UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash

[Vassenor]

This business about a British frigate having to force Iranian boghammers off the British Heritage tanker is obviously disconcerting, obviously a result of our stupid intervention in Syria, in which we have totally failed to overthrow President Assad, and instead expended considerable resources and effort into turning Syria into a nightmare.

Our national interests are above all the protection of our sea lines of communication, since we are an island. Therefore the naval service should be the government's first priority since the sea is our first national interest, but we also need to stop rubbing our nose into regime change in countries our media has taken a five-minute-interest in, and our foreign policy should try to make friends or at least partners, rather than limitless enemies.

Except that as our foreign policy becomes more intertwined with America's going forward we're going to be doing more interventionism, not less.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Our foreign policy is just as intertwined with Americas in 2019 as it was in 2009, 1999, 1989, 1979...

[Greater vakolicci haven]

This business about a British frigate having to force Iranian boghammers off the British Heritage tanker is obviously disconcerting, obviously a result of our stupid intervention in Syria, in which we have totally failed to overthrow President Assad, and instead expended considerable resources and effort into turning Syria into a nightmare.

Our national interests are above all the protection of our sea lines of communication, since we are an island. Therefore the naval service should be the government's first priority since the sea is our first national interest, but we also need to stop rubbing our nose into regime change in countries our media has taken a five-minute-interest in, and our foreign policy should try to make friends or at least partners, rather than limitless enemies.

Except that as our foreign policy becomes more intertwined with America's going forward we're going to be doing more interventionism, not less.

Do you mean like South Korea does?

[Chan Island]

Our foreign policy is just as intertwined with Americas in 2019 as it was in 2009, 1999, 1989, 1979...

... and that is not a good thing considering how often America drags us into various wars that don't really serve our interests yet get Europe inundated with refugees fleeing the bombs. If anything, we should make moves to distance them.

Except that as our foreign policy becomes more intertwined with America's going forward we're going to be doing more interventionism, not less.

Do you mean like South Korea does?

The situation isn't analogous, we don't border an enemy state with massed artillery trained at the capital.

[Vassenor]

Our foreign policy is just as intertwined with Americas in 2019 as it was in 2009, 1999, 1989, 1979...

... and that is not a good thing considering how often America drags us into various wars that don't really serve our interests yet get Europe inundated with refugees fleeing the bombs. If anything, we should make moves to distance them.

Do you mean like South Korea does?

The situation isn't analogous, we don't border an enemy state with massed artillery trained at the capital.

Problem is that the only way we can make Brexit work now is by being Trump's bitch, so apparently we're not allowed to criticise how the US forces us to do things.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

... and that is not a good thing considering how often America drags us into various wars that don't really serve our interests yet get Europe inundated with refugees fleeing the bombs. If anything, we should make moves to distance them.

Yes I agree that we need as-independent-as-possible foreign policy.

This was one of the things I liked about Corbyn.

[Chan Island]

... and that is not a good thing considering how often America drags us into various wars that don't really serve our interests yet get Europe inundated with refugees fleeing the bombs. If anything, we should make moves to distance them.



The situation isn't analogous, we don't border an enemy state with massed artillery trained at the capital.

Problem is that the only way we can make Brexit work now is by being Trump's bitch, so apparently we're not allowed to criticise how the US forces us to do things.

And we can't criticise the logic of doing so either because 3 years ago we voted in a referendum where we later found out the winning side broke election law and now that tight result is gospel.

[Chan Island]

... and that is not a good thing considering how often America drags us into various wars that don't really serve our interests yet get Europe inundated with refugees fleeing the bombs. If anything, we should make moves to distance them.

Yes I agree that we need as-independent-as-possible foreign policy.

This was one of the things I liked about Corbyn.

And it's also one of the most important reasons in my opinion for continued membership of the EU. There we can help drive the foreign policy towards our interests, and then have 27 other countries back us up in projecting those goals. And Britain has tended to be the most influential country in the EU on foreign policy questions.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Yes I agree that we need as-independent-as-possible foreign policy.

This was one of the things I liked about Corbyn.

And it's also one of the most important reasons in my opinion for continued membership of the EU. There we can help drive the foreign policy towards our interests, and then have 27 other countries back us up in projecting those goals. And Britain has tended to be the most influential country in the EU on foreign policy questions.

(1) It's not possible to drive the EU foreign policy to suit our interests in the situation we existed in before, especially because we were half-way house with USA and EU. Now that being said, even if we were totally 'liberated' from Washington, our national interests are completely different to the national interests of the collected European countries. It's just geography. We can't be half-in the EU like we were before and enforce our national interests, it's impossible.

(2) On the other hand, Britain might actually be too culturally weak to enforce its own independent foreign policy and cultural, national interests (which I didn't realise while living abroad, honestly), in which case I agree best case option is to be absorbed into EU rather than USA, in which case the European Union's national interests would be our own and our strategic geography would change hugely, but better than being absorbed into USA.

There has been some hard-man talk by Brexitists about some kind of life and death struggle with the EU. It's a bit pointless. Brexit was a gamble. If it fails you have to accept the demographic change maturely because it's basically unfightable. The EU isn't that bad.

[Duhon]

I'm just gonna say that poll is poison, for lack of options other than variations on a very public seppuku.

[Nakena]

I'm just gonna say that poll is poison, for lack of options other than a variations on a very public seppuku.

The ironic twist is that Boris Johnson might become Prime Minister in the end, which was always his dream, but will be faced with so much awful stuff that he is not going to enjoy his likely also short time as PM.

[Duhon]

I'm just gonna say that poll is poison, for lack of options other than a variations on a very public seppuku.

The ironic twist is that Boris Johnson might become Prime Minister in the end, which was always his dream, but will be faced with so much awful stuff that he is not going to enjoy his likely also short time as PM.

This assumes the inevitable political and economic crash that follows a no-deal Brexit won't be to Boris' (or any other authoritarian fetishist's) advantage.

[Chan Island]

And it's also one of the most important reasons in my opinion for continued membership of the EU. There we can help drive the foreign policy towards our interests, and then have 27 other countries back us up in projecting those goals. And Britain has tended to be the most influential country in the EU on foreign policy questions.

(1) It's not possible to drive the EU foreign policy to suit our interests in the situation we existed in before, especially because we were half-way house with USA and EU. Now that being said, even if we were totally 'liberated' from Washington, our national interests are completely different to the national interests of the collected European countries. It's just geography. We can't be half-in the EU like we were before and enforce our national interests, it's impossible.

(2) On the other hand, Britain might actually be too culturally weak to enforce its own independent foreign policy and cultural, national interests (which I didn't realise while living abroad, honestly), in which case I agree best case option is to be absorbed into EU rather than USA, in which case the European Union's national interests would be our own and our strategic geography would change hugely, but better than being absorbed into USA.

There has been some hard-man talk by Brexitists about some kind of life and death struggle with the EU. It's a bit pointless. Brexit was a gamble. If it fails you have to accept the demographic change maturely because it's basically unfightable. The EU isn't that bad.

1) It not impossible, just difficult, and we did do so. The eastern expansion for example was actually opposed by France and Germany back in the early 1990s, but it was the British who brought them round to the plan. Britain was the biggest cheerleader for TTIP (until it was ultimately shot down by Belgium). I agree though that the half and half tightrope we were walking was not to our best interests, and we too often ended up just being the spokesmen in the EU for America's policies without questioning it.

2) You didn't realise Britain's cultural power while abroad? Where exactly were you? Because I strongly remember back in 08 talking to the tour guide in China and finding out that their favourite radio station was BBC World Service. And then when I briefly lived in Nepal, I regularly listened to the BBC world service on a little wind-up analogue. We have huge cultural power... but we're very weak on having an independent foreign policy.

Strangely, the culture we do project is too often more about America than it is about us. It's especially jarring when we focus on US cultural problems like homophobia or healthcare that really are not as obviously in need of addressing like they are there. Not that these aren't issues here too, but again, the framing and slogans are bizarrely US orientated.

As for the EU idea, I will happily say that that is likely the best route. Ultimately, we share more in common with the continent than we do with anywhere else (in terms of history, philosophy [according to surveys], ways of approaching world problems, economic focusses etc...). All we can hope though is that this Brexit gamble either gets us to better realise that, or miraculously turn out for the best for us after all.

[Nakena]

The ironic twist is that Boris Johnson might become Prime Minister in the end, which was always his dream, but will be faced with so much awful stuff that he is not going to enjoy his likely also short time as PM.

This assumes the inevitable political and economic crash that follows a no-deal Brexit won't be to Boris' (or any other authoritarian fetishist's) advantage.

Doubtful. If a crash happens it will be blamed on the tories who might subsequently be buried under it and disappear subsequently for an undefined amount of time. I've except that Labour under Corbyn is going to win the next election if it came down to that. And then there will be some socialism. Which may be not such a bad thing after all, given that the terribad record of thatcherism and blairism over the past 40(!) years...

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

(1) It's not possible to drive the EU foreign policy to suit our interests in the situation we existed in before, especially because we were half-way house with USA and EU. Now that being said, even if we were totally 'liberated' from Washington, our national interests are completely different to the national interests of the collected European countries. It's just geography. We can't be half-in the EU like we were before and enforce our national interests, it's impossible.

(2) On the other hand, Britain might actually be too culturally weak to enforce its own independent foreign policy and cultural, national interests (which I didn't realise while living abroad, honestly), in which case I agree best case option is to be absorbed into EU rather than USA, in which case the European Union's national interests would be our own and our strategic geography would change hugely, but better than being absorbed into USA.

There has been some hard-man talk by Brexitists about some kind of life and death struggle with the EU. It's a bit pointless. Brexit was a gamble. If it fails you have to accept the demographic change maturely because it's basically unfightable. The EU isn't that bad.

1) It not impossible, just difficult, and we did do so. The eastern expansion for example was actually opposed by France and Germany back in the early 1990s, but it was the British who brought them round to the plan. Britain was the biggest cheerleader for TTIP (until it was ultimately shot down by Belgium). I agree though that the half and half tightrope we were walking was not to our best interests, and we too often ended up just being the spokesmen in the EU for America's policies without questioning it.

2) You didn't realise Britain's cultural power while abroad? Where exactly were you? Because I strongly remember back in 08 talking to the tour guide in China and finding out that their favourite radio station was BBC World Service. And then when I briefly lived in Nepal, I regularly listened to the BBC world service on a little wind-up analogue. We have huge cultural power... but we're very weak on having an independent foreign policy.

As for the EU idea, I will happily say that that is likely the best route. Ultimately, we share more in common with the continent than we do with anywhere else (in terms of history, philosophy [according to surveys], ways of approaching world problems, economic focusses etc...). All we can hope though is that this Brexit gamble either gets us to better realise that, or miraculously turn out for the best for us after all.

(1) Some of what we did in the EU is kind of distorted by the need to balance membership of the EU with our national interest. Outside the EU, it's not in our national interest to expand the EU, but inside the EU it is, so the power of France and Germany is dispersed by introducing countries that will vote against them (ie Poland). Like I said earlier, our first and most important interest is related to the sea and our access to it. Our second most important interest is our access to markets abroad. Our third most important interest is energy security. Being a member of the EU doesn't help, makes all these national interests worse, and nothing we can do about it, but if we are part of the EU as a completely integrated country, those "interests" disappear, by nature of geography, and other interests re-appear, even if they look like similar form, such as energy security.

(2) No, you misread me. I said that Britain's own culture is too weak in its own country to carry out a fully independent foreign policy. Not that our cultural influence abroad is weak. We have huge cultural power, like you said, but we don't have an independent foreign policy because our people either feel like we shouldn't, or because they think that our policy is independent already when it isn't. We don't have the required gestalt.

Strangely, the culture we do project is too often more about America than it is about us. It's especially jarring when we focus on US cultural problems like homophobia or healthcare that really are not as obviously in need of addressing like they are there. Not that these aren't issues here too, but again, the framing and slogans are bizarrely US orientated.

Bingo. Sit on this. Our culture has become thoroughly Americanised (if a person can't see it, they're blind) even to the point that American political questions, more or less unique to America, are imported here and we try to solve them here.

[Chan Island]

1) It not impossible, just difficult, and we did do so. The eastern expansion for example was actually opposed by France and Germany back in the early 1990s, but it was the British who brought them round to the plan. Britain was the biggest cheerleader for TTIP (until it was ultimately shot down by Belgium). I agree though that the half and half tightrope we were walking was not to our best interests, and we too often ended up just being the spokesmen in the EU for America's policies without questioning it.

2) You didn't realise Britain's cultural power while abroad? Where exactly were you? Because I strongly remember back in 08 talking to the tour guide in China and finding out that their favourite radio station was BBC World Service. And then when I briefly lived in Nepal, I regularly listened to the BBC world service on a little wind-up analogue. We have huge cultural power... but we're very weak on having an independent foreign policy.

As for the EU idea, I will happily say that that is likely the best route. Ultimately, we share more in common with the continent than we do with anywhere else (in terms of history, philosophy [according to surveys], ways of approaching world problems, economic focusses etc...). All we can hope though is that this Brexit gamble either gets us to better realise that, or miraculously turn out for the best for us after all.

(1) Some of what we did in the EU is kind of distorted by the need to balance membership of the EU with our national interest. Outside the EU, it's not in our national interest to expand the EU, but inside the EU it is, so the power of France and Germany is dispersed by introducing countries that will vote against them (ie Poland). Like I said earlier, our first and most important interest is related to the sea and our access to it. Our second most important interest is our access to markets abroad. Our third most important interest is energy security. Being a member of the EU doesn't help, makes all these national interests worse, and nothing we can do about it, but if we are part of the EU as a completely integrated country, those "interests" disappear, by nature of geography, and other interests re-appear, even if they look like similar form, such as energy security.

(2) No, you misread me. I said that Britain's own culture is too weak in its own country to carry out a fully independent foreign policy. Not that our cultural influence abroad is weak. We have huge cultural power, like you said, but we don't have an independent foreign policy because our people either feel like we shouldn't, or because they think that our policy is independent already when it isn't. We don't have the required gestalt.

Strangely, the culture we do project is too often more about America than it is about us. It's especially jarring when we focus on US cultural problems like homophobia or healthcare that really are not as obviously in need of addressing like they are there. Not that these aren't issues here too, but again, the framing and slogans are bizarrely US orientated.

Bingo. Sit on this. Our culture has become thoroughly Americanised (if a person can't see it, they're blind) even to the point that American political questions, more or less unique to America, are imported here and we try to solve them here.

1) Yeah, that's true and don't have any serious quarrels with the first part of that statement. I would disagree with your idea that our membership is obstructing those 3 main objectives however, as membership of the EU allowed us completely unfettered access to the single richest market in the world. In fact, it allowed us to help forge the rules by which that market is governed, which is a juggernaut of a benefit in pursuit of objective 2. We also can use the bargaining power of the EU to negotiate terms with other markets on favourable terms.

2) Sorry for misreading you! Yes, I completely agree with you on that one.

[The Blaatschapen]

"I have no idea what I am doing" on national TV.
Mind you he's still gonna be ur PM in a few months unless you flee to Ireland. <.>
Can you apply for political asylum due to Brelol in the EU?

I could get Israeli citizenship, but then I'd have to live in Israel.

Better weather, better food.

[Nakena]

"I have no idea what I am doing" on national TV.
Mind you he's still gonna be ur PM in a few months unless you flee to Ireland. <.>
Can you apply for political asylum due to Brelol in the EU?

I could get Israeli citizenship, but then I'd have to live in Israel.

Do you have actually to live there or you can get it and retain the british one?

It can never harm to expand options.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

1) Yeah, that's true and don't have any serious quarrels with the first part of that statement. I would disagree with your idea that our membership is obstructing those 3 main objectives however, as membership of the EU allowed us completely unfettered access to the single richest market in the world. In fact, it allowed us to help forge the rules by which that market is governed, which is a juggernaut of a benefit in pursuit of objective 2. We also can use the bargaining power of the EU to negotiate terms with other markets on favourable terms.

It's true that the EU is a huge, almost self-sustaining market, but it's 700 million out of 7000 million. Being in it restricts our options outside of it and its rules are a bit inflexible, they don't necessarily allow us to be creative or ambitious with our industrial or trade policy. But it isn't the worst thing ever, like I said if we can't really be independent then joining EU is 2nd-best option, faux-independence ie US domination is not better.

[The Blaatschapen]

Our foreign policy is just as intertwined with Americas in 2019 as it was in 2009, 1999, 1989, 1979...

... and that is not a good thing considering how often America drags us into various wars that don't really serve our interests yet get Europe inundated with refugees fleeing the bombs. If anything, we should make moves to distance them.

Do you mean like South Korea does?

The situation isn't analogous, we don't border an enemy state with massed artillery trained at the capital.

Only because Macron won't less us place the artillery in Calais

[The Blaatschapen]

I voted the fifth option.

Not that I want Theresa back, but I simply don't care between Johnson and Hunt. Though I do think Johnson will win.

[Chan Island]

1) Yeah, that's true and don't have any serious quarrels with the first part of that statement. I would disagree with your idea that our membership is obstructing those 3 main objectives however, as membership of the EU allowed us completely unfettered access to the single richest market in the world. In fact, it allowed us to help forge the rules by which that market is governed, which is a juggernaut of a benefit in pursuit of objective 2. We also can use the bargaining power of the EU to negotiate terms with other markets on favourable terms.

It's true that the EU is a huge, almost self-sustaining market, but it's 700 million out of 7000 million. Being in it restricts our options outside of it and its rules are a bit inflexible, they don't necessarily allow us to be creative or ambitious with our industrial or trade policy. But it isn't the worst thing ever, like I said if we can't really be independent then joining EU is 2nd-best option, faux-independence ie US domination is not better.

Can't complain about that assessment too much so fair enough.

I voted the fifth option.

Not that I want Theresa back, but I simply don't care between Johnson and Hunt. Though I do think Johnson will win.

I think there should be an option in that poll that goes "OOOOH, JEREMY COR-BYN" or something.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Because for Putin it doesn't matter what he says to the media, he controls it. The election of Trump is the logical conclusion to running our society by media: ideologues who have no real qualification beyond the ability to write insipid things on the guardian, but are controlled by editors who are beyond the reach of criticism by virtue of not being able to be held accountable, decide the outcome of the nation: while being manipulated by people intelligent to know how to pull the levers of the system.

Then again, Churchill was the prototype for this sort, but he was also capable of genuine statesmanship. Ironically, this is one of the reasons I am so fond of Johnson, because he typifies the amateur: that which our entire system was designed to be operated by—as was Athens. I don't think him much of a 'toff', he isn't as blue-blooded as Cameron was, nor does he carry himself with the same well-oiled dignitas. There was a decent article in the London Review of Books recently about that generation.

The solution is either to make the media strictly controlled by law (which we would deem an unacceptable breach of our 'democratic principle'), or, I think a more elegant solution, by making the owners/directors of the newspapers and TV stations have to sit in Parliament or House of Lords and be held accountable by those august bodies. It happened in the 19th century, concurrent with the rise of the newspapers, but we now hold out for a more abstract relationship between information and the public.

I had to think a bit harder about this one.

I was just referring to the archetype of 'the toff', and of course, as with all archetypes, the truth is a little different. There's a few kinds of them and Cameron and Johnson, despite being contemporaries, are obviously in different categories. The main difference is that Cameron only wanted to do politics and Johnson doesn't care what he does, as long as it's a bit of banter. Right now he's into politics. If he got booted out he'd find something else to do with his time that is fun. I think Cameron is deeply upset and deeply disappointed with his career.

A dictator can say what they like when they control the media, but why is it that dictators almost always appear more sophisticated, more intelligent, more understanding of their country's position and heritage? Would you catch Putin, Assad, Xi Jinping say: our Army seized the airports in 1775! None of our leaders in the past forty years, not even the leaders of parties not in power, have done anything useful for their country, or for the world in general, and none have had any careers of any kind of interest or note.

Putin of course was an officer in Russian intelligence. Assad was a doctor in the Syrian armed services and later an ophthalmologist before being called to do a job he didn't actually want to do, ie govern his country. Xi Jinping worked his way up the state apparatus, spending time in all different parts of China, at every level of actual leadership, until finally becoming the leader of his country.

But we don't want a dictator like figure for our country, the last time we had that was 350 years ago. Our problem is that our democracy has become facile. The questions put to it are almost never questions of great national concern. They are usually attempts by politicians to 'get one over' on the other side. Since the post-war consensus the electorate has chosen Red Party to replace Blue Party when Blue Party has made a mistake or ruled for long enough, and then when the Reds do the same, they replace them with the Blues. The Reds never do anything wrong in the mind of the Red Party, and all its problems stem from the Blue Party; The blue's view is, suspiciously - precisely the same!

The cycle of one party being in power is just enough that they can realistically blame their problems on the prior party, but also can take credit for the prior party's successes too. Which Party you support depends on your parents and your peers, or where you were born, just like your football team, or it depends on what the incoming Party has promised you: a tax cut funded by borrowing, or free money taken from other people, and never, or rarely, an idea that is good for the whole country.

The idea of admitting that the other side didn't make all the mistakes and you fixed them is probably alien to our politicians.

Recently I watched an interview with Shinzo Abe in which he says: our country has some serious problems, we are trying to fix them, but it is difficult. We failed in some things, but we will try again. There is a level of honesty. Similarly just now I read a translation of a Xi Jinping speech in which he more or less says look, the road to building our country will be a long and hard road, but it is worth doing. We have to build our country based on the historical conditions of our people and not from any imported ideas. It might take tens of generations to build communism - it has only been some seventy since Confucius!

It would be refreshing to hear from our leaders some understanding of history, our country's place in the world, our problems, interests, and what we can do together, as one United Kingdom to fix them, but we will never hear that, ever, from nobody. We need a better calibre of leaders but we do not want to be ruled by one leader who shuts down any kind of debate. We have a few options, here is one that I think is perhaps unique and agreeable: reverse the Parliament. The country would be governed by the House of Lords, ie they would form the cabinet and they would form and pass and debate legislation, and the House of Commons would exist only to veto the House of Lords, which of course could eventually just overturn the Commons, as the Commons can now do to the Lords. The Lords can be responsible for the selection of new Lords. Allow the Crown to actually refuse assent to bills that it doesn't like.

It should be illegal, with minimum jail time sentences, to print things in a newspaper that are not true and to pass them off as being true, even if the editor or journalist think that they are true, responsibility in law should be to both the journalist and editor. After the prison sentence those journalists or editors should be stripped of the right to publish anything, in newspapers, in books, in blogs, and prevented from appearing on television or radio shows. Anything they have written prior should be struck from the public record. Their work will become memoriae damnatio, although they will be free to do any other kind of work where they can utilise their skills, perhaps as estate agents.

These convictions should accompany very punitive fines on newspapers or news channels. These crimes should be investigated and prosecuted not by the Crown Prosecution Service, but by an independent omsbudsman, perhaps we will call him the Liefinder-General, appointed by the Crown.

[Ostroeuropa]

UK: Court of Appeal Holds Men on Shared Parental Leave Can Be Paid Less than Women on Maternity Leave.

That's thanks to the equalities act 2010.

So can we stop pretending the wage gap is down to hating women now and acknowledge it's the result of female privilege literally enshrined in the law as this case shows?

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/uk-co ... red-99942/

Note as well that the law is explicit in that it protects women from being negatively impacted from pregnancy, AND also protects privileges afforded to them as a result of pregnancy. It is not a matter of deciding pregnancy should be evaluated as a different situation requiring different treatment, but rather, a woman is simultaneously to be treated exactly the same as a man when it suits her and her pregnancy should be viewed as irrelevant, and different when it suits here where suddenly her pregnancy matters. Peak feminism right there.

Furthermore, this incident properly frames feminist organized gaslighting of the public on the issue of the wage gap for what it is; perpetrators blaming their victims. The wage gap could be closed if female privilege were abandoned, but this is alien to the feminist worldview which has only recently in some isolated cases been dragged kicking and screaming into admitting such a thing even exists. So instead, the underclass is abused and told they are oppressing women for the negative consequences of womens own privilege eventually giving them a theoretical (not practical) disadvantage, and the proposed solution is to simply pay women more than a man would be worth in the same situation. (I.E, having taken a large portion of time off work.). Or you could say, to ignore female privilege, frame difference as necessarily resulting from misogyny because that's all they are capable of, and to fix it, demand we "Empower women" (demand even more female privilege.).

This is the pathological cycle our society has fallen into whenever we listen to feminists on any issue. It happened with DV, rape, and now this.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Meninism is a weird inversion of feminism, recognising all its problems but simultaneously demanding their imposition on men as well as women.

Here's what's weird: despite offering good (by international rates) maternity leave, good (up until recently) benefits for married people with children, despite education and healthcare being more or less free, British people still don't marry and have enough children to replace the country's population.

Meninism is a fake solution because men can not have children with one another. Men and women have to have children together and raise those children. Gender warfare is a terrible, terrible thing.