LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Liriena]

Hot take: the Western Allies were the bad guys and we all should have accepted Finnish hegemony.

I'm not saying I look under my bed for the White Death every night. I'm just saying it wouldn't be unreasonable to do so.

[Kowani]

Nah. Some sacrifices have to be made.

This is the most dangerous aspect of war. Not so much the death on the battlefield, but how people lay down and watch their freedoms being eroded by their government.

Freedom means nothing to a corpse.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

This is the most dangerous aspect of war. Not so much the death on the battlefield, but how people lay down and watch their freedoms being eroded by their government.

Freedom means nothing to a corpse.

Not everything the government stamps out is essential to life. I doubt not suppressing press freedoms will result in a nation of corpses.

[Kowani]

Freedom means nothing to a corpse.

Not everything the government stamps out is essential to life. I doubt not suppressing press freedoms will result in a nation of corpses.

Having the news report on troop deployment and political thought about war could never help the enemy. Noo…

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Not everything the government stamps out is essential to life. I doubt not suppressing press freedoms will result in a nation of corpses.

Having the news report on troop deployment and political thought about war could never help the enemy. Noo…

Only one of those two things can be justifiably censored in extreme circumstances; troop deployments admittedly have reasonable reasons to be censored. Political thought about the war however should be firmly placed out of the government's grasp. If a war is pointless, the news should be allowed to dissent, unless you think the U.S. population should have not protested the war in Vietnam and eaten the government's lies.

Edit: Just so we're clear, I'm well aware there was not much censorship around the war of Vietnam. I'm just using it as an example of an unpopular war, which is a reason why anti-war sentiment should not be silenced.

[Pasong Tirad]

Not everything the government stamps out is essential to life. I doubt not suppressing press freedoms will result in a nation of corpses.

Having the news report on troop deployment and political thought about war could never help the enemy. Noo…

Let's not go reaching about when we all know fully well that keeping military stratagems and troop deployments secret is (or at least should be) reasonable enough to suggest.

[Dumb Ideologies]

When you're in a particular kind of war situation you need to err a little on the side of pragmatic compromise when it comes to the control of information, the liberty of potential fifth columnists and so on.

My lack of fondness for liberalism aside, only a fool would be a purist during a struggle that has potential to become an existential threat.

[Asherahan]

Federated Balkan Union that kicks Turkey from Europe yay or nay?

[Duhon]

Federated Balkan Union that kicks Turkey from Europe yay or nay?

EU with a less frankly authoritarian eastern Europe, Putin-less Russia, and Turkey minus Erdogan in, yay.

[Asherahan]

Federated Balkan Union that kicks Turkey from Europe yay or nay?

EU with a less frankly authoritarian eastern Europe, Putin-less Russia, and Turkey minus Erdogan in, yay.

The EU should either fuck off and die or Become a Federated Union.

I have no middle ground opinion on the EU.

[Duhon]

EU with a less frankly authoritarian eastern Europe, Putin-less Russia, and Turkey minus Erdogan in, yay.

The EU should either fuck off and die or Become a Federated Union.

I have no middle ground opinion on the EU.

A federal union ain't something that's gonna happen for a very long time yet.

On the other hand, though? I don't want a pre-World War Europe again, and I'm skeptical of any version of Europe that doesm't have an EU or something of that shit to keep delusional powermongering authoritarians at bay can remain at peace with itself for long.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

When you're in a particular kind of war situation you need to err a little on the side of pragmatic compromise when it comes to the control of information, the liberty of potential fifth columnists and so on.

My lack of fondness for liberalism aside, only a fool would be a purist during a struggle that has potential to become an existential threat.

That is a fair point, sometimes in times of war, you need to restrict freedom in order for your nation to survive. However, it is very easy to reach a point where you've sacrificed a lot of liberties during wartime, way more then necessary, and they're not given back.

During times of existential threat and turmoil, it's very common for demagogues and elitists with ulterior motives to sneak completely unnecessary violations of rights past the radar under the guise of necessary restrictions. Case in point; the Patriot Act.

TL;DR Restrictions are sometimes necessary, but people promising security in exchange for restriction ought to be put under a great deal of scrutiny.

[Asherahan]

The EU should either fuck off and die or Become a Federated Union.

I have no middle ground opinion on the EU.

A federal union ain't something that's gonna happen for a very long time yet.

On the other hand, though? I don't want a pre-World War Europe again, and I'm skeptical of any version of Europe that doesm't have an EU or something of that shit to keep delusional powermongering authoritarians at bay can remain at peace with itself for long.

Yeah but my country is suffering because of this indecisiveness.

[Duhon]

A federal union ain't something that's gonna happen for a very long time yet.

On the other hand, though? I don't want a pre-World War Europe again, and I'm skeptical of any version of Europe that doesm't have an EU or something of that shit to keep delusional powermongering authoritarians at bay can remain at peace with itself for long.

Yeah but my country is suffering because of this indecisiveness.

Well, sometimes indecisiveness can be a savior. Was the Cold War a paranoid time for everyone? Yeah, but past generations didn't tell Sadako to go fuck herself.

[Dumb Ideologies]

EU with a less frankly authoritarian eastern Europe, Putin-less Russia, and Turkey minus Erdogan in, yay.

The EU should either fuck off and die or Become a Federated Union.

I have no middle ground opinion on the EU.

I am very conflicted on it, and it's obviously a very "live" issue over here with the struggles over Brexit.

Given my political views it shouldn't be surprising that my ideal is a socialistic Europe of Nations characterised by a celebration of national difference and culture, focused on mutual security and eventual bloc-wide economic autarky to protect against external competition, maintain a good quality of life and reduce the environmental damage seen in unregulated global supply chains.

However, the EU-in-practice is pushing towards a free-trade agenda, the policy of free internal movement has - particularly when new nations join - become a capitalist tool to undercut workers in the richer nations with cheaper labour, and the attempts to centrally impose refugees on countries who do not want them leave a bad taste in the mouth.

But the political choice we're being given with the Brexit/Remain struggle in the UK leaves me honestly baffled with which side is the lesser evil.

Our debate seems to be a choice between:

1) Remain, eurofederalism, deepening of current processes, try and stop the "red tape" hampering trade i.e. more free trade deals
2) Free-trade Brexit, unilateral dropping of tariffs with the non-EU world, shift towards non-European immigration

All our "nationalists" are populist ranters who are more likely to criticise the EU for not liberalising enough economically than to offer any substantial critique of capitalism, and most of the "socialists" are post-post-socdem Eurofederalists who don't think there's anything particularly wrong with how Europe is working and want it to go faster.

There's some socialists in the "Brexit Party", but said party doesn't have a manifesto and is firmly led by the free-trade faction, so a vote for them is actively a vote for a less socialist economy.

Lexit (left-wing, socialist Brexit) isn't on the agenda, cooperation between fake-nationalists and fake-socialists on a cross-Europe basis is a hilariously impossible agenda, and so the two options above are the only choice we get.

As I'm completely bamboozled as to which one of the bad options is better, I'm going to vote Labour on May 23rd, just because they seem to be the only party that's nearly as confused as I am.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The EU should either fuck off and die or Become a Federated Union.

I have no middle ground opinion on the EU.

I am very conflicted on it, and it's obviously a very "live" issue over here with the struggles over Brexit.

Given my political views it shouldn't be surprising that my ideal is a socialistic Europe of Nations characterised by a celebration of national difference and culture, focused on mutual security and eventual bloc-wide economic autarky to protect against external competition, maintain a good quality of life and reduce the environmental damage seen in unregulated global supply chains.

However, the EU-in-practice is pushing towards a free-trade agenda, the policy of free internal movement has - particularly when new nations join - become a capitalist tool to undercut workers in the richer nations with cheaper labour, and the attempts to centrally impose refugees on countries who do not want them leave a bad taste in the mouth.

But the political choice we're being given with the Brexit/Remain struggle in the UK leaves me honestly baffled with which side is the lesser evil.

Our debate seems to be a choice between:

1) Remain, eurofederalism, deepening of current processes, try and stop the "red tape" hampering trade i.e. more free trade deals
2) Free-trade Brexit, unilateral dropping of tariffs with the non-EU world, shift towards non-European immigration

All our "nationalists" are populist ranters who are more likely to criticise the EU for not liberalising enough economically than to offer any substantial critique of capitalism, and most of the "socialists" are post-post-socdem Eurofederalists who don't think there's anything particularly wrong with how Europe is working and want it to go faster.

There's some socialists in the "Brexit Party", but said party doesn't have a manifesto and is firmly led by the free-trade faction, so a vote for them is actively a vote for a less socialist economy.

Lexit (left-wing, socialist Brexit) isn't on the agenda, cooperation between fake-nationalists and fake-socialists on a cross-Europe basis is a hilariously impossible agenda, and so the two options above are the only choice we get.

As I'm completely bamboozled as to which one of the bad options is better, I'm going to vote Labour on May 23rd, just because they seem to be the only party that's nearly as confused as I am.

I just have one question. Hasn't a Brexit already been decided? Yeah, you could do a second referendum but why would you? And you can't just ignore a democratic vote. I mean, technically they could ignore a non-binding referendum, but... I don't want them to.

[Duhon]

Ignore the referendum. It's a pile of shit. Dot.

[Nakena]

Ignore the referendum. It's a pile of shit. Dot.

That is what happens if you let the plebs decide.

The Bill of Rights may have been premature as well, don't you agree?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Ignore the referendum. It's a pile of shit. Dot.

That's not how democracy works.

That is what happens if you let the plebs decide.

The Bill of Rights may have been premature as well, don't you agree?

Okay, you need the breaks on this authoritarian elitism really quick or I will riot.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I am very conflicted on it, and it's obviously a very "live" issue over here with the struggles over Brexit.

Given my political views it shouldn't be surprising that my ideal is a socialistic Europe of Nations characterised by a celebration of national difference and culture, focused on mutual security and eventual bloc-wide economic autarky to protect against external competition, maintain a good quality of life and reduce the environmental damage seen in unregulated global supply chains.

However, the EU-in-practice is pushing towards a free-trade agenda, the policy of free internal movement has - particularly when new nations join - become a capitalist tool to undercut workers in the richer nations with cheaper labour, and the attempts to centrally impose refugees on countries who do not want them leave a bad taste in the mouth.

But the political choice we're being given with the Brexit/Remain struggle in the UK leaves me honestly baffled with which side is the lesser evil.

Our debate seems to be a choice between:

1) Remain, eurofederalism, deepening of current processes, try and stop the "red tape" hampering trade i.e. more free trade deals
2) Free-trade Brexit, unilateral dropping of tariffs with the non-EU world, shift towards non-European immigration

All our "nationalists" are populist ranters who are more likely to criticise the EU for not liberalising enough economically than to offer any substantial critique of capitalism, and most of the "socialists" are post-post-socdem Eurofederalists who don't think there's anything particularly wrong with how Europe is working and want it to go faster.

There's some socialists in the "Brexit Party", but said party doesn't have a manifesto and is firmly led by the free-trade faction, so a vote for them is actively a vote for a less socialist economy.

Lexit (left-wing, socialist Brexit) isn't on the agenda, cooperation between fake-nationalists and fake-socialists on a cross-Europe basis is a hilariously impossible agenda, and so the two options above are the only choice we get.

As I'm completely bamboozled as to which one of the bad options is better, I'm going to vote Labour on May 23rd, just because they seem to be the only party that's nearly as confused as I am.

I just have one question. Hasn't a Brexit already been decided? Yeah, you could do a second referendum but why would you? And you can't just ignore a democratic vote. I mean, technically they could ignore a non-binding referendum, but... I don't want them to.

It depends what you mean by "decided". The principle of leaving was temporarily resolved, but it's now in the process of being undecided.

Parliament can't even agree on the transition arrangements, let alone the shape of a final deal, and this has allowed many of those who never wanted to leave in the first place to repeatedly push the idea that the only way is to revisit the very principle of leaving - to the point where through repetition it's now been mainstreamed enough to be politically possible.

As there is an impasse over the "type of deal", and we've seen lots of bandying about of Canada models, Norway models, and whatnot, the logical thing to do if we were following the initial "let the people decide" framework would be a preferential referendum on the various models, rather than revisiting what was billed at the time as a referendum on the very principle of leaving.

Tory Brexiter MPs want to claim Brexit can only mean hard Brexit, free trade, unilateral tariff removal and so on, and Remainer MPs want to overturn the previous referendum. The news agenda is based on what the politicians are saying, and as such these are manufactured into the only two possible choices. It's a very interesting example of the workings of ideology and the power of elites to construct what is "politically possible".

[Nakena]

Okay, you need the breaks on this authoritarian elitism really quick or I will riot.

Pardon me, I forgot to add that it wasnt perhaps premature.

Only slightly so.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I just have one question. Hasn't a Brexit already been decided? Yeah, you could do a second referendum but why would you? And you can't just ignore a democratic vote. I mean, technically they could ignore a non-binding referendum, but... I don't want them to.

It depends what you mean by "decided". The principle of leaving was temporarily resolved, but it's now in the process of being undecided.

Parliament can't even agree on the transition arrangements, let alone the shape of a final deal, and this has allowed many of those who never wanted to leave in the first place to repeatedly push the idea that the only way is to revisit the very principle of leaving - to the point where through repetition it's now been mainstreamed enough to be politically possible.

As there is an impasse over the "type of deal", and we've seen lots of bandying about of Canada models, Norway models, and whatnot, the logical thing to do if we were following the initial "let the people decide" framework would be a preferential referendum on the various models, rather than revisiting what was billed at the time as a referendum on the very principle of leaving.

Tory Brexiter MPs want to claim Brexit can only mean hard Brexit, free trade, unilateral tariff removal and so on, and Remainer MPs want to overturn the previous referendum. The news agenda is based on what the politicians are saying, and as such these are manufactured into the only two possible choices. It's a very interesting example of the workings of ideology and the power of elites to construct what is "politically possible".

That makes more sense. Still, I was under the impression from what I've heard that a hard, free-trade Brexit and a complete cancellation of Brexit were not the only two options. But I don't reside within the UK, so I'm not qualified. Though holding another referendum on what type of Brexit should occur sounds like a novel idea. Something to expand the limits of what's "politically possible" as well as satisfy my hard-on for democracy.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It depends what you mean by "decided". The principle of leaving was temporarily resolved, but it's now in the process of being undecided.

Parliament can't even agree on the transition arrangements, let alone the shape of a final deal, and this has allowed many of those who never wanted to leave in the first place to repeatedly push the idea that the only way is to revisit the very principle of leaving - to the point where through repetition it's now been mainstreamed enough to be politically possible.

As there is an impasse over the "type of deal", and we've seen lots of bandying about of Canada models, Norway models, and whatnot, the logical thing to do if we were following the initial "let the people decide" framework would be a preferential referendum on the various models, rather than revisiting what was billed at the time as a referendum on the very principle of leaving.

Tory Brexiter MPs want to claim Brexit can only mean hard Brexit, free trade, unilateral tariff removal and so on, and Remainer MPs want to overturn the previous referendum. The news agenda is based on what the politicians are saying, and as such these are manufactured into the only two possible choices. It's a very interesting example of the workings of ideology and the power of elites to construct what is "politically possible".

That makes more sense. Still, I was under the impression from what I've heard that a hard, free-trade Brexit and a complete cancellation of Brexit were not the only two options. But I don't reside within the UK, so I'm not qualified. Though holding another referendum on what type of Brexit should occur sounds like a novel idea. Something to expand the limits of what's "politically possible" as well as satisfy my hard-on for democracy.

There was a deal between the PM and the European negotiators that was more moderate but this has been rejected three times I think (lost count!) by Parliament and no-one is really talking about it anymore and if the Tories get thrashed as expected in the Euro elections that's not going to do wonders for it coming back because there'll be pressure to go for a harder Brexit.

Labour want a softer Brexit with a customs union and the common market, apart from the times when they want a new referendum or more often just to please stop talking about it because their voters are very split on it. They don't really have an alternative.

So yeah, other ideas have been put out there, but attitudes seem to be hardening and the whole thing turning into a scenario where Remainers and Brexiters are like two arch-rival sports teams, and rather than being thoughtful and building bridges everyone picks a team and screams at each other with strawmen and memes about how the other side is Hitler.

A lot of grievances that built up as far back as Thatcher fed into the campaign and, after unleashing all that energy, the complete political paralysis and lack of continued engagement with the people has turned it into a really nasty situation to the point where riots and civil unrest are quite possible if either path is followed without some kind of compromise.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That makes more sense. Still, I was under the impression from what I've heard that a hard, free-trade Brexit and a complete cancellation of Brexit were not the only two options. But I don't reside within the UK, so I'm not qualified. Though holding another referendum on what type of Brexit should occur sounds like a novel idea. Something to expand the limits of what's "politically possible" as well as satisfy my hard-on for democracy.

There was a deal between the PM and the European negotiators that was more moderate but this has been rejected three times I think (lost count!) by Parliament and no-one is really talking about it anymore and if the Tories get thrashed as expected in the Euro elections that's not going to do wonders for it coming back because there'll be pressure to go for a harder Brexit.

Labour want a softer Brexit with a customs union and the commom market, apart from the times when they want a new referendum or more often just to please stop talking about it because their voters are very split on it. They don't really have an alternative.

I see. Strange that the Brexit Party is beating the Conservatives. I don't know what that says though, because I don't know much about UK politics. It sounds to me though, that the UK and the whole Brexit situation reveals a problem with partisan politics and political polarization. As for the solution, I have no idea... beyond direct democracy but I have a feeling that wouldn't work very well.

[Asherahan]

I am very conflicted on it, and it's obviously a very "live" issue over here with the struggles over Brexit.

Given my political views it shouldn't be surprising that my ideal is a socialistic Europe of Nations characterised by a celebration of national difference and culture, focused on mutual security and eventual bloc-wide economic autarky to protect against external competition, maintain a good quality of life and reduce the environmental damage seen in unregulated global supply chains.

However, the EU-in-practice is pushing towards a free-trade agenda, the policy of free internal movement has - particularly when new nations join - become a capitalist tool to undercut workers in the richer nations with cheaper labour, and the attempts to centrally impose refugees on countries who do not want them leave a bad taste in the mouth.

But the political choice we're being given with the Brexit/Remain struggle in the UK leaves me honestly baffled with which side is the lesser evil.

Our debate seems to be a choice between:

1) Remain, eurofederalism, deepening of current processes, try and stop the "red tape" hampering trade i.e. more free trade deals
2) Free-trade Brexit, unilateral dropping of tariffs with the non-EU world, shift towards non-European immigration

All our "nationalists" are populist ranters who are more likely to criticise the EU for not liberalising enough economically than to offer any substantial critique of capitalism, and most of the "socialists" are post-post-socdem Eurofederalists who don't think there's anything particularly wrong with how Europe is working and want it to go faster.

There's some socialists in the "Brexit Party", but said party doesn't have a manifesto and is firmly led by the free-trade faction, so a vote for them is actively a vote for a less socialist economy.

Lexit (left-wing, socialist Brexit) isn't on the agenda, cooperation between fake-nationalists and fake-socialists on a cross-Europe basis is a hilariously impossible agenda, and so the two options above are the only choice we get.

As I'm completely bamboozled as to which one of the bad options is better, I'm going to vote Labour on May 23rd, just because they seem to be the only party that's nearly as confused as I am.

I just have one question. Hasn't a Brexit already been decided? Yeah, you could do a second referendum but why would you? And you can't just ignore a democratic vote. I mean, technically they could ignore a non-binding referendum, but... I don't want them to.

Lol you totally can in my country Greece we did a referendum and we voted with a majority of 63% that the EU Austerity suck ass and should not be implement as the EU demands and guess how that turned out?