tick off a lot of fishermen are going to go broke.

[OngBonga]

Ok. Well even if in five years time nothing has changed, I still won't want to hand over control of our economy to a third party, even if it comes with economic benefits. So frankly we're arguing about pointless shit. You "smh" at the point that our democracy is superior, because you don't have any substance to any refutation. We vote in an accountable government. The fact the UK population fails to hold corrupt governments to account is partly a reflection of the stupidity of the UK people, and partly down to there being no viable alternative. The last Labour government were corrupt as fuck too. So if you're "smh" because British politics is in a sorry state, I guess fair enough. But the system that underpins our democracy is superior, for the simple reason those we vote in actually have control over things like the economy. MEPs from one party have no such control, so there is no accountability. You can't remove a party and change policy. This difference is so fundamental and obvious that your arguments are clearly in bad faith and simply intended to tell me I'm "wrong" to have a preference of the type of democracy we have. I'm not wrong. My opinion is not objective. Neither is yours. If you approve of this form of government, good for you, it's not for me to tell you your opinion is wrong. But don't try to tell me they are similar systems, because they are blatantly not. We don't have a President for a start. They have three. And yes we have a monarchy, which isn't democratic. That's a problem, but at least our monarchy doesn't have any actual power when it comes to running the country. They're a circus, a tourist attraction. They probably become irrelevant when Liz dies.

[Poopadoop]

We vote in an accountable government.

MEPs are elected, and therefore accountable. Not sure why that doesn't register with you.

So if you're "smh" because British politics is in a sorry state,

No, i smh because you keep insisting the EU parliament is not democratic somehow.

those we vote in actually have control over things like the economy.

MEPs vote on ecomonic matters all the time.

Serious question: Who do think actually "runs" the EU? There is a parliament of elected MEPs. There is also a council made up of the heads of member states. There are presidents who are elected or appointed. Who else do you think is behind the decisions that are made?

MEPs from one party have no such control, so there is no accountability. You can't remove a party and change policy.

You can remove an MEP based on how they vote. If anything that seems easier than having to vote out an entire party to effect change.

This difference is so fundamental and obvious that your arguments are clearly in bad faith and simply intended to tell me I'm "wrong" to have a preference of the type of democracy we have. I'm not wrong. My opinion is not objective. Neither is yours.

It's not obvious to either me or cocco. And while I hesitate to speak for him, I'm not pretending not to get it; it's just a bad argument.

We don't have a President for a start. They have three.

There are actually four.

One of those presidents is elected by their fellow MEPs and runs the parliament, kind of like the Speaker of the House here.

Two others are appointed by the council of heads of member states to deal mainly with politics and trade, respectively - How is this any different than a PM hiring an advisor like Dominic Cummings? Or the guy who's now the Brexit minister (forget his name). Hey, I never got to vote for either of them! Arrrggghgghh, it's so undemocratic!

The last "presidency" is more like a council that discusses EU legislation. It rotates among member states every six months.

[OngBonga]

MEPs are elected, and therefore accountable. Not sure why that doesn't register with you.

The EU isn't accountable though. One MEP getting booted out by the voters changes nothing. Even booting out every MEP from a certain party changes nothing. Not sure why that doesn't register with you.

Honestly you're more interested in arguing with me about irrelevant points that you are understanding that this isn't about right or wrong, it's about personal preference. I want the GOVERNMENT to be accountable, the majority party, not individuals. There is no majority party in the EU. There is no way to hold the EU government to democratic account, other than to leave the EU altogether.

No, i smh because you keep insisting the EU parliament is not democratic somehow.

Because the EU isn't accountable, and policy is not dictated by the electorate. It's also very undemocratic to hold votes in secret, which protects the voting MEPs from being held accountable.

Serious question: Who do think actually "runs" the EU?

Germany. Money talks. If the European Council dictated policy, then Greece would be precisely as powerful as Germany, since both countries have precisely one head of state each. Yet Germany is able to impose austerity on Greece by means of debt, against the will of Greece. Germany has disproportionate influence because they are the largest economy in the EU.

You can remove an MEP based on how they vote.

What if they vote secretively? How do you hold to account MEPs if you don't know how they voted?

If anything that seems easier than having to vote out an entire party to effect change.

Do you really think voting out one MEP will effect any sort of change? Voting out a party won't either. Voting out a single MP in the UK won't do much either, but voting out a party will, certainly if they are in power.

It's not obvious to either me or cocco. And while I hesitate to speak for him, I'm not pretending not to get it; it's just a bad argument.

It's a bad argument to say "I want the government to be democratically accountable?". No it isn't. It's an opinion, a preference, it's not even an argument. And it's entirely reasonable.

There are actually four.

I stand corrected.

Ultimately, this comes down to accountability and policy. These are key aspects of democracy and they are missing in the EU. Yes you can hold an MEP to account, but you can't hold the EU government to account. In the UK, the government, currently the Tories, can be held to account. And so the voters have no control over policy. You can argue all you like about the nuances of how the EU works, but there is no avoiding this flaw. There is no majority control in the EU, it is not a democracy in the same sense as the UK. We're not voting in MEPs in the hope the party they represent gets a majority. Such an outcome is impossible.

This is not my kind of democracy. You cannot tell me in good faith that this opinion is "wrong", only that you have a different opinion, that you approve of this kind of democracy. I don't consider this a true democracy. You can say that's "wrong" if you like, but again you're arguing with my opinion, not objective facts. If simply voting for people makes it a democracy, then North Korea is a democracy.

[CoccoBill]

Just one more point, can't be arsed to fix the rest of your mistakes. The number of MEPs per member state is based on population, not wealth. The smaller the population, the more MEPs per capita they can have. So yes, the bigger the country (like Germany and the UK), the less proportional power they have. Why do you think 10 million greeks should have the same amount of say as 80 million germans?