UK Politics Thread IX: The Masses Against the Classes

[The Huskar Social Union]

Who are doing more harm to society at present?

Fascists and the far-right.

That was easy.
Give me another.

What..... is your FAVOURITE COLOUR!??!

[Juristonia]

What..... is your FAVOURITE COLOUR!??!

..You have bested me.
I must leave now and never return to this place.

[The Huskar Social Union]

What..... is your FAVOURITE COLOUR!??!

..You have bested me.
I must leave now and never return to this place.

No no no no no, not how it works. By the rules of Monty Python, you have to scream and fly through the air in a blurry cut into the pit beneath the bridge of death.

[Fartsniffage]

..You have bested me.
I must leave now and never return to this place.

No no no no no, not how it works. By the rules of Monty Python, you have to scream and fly through the air in a blurry cut into the pit beneath the bridge of death.

Feminists have banned tossing people off........bridges.

[Ostroeuropa]

Full disclosure I just heard a mate of mine call then Count Duckula and Sauron of Argos and pissed my jeans a little laughing so hard.

Have u ever drunk bubblegin? It's got unicorns in it. Unicorn gin, bubblegum syrup, lemonade, strawberryade.

It sparkles cos it's got glitter.

From the unicorn

[Ifreann]

That you'd rather jump into bed with fascists and the far-right than progressives tells us all we need to know.

Who are doing more harm to society at present?

The Brexiteers, clearly.

[Ostroeuropa]

Who are doing more harm to society at present?

The Brexiteers, clearly.

The brexiteers are attempting to solve a societal Ill in their own way, a daft way, but their own way. Brexit failing will merely mean a hard line on multicultural nihilism, immigration and so on, becomes the new agenda, especially as the new right takes a third of the eu parliament.

Trying to cut a rotten hand off at the elbow is damage to be sure, but not as much damage as ignoring the problem will eventually cause. Nigel founded the brexit party, and it's existence alongside brexits defeat will allow UKIP to align with it's European allies and their vision of a Nationalist and anti-progressive EU.

1/3 of parliament is enough to play with.

[Bienenhalde]

You appear to be laboring under the impression that this little islington set style of progressive crap is normal.

This is not normal. This is not a normal culture. This is a cultural pathology.

You seem to be under the impression the Mr. Benjamin's rudeness and sexual depravity are normal. They are not. This is cultural pathology. I am a conservative, not a progressive, and I have no sympathy for his rubbish behavior.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The Brexiteers, clearly.

The brexiteers are attempting to solve a societal Ill in their own way, a daft way, but their own way. Brexit failing will merely mean a hard line on multicultural nihilism, immigration and so on, becomes the new agenda, especially as the new right takes a third of the eu parliament.

Trying to cut a rotten hand off at the elbow is damage to be sure, but not as much damage as ignoring the problem will eventually cause. Nigel founded the brexit party, and it's existence alongside brexits defeat will allow UKIP to align with it's European allies and their vision of a Nationalist and anti-progressive EU.

1/3 of parliament is enough to play with.

I don't even think you have to be a nationalist to hate what the EU has become. It started as a good organisation, back when it was about trade, but it should have stayed that way.

[Neu Leonstein]

1/3 of parliament is enough to play with.

But no more than that, because that would risk leaving opposition, and as we all well know by now, the moment you ask 'anti-progressives'/'populists'/'nationalists' to actually do anything aside from talking big, they shrivel up. Much like Mr Sargon, I'd wager.

[Fartsniffage]

The brexiteers are attempting to solve a societal Ill in their own way, a daft way, but their own way. Brexit failing will merely mean a hard line on multicultural nihilism, immigration and so on, becomes the new agenda, especially as the new right takes a third of the eu parliament.

Trying to cut a rotten hand off at the elbow is damage to be sure, but not as much damage as ignoring the problem will eventually cause. Nigel founded the brexit party, and it's existence alongside brexits defeat will allow UKIP to align with it's European allies and their vision of a Nationalist and anti-progressive EU.

1/3 of parliament is enough to play with.

I don't even think you have to be a nationalist to hate what the EU has become. It started as a good organisation, back when it was about trade, but it should have stayed that way.

It was never going to be just about trade. It was set up as an organisation to prevent another European war.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I don't even think you have to be a nationalist to hate what the EU has become. It started as a good organisation, back when it was about trade, but it should have stayed that way.

It was never going to be just about trade. It was set up as an organisation to prevent another European war.

The people who founded it thought that controlling and trading in the materials of war, namely coal and steel, would accomplish just that.

[Fartsniffage]

It was never going to be just about trade. It was set up as an organisation to prevent another European war.

The people who founded it thought that controlling and trading in the materials of war, namely coal and steel, would accomplish just that.

And then times move on. Steel and coal were no longer the sinews of war.

So what is your point?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The people who founded it thought that controlling and trading in the materials of war, namely coal and steel, would accomplish just that.

And then times move on. Steel and coal were no longer the sinews of war.

So what is your point?

That the EU no longer performs that function. If a threat is going to come in Europe, it's going to come from Russia, and that's what nato is for.

[Fartsniffage]

And then times move on. Steel and coal were no longer the sinews of war.

So what is your point?

That the EU no longer performs that function. If a threat is going to come in Europe, it's going to come from Russia, and that's what nato is for.

So your issue with the EU is that it worked, so now it isn't required anymore?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

That the EU no longer performs that function. If a threat is going to come in Europe, it's going to come from Russia, and that's what nato is for.

So your issue with the EU is that it worked, so now it isn't required anymore?

My issue with the EU is that, in its original incarnation, it worked and should have stayed how it was. I like that EU. I don't like this one.

[Fartsniffage]

So your issue with the EU is that it worked, so now it isn't required anymore?

My issue with the EU is that, in its original incarnation, it worked and should have stayed how it was. I like that EU. I don't like this one.

I understand that. But I like the continuation of integration. Why don't you like that?

[Tybra]

So your issue with the EU is that it worked, so now it isn't required anymore?

My issue with the EU is that, in its original incarnation, it worked and should have stayed how it was. I like that EU. I don't like this one.

Which incarnation though, because the problem was that before the EU there were about 7 or 8 concurring incarnations, which was the whole problem and why the EU was formed. The European Coal and Steel Community didn't form the EEC, these were until 2002 separate institutions (which together with EURATOM formed only the first pillar of the EU). Then there was then there was the Terrorism, Radicalism, Extremism and Violence Internationally (TREVI) which was superseded by the PCJJ. Then there was the Political European Cooperation which together with the PCJJ formed the second pillar of the EU. And then there was also the Western European Union, WEU which did...things. And then there was also the Schengen Rules which for a while was a separate thing in itself.

Therein lied the whole problem, rather than having just one union, multiple unions existed at the same time. This caused a severe lack of transparency, accountability and raised the question of "what happens if two unions have conflicting rules"? Problem which existed until the Lisbon Treaty, which is a godsend for any European Law student, because it cut out all the BS, terminated all unions and formed a singular transparent European Union. With the exception of the UfM, the Union of the Mediterranean.

[Heloin]

So your issue with the EU is that it worked, so now it isn't required anymore?

My issue with the EU is that, in its original incarnation, it worked and should have stayed how it was. I like that EU. I don't like this one.

So back to being the EEC?

*Conceding that I'm likely the only person posting in the thread who has that familiarity.

A few days late but also me. It's what my degree is in.

[Neu Leonstein]

-snip-

This. The idea that there is this EU separate from the Single Market is silly. If you want the Single Market, you need a way to coordinate rules and regulations across that market. That involves transferring narrowly defined sovereignty for the purposes of coordination.

You can do that inefficiently, by having heads of government meet for summits to hash out every single food standard. Or you can do that efficiently, by delegating representatives from your government to take part in a rule-writing process.

But this, as we have been assured repeatedly, is 'undemocratic'. So if you don't just want this body of government delegates to write the rules with no direct popular input, then you need some sort of body, like a parliament, that's elected by voters directly and that chooses to approve or not approve the rules written by those delegates.

And voila, you have the EU in a nutshell.

If you don't want this stuff, then you have a couple of options. You can a) scrap the parliament and just have unelected officials appointed by the governments making all the rules, you can b) not have any appointees and literally only have rules created at summits between actual governments or c) do away with the Single Market and just have a free trade agreement.

If c) is your choice, then that's fine. But you don't get to pretend that you're in favour of free trade then. Free trade agreements are a misnomer. They're just schedules of agreed-upon quotas and tariffs, product by product. They're nothing like what the UK has been enjoying vis-a-vis the EU over the past few decades.

[Novus America]

-snip-

This. The idea that there is this EU separate from the Single Market is silly. If you want the Single Market, you need a way to coordinate rules and regulations across that market. That involves transferring narrowly defined sovereignty for the purposes of coordination.

You can do that inefficiently, by having heads of government meet for summits to hash out every single food standard. Or you can do that efficiently, by delegating representatives from your government to take part in a rule-writing process.

But this, as we have been assured repeatedly, is 'undemocratic'. So if you don't just want this body of government delegates to write the rules with no direct popular input, then you need some sort of body, like a parliament, that's elected by voters directly and that chooses to approve or not approve the rules written by those delegates.

And voila, you have the EU in a nutshell.

If you don't want this stuff, then you have a couple of options. You can a) scrap the parliament and just have unelected officials appointed by the governments making all the rules, you can b) not have any appointees and literally only have rules created at summits between actual governments or c) do away with the Single Market and just have a free trade agreement.

If c) is your choice, then that's fine. But you don't get to pretend that you're in favour of free trade then. Free trade agreements are a misnomer. They're just schedules of agreed-upon quotas and tariffs, product by product. They're nothing like what the UK has been enjoying vis-a-vis the EU over the past few decades.

“Free trade” with predatory mercantile states with no labour protections like China is economic and social suicide anyways.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

-snip-

This. The idea that there is this EU separate from the Single Market is silly. If you want the Single Market, you need a way to coordinate rules and regulations across that market. That involves transferring narrowly defined sovereignty for the purposes of coordination.

You can do that inefficiently, by having heads of government meet for summits to hash out every single food standard. Or you can do that efficiently, by delegating representatives from your government to take part in a rule-writing process.

But this, as we have been assured repeatedly, is 'undemocratic'. So if you don't just want this body of government delegates to write the rules with no direct popular input, then you need some sort of body, like a parliament, that's elected by voters directly and that chooses to approve or not approve the rules written by those delegates.

And voila, you have the EU in a nutshell.

If you don't want this stuff, then you have a couple of options. You can a) scrap the parliament and just have unelected officials appointed by the governments making all the rules, you can b) not have any appointees and literally only have rules created at summits between actual governments or c) do away with the Single Market and just have a free trade agreement.

If c) is your choice, then that's fine. But you don't get to pretend that you're in favour of free trade then. Free trade agreements are a misnomer. They're just schedules of agreed-upon quotas and tariffs, product by product. They're nothing like what the UK has been enjoying vis-a-vis the EU over the past few decades.

B would be my preferred option.

[Neu Leonstein]

B would be my preferred option.

B is the joke option. You're not going to get Merkel, Macron, May and 25 other heads of government deciding the correct Bq per gram of radium in your waterways. That's the whole point. Governments don't decide things like that at the elected official level. They delegate and get experts to decide these things. Having a Single Market implies having one bunch of experts from multiple countries deciding this together. That body of experts is the European Commission and the bodies it in turn asks for expertise.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

B would be my preferred option.

B is the joke option. You're not going to get Merkel, Macron, May and 25 other heads of government deciding the correct Bq per gram of radium in your waterways. That's the whole point. Governments don't decide things like that at the elected official level. They delegate and get experts to decide these things. Having a Single Market implies having one bunch of experts from multiple countries deciding this together. That body of experts is the European Commission and the bodies it in turn asks for expertise.

The reason I like B is that it ensures that the pace of decision-making will be slow.

[Neu Leonstein]

The reason I like B is that it ensures that the pace of decision-making will be slow.

Yes, but why? Either you want a Single Market or you don't. You talk as though you want one, but also want to sabotage its implementation.