UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash

[Ostroeuropa]

That would also be breaking the law, as IIRC that has to be done via referendum.

Boris could just withdraw all police and military from the rock and let the Spanish move in. Would the UK go to war against Spain and the EU just to preserve the rule of law ? Because once the Spanish occupy it they wont withdraw without a fight.

The Spanish are not going to occupy the rock and if they did the EU would not defend them.

[Greed and Death]

Boris could just withdraw all police and military from the rock and let the Spanish move in. Would the UK go to war against Spain and the EU just to preserve the rule of law ? Because once the Spanish occupy it they wont withdraw without a fight.

The Spanish are not going to occupy the rock and if they did the EU would not defend them.

They have never abandoned their claim to the rock and if the head of the UK government says its ok its not an invasion.

Sure it would violate UK law, but Spain is not responsible for that. International law generally allows governments to rely on what the head of government or state says.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Extinction Rebellion would get a fuckload more done if they escalated tbh. They've got a lot of public support, disseminating an instruction that; "No Juror should convict any person of any crime committed against a business owner of the following businesses, the following politicians, or journalists of the following papers and programmes" and that'd pretty immediately provoke hysteria from the elites as well as actual rebellion which they would not be able to handle without abolishing jury duty and cracking down.

If even 10% of the country is on board with that action, that's it. The targetted individuals are effectively outlaws and persona non grata and no jury will find a guilty verdict against people who commit crimes against them.

The people who have destroyed our planet have names.
They have addresses.

We should act like it.

250,000 deaths per year, as of this moment, are their responsibility.

Most people are not going to be on board with going out to smashy smashy personally, but "I didn't see nuthin, that evidence could have been planted, you can't prove otherwise" is in line with peoples "I'm willing to do that" a lot more.

Currently they're going around shutting down roads and so on through non compliance and protest. Fuck that. Shut down the judiciary through non compliance and protest. Destroy their ability to protect their lives and property and place them into a climate of fear. The judiciary is the one place the majority has power over this jumped up minority of oligarchs if we decide to exercise it.

These individuals have no rights which we are required to respect if we decide not to cooperate.

https://youtu.be/BlxUmrPH2d4

+

Top Comment.
You don't have to be Dr Cox. You don't even have to advocate it. Just advocate "I didn't see it.".

There's a certain poetic irony to ignoring harm despite all evidence.

Do not weaponise the judiciary. You have no qualification to be the judge of anybody without hearing the case first, or to put people on a list of people who do not have basic rights. A well-functioning justice system is necessary if we are going to safeguard everybodys rights and treat people equally; our justice system is not functioning well but that isn't an opportunity to go and make it worse.

[Ostroeuropa]

Extinction Rebellion would get a fuckload more done if they escalated tbh. They've got a lot of public support, disseminating an instruction that; "No Juror should convict any person of any crime committed against a business owner of the following businesses, the following politicians, or journalists of the following papers and programmes" and that'd pretty immediately provoke hysteria from the elites as well as actual rebellion which they would not be able to handle without abolishing jury duty and cracking down.

If even 10% of the country is on board with that action, that's it. The targetted individuals are effectively outlaws and persona non grata and no jury will find a guilty verdict against people who commit crimes against them.

The people who have destroyed our planet have names.
They have addresses.

We should act like it.

250,000 deaths per year, as of this moment, are their responsibility.

Most people are not going to be on board with going out to smashy smashy personally, but "I didn't see nuthin, that evidence could have been planted, you can't prove otherwise" is in line with peoples "I'm willing to do that" a lot more.

Currently they're going around shutting down roads and so on through non compliance and protest. Fuck that. Shut down the judiciary through non compliance and protest. Destroy their ability to protect their lives and property and place them into a climate of fear. The judiciary is the one place the majority has power over this jumped up minority of oligarchs if we decide to exercise it.

These individuals have no rights which we are required to respect if we decide not to cooperate.

https://youtu.be/BlxUmrPH2d4

+

Top Comment.
You don't have to be Dr Cox. You don't even have to advocate it. Just advocate "I didn't see it.".

There's a certain poetic irony to ignoring harm despite all evidence.

Do not weaponise the judiciary. You have no qualification to be the judge of anybody without hearing the case first, or to put people on a list of people who do not have basic rights. A well-functioning justice system is necessary if we are going to safeguard everybodys rights and treat people equally; our justice system is not functioning well but that isn't an opportunity to go and make it worse.

Hostis Humani Generis dude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis

These people have captured the state and there's no particular reason to submit to its authority on this matter. 250,000 people a year are dying due to the actions of these individuals, and every human being is going to be a victim of them if we don't do something about it. Again, we don't need to advocate violence or anything like that. Just expel them from our protection.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Do not weaponise the judiciary. You have no qualification to be the judge of anybody without hearing the case first, or to put people on a list of people who do not have basic rights. A well-functioning justice system is necessary if we are going to safeguard everybodys rights and treat people equally; our justice system is not functioning well but that isn't an opportunity to go and make it worse.

Hostis Humani Generis dude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis

These people have captured the state and there's no particular reason to submit to its authority on this matter. 250,000 people a year are dying due to the actions of these individuals, and every human being is going to be a victim of them if we don't do something about it. Again, we don't need to advocate violence or anything like that. Just expel them from our protection.

The rule of law demands that the law protects everybody. It isn't something to be trifled with for political reasons.

[Ostroeuropa]

Hostis Humani Generis dude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis

These people have captured the state and there's no particular reason to submit to its authority on this matter. 250,000 people a year are dying due to the actions of these individuals, and every human being is going to be a victim of them if we don't do something about it. Again, we don't need to advocate violence or anything like that. Just expel them from our protection.

The rule of law demands that the law protects everybody. It isn't something to be trifled with for political reasons.

Sometimes the rule of law fails and we need to opt for emergency measures that suspend it. Our society already accepts this principle with martial law. It is merely that this particular example of the rule of law failing is a new one, and requires a new response.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The rule of law demands that the law protects everybody. It isn't something to be trifled with for political reasons.

Sometimes the rule of law fails and we need to opt for emergency measures that suspend it. Our society already accepts this principle with martial law. It is merely that this particular example of the rule of law failing is a new one, and requires a new response.

Martial law is a pretty unacceptable proposition as well. The rule of law is important because it applies to everybody. If it becomes commonplace to suspend it for certain individuals, who's to say you won't end up on someones outlaw list in the future? Let's not hand protest movements the right to outlaw people.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sometimes the rule of law fails and we need to opt for emergency measures that suspend it. Our society already accepts this principle with martial law. It is merely that this particular example of the rule of law failing is a new one, and requires a new response.

Martial law is a pretty unacceptable proposition as well. The rule of law is important because it applies to everybody. If it becomes commonplace to suspend it for certain individuals, who's to say you won't end up on someones outlaw list in the future? Let's not hand protest movements the right to outlaw people.

These are the principles that led us to ecological collapse. They don't work.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Martial law is a pretty unacceptable proposition as well. The rule of law is important because it applies to everybody. If it becomes commonplace to suspend it for certain individuals, who's to say you won't end up on someones outlaw list in the future? Let's not hand protest movements the right to outlaw people.

These are the principles that led us to ecological collapse. They don't work.

The principal of the rule of law doesn't cause climate change, I'm pretty sure on that one.

[Ostroeuropa]

These are the principles that led us to ecological collapse. They don't work.

The principal of the rule of law doesn't cause climate change, I'm pretty sure on that one.

Unfortunately it seems to do so since the upper classes benefit from pollution and the upper classes decide the laws. Alternatively, we could just abolish the upper classes and seize their money and power. Then the rule of law might function properly and be able to prevent climate change.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Another option would be giving Akrotiri to Cyprus and the Channel Islands to France.
Or Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. That would solve the backstop, wouldn't it?

Let the Irish deal with the revolting Oranges.

No see we are supposedly part of your country, so enjoy.

[Farnhamia]

Get the Challenger 2s and the Warriors for them, its a fucking disgrace what they are doing.

edit 17:34: no i am not serious

*** For trolling but really more not getting it, after seven years here, that not everyone gets your jokes unless you telegraph them blatantly ***

[Dooom35796821595]

The principal of the rule of law doesn't cause climate change, I'm pretty sure on that one.

Unfortunately it seems to do so since the upper classes benefit from pollution and the upper classes decide the laws. Alternatively, we could just abolish the upper classes and seize their money and power. Then the rule of law might function properly and be able to prevent climate change.

What utter nonsense. You realise the UK, despite all the whining hippies is a world leader on reducing emissions? That we’re committed to doing so in a sensible and gradual way?

But yeah, let’s turn our economy on its head and set the nation on fire because some protesters don’t understand how things work.

[Agarntrop]

Unfortunately it seems to do so since the upper classes benefit from pollution and the upper classes decide the laws. Alternatively, we could just abolish the upper classes and seize their money and power. Then the rule of law might function properly and be able to prevent climate change.

What utter nonsense. You realise the UK, despite all the whining hippies is a world leader on reducing emissions? That we’re committed to doing so in a sensible and gradual way?

But yeah, let’s turn our economy on its head and set the nation on fire because some protesters don’t understand how things work.

World leader in reducing emissions? Yeah, more like world leader in outsourcing emitting businesses to China. We don't need another Tory propaganda shill, thanks.

[Dooom35796821595]

What utter nonsense. You realise the UK, despite all the whining hippies is a world leader on reducing emissions? That we’re committed to doing so in a sensible and gradual way?

But yeah, let’s turn our economy on its head and set the nation on fire because some protesters don’t understand how things work.

World leader in reducing emissions? Yeah, more like world leader in outsourcing emitting businesses to China. We don't need another Tory propaganda shill, thanks.

And China is also serious about reducing emissions, because they know they’ll suffer a lot if they don’t.

But hey, why look at facts and evidence when you have appeals to emotion?

[Salandriagado]

Unfortunately it seems to do so since the upper classes benefit from pollution and the upper classes decide the laws. Alternatively, we could just abolish the upper classes and seize their money and power. Then the rule of law might function properly and be able to prevent climate change.

What utter nonsense. You realise the UK, despite all the whining hippies is a world leader on reducing emissions? That we’re committed to doing so in a sensible and gradual way?

But yeah, let’s turn our economy on its head and set the nation on fire because some protesters don’t understand how things work.

Us being a world leader doesn't mean that we're doing well: it means that other countries are doing worse. And "sensible and gradual" here means "too slowly to have any actual effect". "Sensible and gradual" would have been a solid option 40 years ago, when the big oil companies became aware that they were causing a global catastrophe.and covered it up. Now, it's far too late.

[Salandriagado]

World leader in reducing emissions? Yeah, more like world leader in outsourcing emitting businesses to China. We don't need another Tory propaganda shill, thanks.

And China is also serious about reducing emissions, because they know they’ll suffer a lot if they don’t.

But hey, why look at facts and evidence when you have appeals to emotion?

"Building coal-fired power stations" is not compatible with "serious about reducing emissions".

[Dooom35796821595]

What utter nonsense. You realise the UK, despite all the whining hippies is a world leader on reducing emissions? That we’re committed to doing so in a sensible and gradual way?

But yeah, let’s turn our economy on its head and set the nation on fire because some protesters don’t understand how things work.

Us being a world leader doesn't mean that we're doing well: it means that other countries are doing worse. And "sensible and gradual" here means "too slowly to have any actual effect". "Sensible and gradual" would have been a solid option 40 years ago, when the big oil companies became aware that they were causing a global catastrophe.and covered it up. Now, it's far too late.

Ah well, if it’s too late then we may as well give up and reopen all the coal plants then.

[Agarntrop]

World leader in reducing emissions? Yeah, more like world leader in outsourcing emitting businesses to China. We don't need another Tory propaganda shill, thanks.

And China is also serious about reducing emissions, because they know they’ll suffer a lot if they don’t.

But hey, why look at facts and evidence when you have appeals to emotion?

China has prioritised developing its economy over all so dosen't give a shit about emissions.

[Dooom35796821595]

And China is also serious about reducing emissions, because they know they’ll suffer a lot if they don’t.

But hey, why look at facts and evidence when you have appeals to emotion?

"Building coal-fired power stations" is not compatible with "serious about reducing emissions".

China is an Oligarchy, it’s a complex power game. But new coal plants are less polluting then old ones, and as long as they keep shifting it’ll balance out.

[Salandriagado]

Us being a world leader doesn't mean that we're doing well: it means that other countries are doing worse. And "sensible and gradual" here means "too slowly to have any actual effect". "Sensible and gradual" would have been a solid option 40 years ago, when the big oil companies became aware that they were causing a global catastrophe.and covered it up. Now, it's far too late.

Ah well, if it’s too late then we may as well give up and reopen all the coal plants then.

Too late for a slow and gradual transition, and too late to make this go well. There's still a wide range of how bad it will be. The objective here is to avoid "end of global human civilization", and keep it to just "really bad".

[Salandriagado]

"Building coal-fired power stations" is not compatible with "serious about reducing emissions".

China is an Oligarchy, it’s a complex power game. But new coal plants are less polluting then old ones, and as long as they keep shifting it’ll balance out.

Yeah, no. That's just not how basic physics works.

[Dooom35796821595]

China is an Oligarchy, it’s a complex power game. But new coal plants are less polluting then old ones, and as long as they keep shifting it’ll balance out.

Yeah, no. That's just not how basic physics works.

They’re also opening new nuclear plants and solar farms, shifting the bulk to renewable, but since their economy is growing its harder then it would be for a developed country, like the US. Who is taking the lead on...on no, they’re doing terrible.

[Philjia]

China is an Oligarchy, it’s a complex power game. But new coal plants are less polluting then old ones, and as long as they keep shifting it’ll balance out.

Yeah, no. That's just not how basic physics works.

More efficient furnaces and turbines can allow for the same electricity generation from less coal and with fewer particulate emissions due to more complete combustion, although increased demand tends to mitigate any benefits this brings about. (This is Jevon's paradox)

[Shrillland]

Yeah, no. That's just not how basic physics works.

More efficient furnaces and turbines can allow for the same electricity generation from less coal and with fewer particulate emissions due to more complete combustion, although increased demand tends to mitigate any benefits this brings about. (This is Jevon's paradox)

And that's why the solution is a lovely blend of solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear energy.