NationStates

The last one ...

I will venture to say that upon the one great class of subjects, the largest and the most weighty of them all, where the leading and determining considerations that ought to lead to a conclusion are truth, justice and humanity—upon these, gentlemen, all the world over, I will back the masses against the classes.

William Ewart Gladstone, 1886


Anyway, it was occurring to me the other day the extent to which Ireland has been involved in so many of our major party political realignments since the 1832 Great Reform Act.

1840s: Corn Law repeal splits the Conservative Party, and leads to the formation of the Liberal Party out of the Peelites, Whig rump, and Radicals. Immediate catalyst? The Great Famine in Ireland.

1880s: Gladstone's support of Irish Home Rule splits the Liberal Party; Liberal Unionists walk out, forming coalition, and eventually merging, with the Conservatives. The High Victorian period of Liberal political dominance is brought to an end (notwithstanding a final brief flourish from 1906-1911).

1918-1920s: The introduction of full male and limited female suffrage following the 1918 Representation of the People Act no doubt played the major role in this realignment by facilitating the rise of the Labour Party; but Ireland still makes a contribution via the post-war collapse of the Irish Parliamentary Party, and the Liberal Party's loss of implicit support from Irish constitutional home rule supporters (and Lloyd-George's role in negotiating the Free State Treaty).

2010s: Possible party realignment (too soon to judge) brought about by Brexit; disagreements regarding the border between the United Kingdom and Ireland are one of the main contributors to the political debacle that might in turn facilitate party realignment.


It's a bit like an unhappy arranged marriage where the two parties are still arguing over custody of the children years after the divorce was finalised.

I'm not sure I'm really offering a debate question; but it seemed as good a topic as any to start off a thread that I find myself owning even though I didn't actually start it...


Quick Poll note:

As an experiment, I'm including the Independent Group. I've also combined UKIP and Farage's new Brexit Party (which has accumulated 7 or 8 MEPs without too many people noticing) as a single poll option. I've kept the SNP and Plaid Cymru as separate poll options, but - after some handwringing - have moved the Greens to 'other', while explicitly recognising the Greens in that category; I felt it was important to continue to recognise the contexts of Scottish and Welsh politics as separate (and note that the Scottish Greens are an entirely separate pro-independence party that's not affiliated with the English and Welsh Greens). It's not an ideal solution, but we're currently accumulating more parties than the poll limits can cope with. I do particularly apologise to any Alliance supporters in NI.

Feel free to discuss how misguided my choices were on this poll; but you're stuck with it until thread X. By then we may have a better idea of whether the current political instability has led to anything, or whether the traditional semi-dichotomy has reasserted itself.

https://twitter.com/gregjames/status/10 ... 4415082496

it is of the utmost importance that i get "17.4 million people voted for this turd, this democratically [chosen] turd" on the first page

e: also i would like to propose a democratic referendum on a new thread title

Souseiseki wrote:https://twitter.com/gregjames/status/1098186084415082496

it is of the utmost importance that i get "17.4 million people voted for this turd, this democratically [chosen] turd" on the first page

e: also i would like to propose a democratic referendum on a new thread title

Fine, there's a process for that. It'll take about two years ...

Souseiseki wrote:https://twitter.com/gregjames/status/1098186084415082496

it is of the utmost importance that i get "17.4 million people voted for this turd, this democratically [chosen] turd" on the first page

e: also i would like to propose a democratic referendum on a new thread title

You need to get permission from May for a new thread title. She is in control of a red white and blue thread. She's strong and stable.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Souseiseki wrote:https://twitter.com/gregjames/status/1098186084415082496

it is of the utmost importance that i get "17.4 million people voted for this turd, this democratically [chosen] turd" on the first page

e: also i would like to propose a democratic referendum on a new thread title

You need to get permission from May for a new tread title. She is in control of a red white and blue thread. She's strong and stable.

I was thinking of giving the OP to you but you weren't around. You want it?

Farnhamia wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
You need to get permission from May for a new tread title. She is in control of a red white and blue thread. She's strong and stable.

I was thinking of giving the OP to you but you weren't around. You want it?

Thank you but no. The idea of being in charge of anything to do with British politics is terrifying. It's all a mess I don't want.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:I was thinking of giving the OP to you but you weren't around. You want it?

Thank you but no. The idea of being in charge of anything to do with British politics is terrifying. It's all a mess I don't want.

Well, you wouldn't be in charge, you'd just have to write the OP.

Farnhamia wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Thank you but no. The idea of being in charge of anything to do with British politics is terrifying. It's all a mess I don't want.

Well, you wouldn't be in charge, you'd just have to write the OP.

I think Arch will do a much better job. Even if he decides not to then I think others you make a better OP.

I appreciate what you think about me but I'm not into what you think.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Well, you wouldn't be in charge, you'd just have to write the OP.

I think Arch will do a much better job. Even if he decides not to then I think others you make a better OP.

I appreciate what you think about me but I'm not into what you think.

Very well. I pinged Arch so some time in the next 24 hours a new OP should appear. It's like anyone needs one at this point.

Farnhamia wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
I think Arch will do a much better job. Even if he decides not to then I think others you make a better OP.

I appreciate what you think about me but I'm not into what you think.

Very well. I pinged Arch so some time in the next 24 hours a new OP should appear. It's like anyone needs one at this point.

Thanks Farn.

Now here's a doozy:
http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2019/01/29 ... es-part-i/
http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2019/01/30 ... s-part-ii/

Thought this was an interesting read. Whether you agree that things are all that dire or not, it does pose interesting questions on the stark dichotomy we tend to think of between "developed" and "developing" countries. We have a tendency to ascribe shitty public services and avoidable poverty (even when the avoidance would simply require more administrative competence) to failing or incompetent states in places like Africa, and to democratic policy choices in places like Europe or North America. I'm not so sure that's always right.

Farnhamia wrote:

Souseiseki wrote:https://twitter.com/gregjames/status/1098186084415082496

it is of the utmost importance that i get "17.4 million people voted for this turd, this democratically [chosen] turd" on the first page

e: also i would like to propose a democratic referendum on a new thread title

Fine, there's a process for that. It'll take about two years ...

Two years, mass protest against the result, two more years to implement that result, multiple defeats in the executive about the manner of execution, and and then asking for an extension.

Britain's hopes of a trade deal with America just suffered a big blow

The zero sum game view on trade of the US administration will now come to bite the UK.

US also saying they won't be bound by WTO rules

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-t ... KKCN1QJ01L


Shouldn't the poll for the thread be based on the number of elected representatives in the various parliaments? Fuck UKIP, I bet most of the people voting for them in the poll aren't from the UK anyway.

Number nine, number nine, number nine?

I want to start a revolution. But well you know.



And don't worry British, in about 4 weeks you get rid of me posting in your thread

Or not, this Brexit thing is quite unpredictable.

As far as titles go maybe something along the lines of

Beware the ides of March- Brexit, backstabbers and beyond?

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:US also saying they won't be bound by WTO rules

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-t ... KKCN1QJ01L


Shouldn't the poll for the thread be based on the number of elected representatives in the various parliaments? Fuck UKIP, I doubt most of the people voting for them in the poll aren't from the UK anyway.

More specifically, the US will still abide by their own reading of WTO rules, but they will no longer accept appellate body rulings. This is dumb in a few more ways than one. For instance, the justification that 'the US never agreed to those rules' is inherently flawed, since the US is a party both to the WTO treaty and GATT. Everything about the appellate body is in there. Besides, before going to the appellate body, the WTO first renders a panel decision, the judges of which can be selected by the parties. This is as close to international arbitration as one can get, and very favourable to the parties. Moreover, it only applies GATT rules, so the US definitely agreed to those rules.

It might all be a moot point, however. Appellate body judges are elected by unanimity by the state parties, and the US has blocked all appointees without giving any reason as to why. They just want to kill the WTO system. And fuck, if you don't like the WTO, then withdraw from it. I mean, that would still be dumb, but at least the WTO can keep functioning for those countries who do want to be bound by the appellate body. Fucking over the WTO like this is not the work of a country asserting its sovereignty; it's the work of a country that is ideologically against international cooperation, violates the contracts it has made internationally (thus making the US one of the least reliable global partners at the moment), asserting a hegemonic position by trying to destroy something it doesn't even want to be a part of.

And it's even dumb with regards to Brexit. The US was the biggest hope for Brexiteers, and Trump could have used his position to funnel the country towards a no deal Brexit. With this, he just threw a bucket of ice water over the brexiteer side, reminding the UK that, with regards to trade, they cannot rely on the US. It's an immense foreign policy blunder, for the US, and I would not be surprised if this news combined with other US-related trade news is going to turn quite a few heads in Parliament.

The blAAtschApen wrote:Number nine, number nine, number nine?

I want to start a revolution. But well you know.

Yes, I know, different revolution

And don't worry British, in about 4 weeks you get rid of me posting in your thread

Or not, this Brexit thing is quite unpredictable.

Goddamnit now I can't get that song out of my head... along with Helter Skelter for some reason.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:US also saying they won't be bound by WTO rules

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-t ... KKCN1QJ01L


Shouldn't the poll for the thread be based on the number of elected representatives in the various parliaments? Fuck UKIP, I doubt most of the people voting for them in the poll aren't from the UK anyway.

More specifically, the US will still abide by their own reading of WTO rules, but they will no longer accept appellate body rulings. This is dumb in a few more ways than one. For instance, the justification that 'the US never agreed to those rules' is inherently flawed, since the US is a party both to the WTO treaty and GATT. Everything about the appellate body is in there. Besides, before going to the appellate body, the WTO first renders a panel decision, the judges of which can be selected by the parties. This is as close to international arbitration as one can get, and very favourable to the parties. Moreover, it only applies GATT rules, so the US definitely agreed to those rules.

It might all be a moot point, however. Appellate body judges are elected by unanimity by the state parties, and the US has blocked all appointees without giving any reason as to why. They just want to kill the WTO system. And fuck, if you don't like the WTO, then withdraw from it. I mean, that would still be dumb, but at least the WTO can keep functioning for those countries who do want to be bound by the appellate body. Fucking over the WTO like this is not the work of a country asserting its sovereignty; it's the work of a country that is ideologically against international cooperation, violates the contracts it has made internationally (thus making the US one of the least reliable global partners at the moment), asserting a hegemonic position by trying to destroy something it doesn't even want to be a part of.

And it's even dumb with regards to Brexit. The US was the biggest hope for Brexiteers, and Trump could have used his position to funnel the country towards a no deal Brexit. With this, he just threw a bucket of ice water over the brexiteer side, reminding the UK that, with regards to trade, they cannot rely on the US. It's an immense foreign policy blunder, for the US, and I would not be surprised if this news combined with other US-related trade news is going to turn quite a few heads in Parliament.

In fact wasn't it drilled into us that we needed Trump to win because then we'd get preferential treatment and the best possible deals from the U.S.?

Vassenor wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:More specifically, the US will still abide by their own reading of WTO rules, but they will no longer accept appellate body rulings. This is dumb in a few more ways than one. For instance, the justification that 'the US never agreed to those rules' is inherently flawed, since the US is a party both to the WTO treaty and GATT. Everything about the appellate body is in there. Besides, before going to the appellate body, the WTO first renders a panel decision, the judges of which can be selected by the parties. This is as close to international arbitration as one can get, and very favourable to the parties. Moreover, it only applies GATT rules, so the US definitely agreed to those rules.

It might all be a moot point, however. Appellate body judges are elected by unanimity by the state parties, and the US has blocked all appointees without giving any reason as to why. They just want to kill the WTO system. And fuck, if you don't like the WTO, then withdraw from it. I mean, that would still be dumb, but at least the WTO can keep functioning for those countries who do want to be bound by the appellate body. Fucking over the WTO like this is not the work of a country asserting its sovereignty; it's the work of a country that is ideologically against international cooperation, violates the contracts it has made internationally (thus making the US one of the least reliable global partners at the moment), asserting a hegemonic position by trying to destroy something it doesn't even want to be a part of.

And it's even dumb with regards to Brexit. The US was the biggest hope for Brexiteers, and Trump could have used his position to funnel the country towards a no deal Brexit. With this, he just threw a bucket of ice water over the brexiteer side, reminding the UK that, with regards to trade, they cannot rely on the US. It's an immense foreign policy blunder, for the US, and I would not be surprised if this news combined with other US-related trade news is going to turn quite a few heads in Parliament.

In fact wasn't it drilled into us that we needed Trump to win because then we'd get preferential treatment and the best possible deals from the U.S.?

...what? No? I don't remember that at all.

I'll get up a thread poll and a proper OP this afternoon (2nd of March) UK time; apologies for the slight delay.

I'll also likely adjust the title.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Britain's hopes of a trade deal with America just suffered a big blow

The zero sum game view on trade of the US administration will now come to bite the UK.

Wow... this entire situation keeps getting better and better. Makes me hate David Cameron for his ineffective Remain campaign handling more.

610 MPs failed to attend the climate change debate in parliament despite mass protests internationally over the last 8 weeks by students.

The ruling class and its crimes against humanity on this should one day force them to face repercussions, from imprisonment including life imprisonment, to total and complete property seizure, to capital punishment if it goes too far and we begin seeing mass deaths from climate change. Something something retroactive.

Nuremberg was victors justice too, and these elites and their lust for profit at the expense of others have gassed this planet, and may end up killing far more In the process.

Maybe if we made that more clear they'd start taking this issue more seriously.

They are enemies of all mankind.


Pretty simple way to start would be setting a close deadline for compliance, any corporations or elites found to be non-compliant after that stage get on the shitlist and are told their wealth is ephemeral and will be totally and completely confiscated so they are left with nothing but their debts when the people who take environmentalism seriously take over. Use that policy as a litmus test for environmentalism, and don't support those who don't have it.

We've got the death penalty, and the civil death penalty in history. Time for the economic death penalty.

Farnhamia wrote:

Souseiseki wrote:https://twitter.com/gregjames/status/1098186084415082496

it is of the utmost importance that i get "17.4 million people voted for this turd, this democratically [chosen] turd" on the first page

e: also i would like to propose a democratic referendum on a new thread title

Fine, there's a process for that. It'll take about two years ...

...curiously, that's about the same minimum time needed for a non-EU country to go through the membership application process.

Ostroeuropa wrote:Pretty simple way to start would be setting a close deadline for compliance, any corporations or elites found to be non-compliant after that stage get on the shitlist and are told their wealth is ephemeral and will be totally and completely confiscated so they are left with nothing but their debts when the people who take environmentalism seriously take over. Use that policy as a litmus test for environmentalism, and don't support those who don't have it.

And these policies make "environmentalists" so much more likely to get elected to a position of any power.