UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Ostroeuropa]

Also how was the EU dictating our foreign policy?

Trade deals are an aspect of foreign policy.

[Vassenor]

Also how was the EU dictating our foreign policy?

Trade deals are an aspect of foreign policy.

So in that case wouldn't being trading under WTO rules like the Conservatives want be the WTO dictating our foreign policy?

[Ostroeuropa]

Trade deals are an aspect of foreign policy.

So in that case wouldn't being trading under WTO rules like the Conservatives want be the WTO dictating our foreign policy?

WTO rules are a default, they don't prohibit us making further deals. Deciding not to make further deals is itself a decision.

[Vassenor]

So in that case wouldn't being trading under WTO rules like the Conservatives want be the WTO dictating our foreign policy?

WTO rules are a default, they don't prohibit us making further deals. Deciding not to make further deals is itself a decision.

So how was the EU preventing us from making our own deals?

[Ostroeuropa]

WTO rules are a default, they don't prohibit us making further deals. Deciding not to make further deals is itself a decision.

So how was the EU preventing us from making our own deals?

...
Are you serious?

We weren't allowed to make trade deals with other countries while members, because the EU negotiates as a bloc and prohibits individual members doing so in order to strengthen their bargaining power as a bloc.

it means the UK's foreign policy was in part dictated by other countries representatives.

Crucially the EU is also pants-on-head when it comes to the requirements, the deals must be unanimously accepted, which is why the EU has hardly any fucking trade deals with anyone else, and why members of the EU often trade so disproportionately with other EU members.

The whole "Most of our trade is with the EU!" shit is an argument against the EU, not in favor of it. It's the case because the primary purpose of the EU, to form a united negotiating bloc that'll get us better deals with others, is hamstrung by its ridiculous demands for unanimous acceptance from member states.

The EU as a proportion of GDP has been shrinking for decades (In part because of the EU itself tbh), and we're unable to form deals with the rest of the world because we're members.

While quitting will initially set us back, because we aren't required to convince all of europe to agree to an idea unanimously, we can secure trade deals far quicker and will probably have more than they do relatively soon.

"Most of our trade is with the EU" was presented as an argument against leaving, but that's throwing good money after bad imo.
The brexiteers pointed this out at length too. "It shouldn't be, that's a sign of dysfunction."

Imagine if the UK went batshit and closed a huge amount of trade to foreign countries off unless they could get every single MP to agree to trade with the country.
Then in the Scottish Independence debate people went
"But... but... most of our trade is with England!"

It also means that everyone in Europe has to put up with half a million Luxembourgians having a complete and total veto over the trade policies of literally everyone else.

The Canadian deal was stalled for years longer than it needed to be because Belgium was upset about some detail, and in the process every other economy in europe suffered for those years.
Rinse repeat on literally every single deal, with every single country.

The EU could work, but only if it abandoned that kind of ridiculous shit.

[Ifreann]

Latest Boris Bantz[eww, autoplay]: International border between the Republic and the North could work just like the London borough boundary between Camden and Westminster.

[Vassenor]

So how was the EU preventing us from making our own deals?

...
Are you serious?

We weren't allowed to make trade deals with other countries while members, because the EU negotiates as a bloc and prohibits individual members doing so in order to strengthen their bargaining power as a bloc.

it means the UK's foreign policy was in part dictated by other countries representatives.

Crucially the EU is also pants-on-head when it comes to the requirements, the deals must be unanimously accepted, which is why the EU has hardly any fucking trade deals with anyone else, and why members of the EU often trade so disproportionately with other EU members.

The whole "Most of our trade is with the EU!" shit is an argument against the EU, not in favor of it. It's the case because the primary purpose of the EU, to form a united negotiating bloc that'll get us better deals with others, is hamstrung by its ridiculous demands for unanimous acceptance from member states.

The EU as a proportion of GDP has been shrinking for decades (In part because of the EU itself tbh), and we're unable to form deals with the rest of the world because we're members.

While quitting will initially set us back, because we aren't required to convince all of europe to agree to an idea unanimously, we can secure trade deals far quicker and will probably have more than they do relatively soon.

"Most of our trade is with the EU" was presented as an argument against leaving, but that's throwing good money after bad imo.
The brexiteers pointed this out at length too. "It shouldn't be, that's a sign of dysfunction."

Imagine if the UK went batshit and closed a huge amount of trade to foreign countries off unless they could get every single MP to agree to trade with the country.
Then in the Scottish Independence debate people went
"But... but... most of our trade is with England!"

It also means that everyone in Europe has to put up with half a million Luxembourgians having a complete and total veto over the trade policies of literally everyone else.

So let's see where it's in writing that we weren't allowed to do that.

[Ostroeuropa]

...
Are you serious?

We weren't allowed to make trade deals with other countries while members, because the EU negotiates as a bloc and prohibits individual members doing so in order to strengthen their bargaining power as a bloc.

it means the UK's foreign policy was in part dictated by other countries representatives.

Crucially the EU is also pants-on-head when it comes to the requirements, the deals must be unanimously accepted, which is why the EU has hardly any fucking trade deals with anyone else, and why members of the EU often trade so disproportionately with other EU members.

The whole "Most of our trade is with the EU!" shit is an argument against the EU, not in favor of it. It's the case because the primary purpose of the EU, to form a united negotiating bloc that'll get us better deals with others, is hamstrung by its ridiculous demands for unanimous acceptance from member states.

The EU as a proportion of GDP has been shrinking for decades (In part because of the EU itself tbh), and we're unable to form deals with the rest of the world because we're members.

While quitting will initially set us back, because we aren't required to convince all of europe to agree to an idea unanimously, we can secure trade deals far quicker and will probably have more than they do relatively soon.

"Most of our trade is with the EU" was presented as an argument against leaving, but that's throwing good money after bad imo.
The brexiteers pointed this out at length too. "It shouldn't be, that's a sign of dysfunction."

Imagine if the UK went batshit and closed a huge amount of trade to foreign countries off unless they could get every single MP to agree to trade with the country.
Then in the Scottish Independence debate people went
"But... but... most of our trade is with England!"

It also means that everyone in Europe has to put up with half a million Luxembourgians having a complete and total veto over the trade policies of literally everyone else.

So let's see where it's in writing that we weren't allowed to do that.

Have you even paid attention to this debate?
We literally weren't even allowed to discuss trade deals with other countries as a nation, it's against EU rules.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36684876

Reality Check verdict: Under current EU rules, EU countries cannot make separate trade deals with individual member states or non-EU countries. However, there is no legal precedent for a country to leave the EU and renegotiate a trade agreement with the bloc. Legal experts say the UK could argue its official status has changed once it invokes Article 50, but this is largely hypothetical at the moment.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit- ... deals-now/

The EU has graciously allowed us to start negotiating trade deals given that we're in the process of leaving though, given that argument. Just not sign them.

Though, in contrast to that;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 60996.html

They're also considering demanding the right to veto UK trade deals 2 years after we leave.

Christ Vass, this was a major component of the referendum, it was like, half the damn debate.

[Eibenland]

Also how was the EU dictating our foreign policy?

Trade deals are an aspect of foreign policy.

Being part of a union involves having some policies in common.

[Vassenor]

Trade deals are an aspect of foreign policy.

Being part of a union involves having some policies in common.

But you have to remember that the EU is bad because it doesn't treat us as special. Even with all the special opt-outs we have.

[Imperializt Russia]

Sure, but that's a very different statement to "we should use the law to enforce these rules". That's what parenting is for.

Porn is also being stigmatized as the source of bad ideas about sex because it's easier and cheaper for the government to pretend it's the cause rather than lack of comprehensive sex education.
It's a dodge we shouldn't be allowing them to make.

Incorrect perceptions of sex and consent will persist with or without the porn ban, and will subside with comprehensive sex education with or without the porn ban. It is entirely unrelated.

I would argue this depends on what you consider "comprehensive sex education" to cover. The "bad ideas from porn" typically comprise both the physical (dangerous activities/positions) and the social (contextless submission, contextless rough sex, body image and expectations). The sex education I received as a child certainly didn't do a good job of covering either point.

[Souseiseki]

So in that case wouldn't being trading under WTO rules like the Conservatives want be the WTO dictating our foreign policy?

WTO rules are a default, they don't prohibit us making further deals. Deciding not to make further deals is itself a decision.

no that's bullshit. the WTO flat out tells you that you cannot do certain things, thereby controlling your trade policy, thereby controlling your foreign policy.

did you miss the entirety of the ireland discussion re brexit in which we can't have an open border with ireland without having one with the rest of the EU because ireland is in the EU and we can't just leave the irish border specifically open without a specific deal because we'll get the pants sued off us by anyone who feels like it through the WTO?

[Imperializt Russia]

Possibly rewinding quite a bit now, but as someone who was exposed to pornography at a relatively young age, and definitely exposed to "too much" of it, I see no reason to dismiss the notion that it may cause "deleterious behaviours" or desires.

Can you elaborate specifically what negatives you experienced, and do you think comprehensive sex education would have helped?

I wouldn't like to, because I'm uncomfortable with several of them and - as I've admitted to friends - I ultimately have no idea whether or not some of them are the result of "copious intake" warping my sensibilities, or simply delayed realisations of myself.

Psychology is hard, I'm told.
Especially Freud.

[Ostroeuropa]

Porn is also being stigmatized as the source of bad ideas about sex because it's easier and cheaper for the government to pretend it's the cause rather than lack of comprehensive sex education.
It's a dodge we shouldn't be allowing them to make.

Incorrect perceptions of sex and consent will persist with or without the porn ban, and will subside with comprehensive sex education with or without the porn ban. It is entirely unrelated.

I would argue this depends on what you consider "comprehensive sex education" to cover. The "bad ideas from porn" typically comprise both the physical (dangerous activities/positions) and the social (contextless submission, contextless rough sex, body image and expectations). The sex education I received as a child certainly didn't do a good job of covering either point.

That's true, and that's the problem. Misconceptions over sex don't rely on porn to exist, and only comprehensive sex education can deal with them.
We aren't born knowledgeable about the topic and then porn misleads us.
The government and others blaming porn for the problem allows them to escape responsibility for devising a comprehensive sex education curriculum and give the appropriate funding to it, instead blaming a scapegoat.

Can you elaborate specifically what negatives you experienced, and do you think comprehensive sex education would have helped?

I wouldn't like to, because I'm uncomfortable with several of them and - as I've admitted to friends - I ultimately have no idea whether or not some of them are the result of "copious intake" warping my sensibilities, or simply delayed realisations of myself.

Psychology is hard, I'm told.
Especially Freud.

I see.

How can your sensibilities be warped, out of interest?
Aren't they definitionally realizations of self, merely ones you aren't comfortable with?

For what it's worth, I won't judge you. Other than poop and pee, i'm down with pretty much anything between me and a loving partner, just not involving others, and I skew towards embarrassingly lovey-dovey. Getting off on getting other people off and being a good partner, and if left to my own devices and asked what I want to do, "...tell me you love me? Hold my hand a bit? Cool."

I'm sure it can't be more embarrassing than that.

Also, I realized that despite porn not really representing it. My porn habits are wildly different to my preferences. Have you considered there could be a difference?

[Imperializt Russia]

To give one of the tamer examples of this, I am a big fan of a larger-bodied woman. Not fat fetishism, not remotely, but a solid size 16 or abouts.

A quandaryI had a year or two ago - "is this because I always really liked 'upper end of typical' size girls, or have I been conditioned through my life that women in this bracket are 'easier' and more likely to agree to talk to/date me/sleep with me, myself being a not-ideal male specimen?"

E: tbh, you apparently share some of my proclivities

[Ostroeuropa]

To give one of the tamer examples of this, I am a big fan of a larger-bodied woman. Not fat fetishism, not remotely, but a solid size 16 or abouts.

A quandaryI had a year or two ago - "is this because I always really liked 'upper end of typical' size girls, or have I been conditioned through my life that women in this bracket are 'easier' and more likely to agree to talk to/date me/sleep with me, myself being a not-ideal male specimen?"

E: tbh, you apparently share some of my proclivities

Preferences change over time. Almost overnight I went from preferring dark hair to blonde hair, for no discernible reason. Porn might help you realize preference changes, but I don't think porn can change someones sexuality, only alert them to it.
As for the "easier" thing, dunno. Does it matter?

Buddy, fat is better than psycho, i'm lumbered with an attraction to "Strong women" which routinely misfired into going out with control freaks and such. Least you won't wake up one day and realize the fat wasn't ever there and was secretly some kind of horrifying trait. Shining armor is out there somewhere though, probably.

I dunno. I guess my preferences not being adequately represented in porn might color my view of your claim. I've seen lots of porn, including in various altered mental states, and i'm still the same me I always was.

[Souseiseki]

Porn might help you realize preference changes, but I don't think porn can change someones sexuality, only alert them to it.

here is a video summing up the current research on the topic

[Dumb Ideologies]

Well so far today we've had Toys 'R' Bust, and get ready for Mapbinned.

The former apparently brought down by the burden of unprofitable old warehouse-style stores built in the 80s and 90s and not supportable in the era where people buy the latest big brand toys online, the latter from long-term decline caused by the permanent rise of online retailers (particularly Amazon) in tech sales. The economic broom is really sweeping through the weakest and least adaptable parts of the high street at the moment, which is a concern for town centres. These will need coherent regeneration plans to avoid urban decay.

Good that we have a government that will make a concerted effort to help and retrain the unemployed, rather than one that introduces disastrous welfare reform that succeeds only in making people homeless. Oh wait.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well so far today we've had Toys 'R' Bust, and get ready for Mapbinned.

The former apparently brought down by the burden of unprofitable old warehouse-style stores built in the 80s and 90s and not supportable in the era where people buy the latest big brand toys online, the latter from long-term decline caused by the permanent rise of online retailers (particularly Amazon) in tech sales. The economic broom is really sweeping through the weakest and least adaptable parts of the high street at the moment, which is a concern for town centres. These will need coherent regeneration plans to avoid urban decay.

Good that we have a government that will make a concerted effort to help and retrain the unemployed, rather than one that introduces disastrous welfare reform that succeeds only in making people homeless. Oh wait.

My town is lucky, our regeneration plan has been in the works for two decades and is just coming into force

[Fartsniffage]

Well so far today we've had Toys 'R' Bust, and get ready for Mapbinned.

The former apparently brought down by the burden of unprofitable old warehouse-style stores built in the 80s and 90s and not supportable in the era where people buy the latest big brand toys online, the latter from long-term decline caused by the permanent rise of online retailers (particularly Amazon) in tech sales. The economic broom is really sweeping through the weakest and least adaptable parts of the high street at the moment, which is a concern for town centres. These will need coherent regeneration plans to avoid urban decay.

Good that we have a government that will make a concerted effort to help and retrain the unemployed, rather than one that introduces disastrous welfare reform that succeeds only in making people homeless. Oh wait.

My town is lucky, our regeneration plan has been in the works for two decades and is just coming into force

My local town centre is currently kebab shops, pawn shops and bookies. Luckily, I live all of 10 minutes from Manchester city centre so it's not so bad.

[Ostroeuropa]

My town is lucky, our regeneration plan has been in the works for two decades and is just coming into force

My local town centre is currently kebab shops, pawn shops and bookies. Luckily, I live all of 10 minutes from Manchester city centre so it's not so bad.

Kebab shops, pawn shop, bookies, pubs, a nightclub, dozens of charity shops, housing agencies, tourist shops, restaurants and other takeaway places, a B+M, greggs. The regeneration was for the front, a new harbor, a few restaurants, a new pub, and a new place for tourists to sit and look at the sea while in those places.

[Imperializt Russia]

I live next to what a sign ambitiously marks as the "Fieldhouse Shopping Precinct". It was once a Post office, computer shop, chippie, and maybe one salon? And a kebab shop.
It is now four different hair salons, the same kebab shop, a Lloyds pharmacy and a Chinese.

Though tbh, I live in a village suburb so village suburban I might as well be "rural".

Which I would be if I lived like a mile in the other direction.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Saw on FB there that Maplin has collapsed, putting 2500 jobs at risk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43223175

[Philjia]

Well so far today we've had Toys 'R' Bust, and get ready for Mapbinned.

The former apparently brought down by the burden of unprofitable old warehouse-style stores built in the 80s and 90s and not supportable in the era where people buy the latest big brand toys online, the latter from long-term decline caused by the permanent rise of online retailers (particularly Amazon) in tech sales. The economic broom is really sweeping through the weakest and least adaptable parts of the high street at the moment, which is a concern for town centres. These will need coherent regeneration plans to avoid urban decay.

Good that we have a government that will make a concerted effort to help and retrain the unemployed, rather than one that introduces disastrous welfare reform that succeeds only in making people homeless. Oh wait.

Where am I going to by wires and shit in an emergancy now?

[Ostroeuropa]

Well so far today we've had Toys 'R' Bust, and get ready for Mapbinned.

The former apparently brought down by the burden of unprofitable old warehouse-style stores built in the 80s and 90s and not supportable in the era where people buy the latest big brand toys online, the latter from long-term decline caused by the permanent rise of online retailers (particularly Amazon) in tech sales. The economic broom is really sweeping through the weakest and least adaptable parts of the high street at the moment, which is a concern for town centres. These will need coherent regeneration plans to avoid urban decay.

Good that we have a government that will make a concerted effort to help and retrain the unemployed, rather than one that introduces disastrous welfare reform that succeeds only in making people homeless. Oh wait.

Where am I going to by wires and shit in an emergancy now?

I can sell you some poop.