UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Albennia]

This, after all, is the government that shouts "parliamentary sovereignty" while denying MPs the power to scrutinise trade deals.

I have of course proposed my own solution to this problem, which is to scrap the current executive system and instead give executive power directly to Parliament.

[Chan Island]

And Tory fascism continues

A suspicious as hell move. To be condemned.

[Alvecia]

How is restricting the press not fascism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
It is a common component. If I have a phone battery, does that mean I have a phone?

Actually, it would be a reasonable conclusion to make.
True the ownership of a phone battery does not necessarily mean that you 100% have a phone, but the likelihood is high enough that pointing that out is more akin to a squabble over semantics.

[Cekoviu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
It is a common component. If I have a phone battery, does that mean I have a phone?

Actually, it would be a reasonable conclusion to make.
True the ownership of a phone battery does not necessarily mean that you 100% have a phone, but the likelihood is high enough that pointing that out is more akin to a squabble over semantics.

Fair, but the point is that I don't definitely have a phone by virtue of having a phone battery. Maybe I just like collecting phone batteries.

[Celritannia]

-Ignore-

[Celritannia]

-ignore-

[Celritannia]

-ignore-

[Celritannia]

How is restricting the press not fascism?

Because regimes who aren't fascist also have press restrictions. It's a non sequitur. That the press is being restricted to some minor extent, and that fascist countries had (much more severe!) press restrictions does not mean that the decision makes the Tories fascist. Fascism doesn't follow from the premise here anymore than it does - for example - from the fact that both we and Nazi Germany had restrictions on private gun ownership or that both we and Hitler like dogs.

That not a good comparison.
Fire arm restrictions are not fascist.

But refusing to allow the media to criticise the government is certainly a fascist element.

[Cekoviu]

Holy shit, how did you manage to accidentally quadruple post?

[Novus America]

That's not fascism.

How is restricting the press not fascism?

Because although most Fascists want to restrict the press, most who want to restrict the press are not in fact Fascist.

Fascism also generally supports infrastructure spending. That does not make infrastructure spending Fascist.

[Celritannia]

Holy shit, how did you manage to accidentally quadruple post?

I don't even know
I'll have to check my internet connection.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Because regimes who aren't fascist also have press restrictions. It's a non sequitur. That the press is being restricted to some minor extent, and that fascist countries had (much more severe!) press restrictions does not mean that the decision makes the Tories fascist. Fascism doesn't follow from the premise here anymore than it does - for example - from the fact that both we and Nazi Germany had restrictions on private gun ownership or that both we and Hitler like dogs.

That not a good comparison.
Fire arm restrictions are not fascist.

But refusing to allow the media to criticise the government is certainly a fascist element.

Some people would argue firearm restrictions are fascist. From what I've heard, it's a common talking point across the pond. It's stupid, but then so is this.

Nobody is claiming that the government is refusing to allow the media to criticise the government. A dozen journalists from major organisations of various political colours were invited to a briefing. Some uninvited people turned up, and weren't let in. Not letting people who aren't invited into the briefing when apparently they usually used to be arguably represents a restriction on the ability of minor outlets to report. On the other hand everyone will eventually hear what the briefing said when it gets reported and everyone is still entitled to their editorial stance so its small beans on its own. So painting it as even a "fascist element" is such a hysteric overreaction that it's sort of hilarious.

Don't get me wrong there may be grounds for concern with the move, but it's got nothing whatsoever to do with fascism. Suggesting that it does lets the government off the hook because everyone just starts laughing, which makes it really difficult to have a serious discussion.

[Gormwood]

And Tory fascism continues

Imagine if brexit somehow led to a Britain similar to the one in V is for Vendetta

It'll be time to worry when Stephen Fry gets the shit beat out of him.

[Novus America]

Because regimes who aren't fascist also have press restrictions. It's a non sequitur. That the press is being restricted to some minor extent, and that fascist countries had (much more severe!) press restrictions does not mean that the decision makes the Tories fascist. Fascism doesn't follow from the premise here anymore than it does - for example - from the fact that both we and Nazi Germany had restrictions on private gun ownership or that both we and Hitler like dogs.

That not a good comparison.
Fire arm restrictions are not fascist.

But refusing to allow the media to criticise the government is certainly a fascist element.

Not really. It is an authoritarian element, and fascists are just one flavor of authoritarian.

[Alvecia]

Actually, it would be a reasonable conclusion to make.
True the ownership of a phone battery does not necessarily mean that you 100% have a phone, but the likelihood is high enough that pointing that out is more akin to a squabble over semantics.

Fair, but the point is that I don't definitely have a phone by virtue of having a phone battery. Maybe I just like collecting phone batteries.

Yeah, but you're just repeating the point you made initially.
That there's a small chance you're just a battery collector doesn't invalidate the presumption that you own a phone.
The overwhelming amount of people that do own phone batteries do so because they own a phone. It's a reasonable assumption to make.

[Alvecia]

That not a good comparison.
Fire arm restrictions are not fascist.

But refusing to allow the media to criticise the government is certainly a fascist element.

Not really. It is an authoritarian element, and fascists are just one flavor of authoritarian.

It might not be your intention, but being overly semantical about this comes across as trying to downplay the situation.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Not really. It is an authoritarian element, and fascists are just one flavor of authoritarian.

It might not be your intention, but being overly semantical about this comes across as trying to downplay the situation.

Or counter the dramatic overplaying in the hope that it gets dialed back down to the point where a reasonable conversation can be had. Dropping the fashtag in this context is so ridiculous that addressing it is sort of unavoidable before any real analysis can start?

[Novus America]

Not really. It is an authoritarian element, and fascists are just one flavor of authoritarian.

It might not be your intention, but being overly semantical about this comes across as trying to downplay the situation.

I just do not like Fascism being thrown around as a political slur, it makes the term meaningless.
Although Fascism is a type of authoritarianism Fascism and and authoritarianism are not synonymous because most authoritarians are of a different type of authoritarian and thus not Fascists.

[Alvecia]

It might not be your intention, but being overly semantical about this comes across as trying to downplay the situation.

I just do not like Fascism being thrown around as a political slur, it makes the term meaningless.
Although Fascism is a type of authoritarianism Fascism and and authoritarianism are not synonymous because most authoritarians are of a different type of authoritarian and thus not Fascists.

Fascism is probably the most well know form of authoritarianism, and for Joe Blog on the street, the two are synonymous.
I don't think the term is meaningless, it just has a different meaning in the dictionary than it does colloquially. A distinction that only really matters in dissertations and on internet forums.

[Novus America]

I just do not like Fascism being thrown around as a political slur, it makes the term meaningless.
Although Fascism is a type of authoritarianism Fascism and and authoritarianism are not synonymous because most authoritarians are of a different type of authoritarian and thus not Fascists.

Fascism is probably the most well know form of authoritarianism, and for Joe Blog on the street, the two are synonymous.
I don't think the term is meaningless, it just has a different meaning in the dictionary than it does colloquially. A distinction that only really matters in dissertations and on internet forums.

Just because the average person might be ignorant of nuance does not mean we should be.
I mean by that meaning most Marxist Leninists are Fascists.

Just because a lot of people use Fascism as a general slur does not make it correct.

[The New California Republic]

Imagine if brexit somehow led to a Britain similar to the one in V is for Vendetta

It'll be time to worry when Stephen Fry gets the shit beat out of him.

It'd be time to start making erotica-filled secret rooms.

[Alvecia]

It might not be your intention, but being overly semantical about this comes across as trying to downplay the situation.

Or counter the dramatic overplaying in the hope that it gets dialed back down to the point where a reasonable conversation can be had. Dropping the fashtag in this context is so ridiculous that addressing it is sort of unavoidable before any real analysis can start?

The objection to the use of said term is what is holding back the conversation now. You've become what you feared most.

Who's the one really dramatically overplaying?
The one who thinks restricting freedom of the press is "a bit fascist", or the person who think the conversation is going to immediately devolve into calling the Tory's literal Nazi's as result

[Ifreann]

It'll be time to worry when Stephen Fry gets the shit beat out of him.

It'd be time to start making erotica-filled secret rooms.

Yes...start...
>.>
<.<

[Alvecia]

Fascism is probably the most well know form of authoritarianism, and for Joe Blog on the street, the two are synonymous.
I don't think the term is meaningless, it just has a different meaning in the dictionary than it does colloquially. A distinction that only really matters in dissertations and on internet forums.

Just because the average person might be ignorant of nuance does not mean we should be.
I mean by that meaning most Marxist Leninists are Fascists.

Just because a lot of people use Fascism as a general slur does not make it correct.

Sometimes having a discussion meaning ignoring the ignorance of others.
Very little will get talked about if you spend the entire conversation correcting the other person.
Alternatively, you could accept that you both know what the other means when they say "that's a bit fascist", and actually get down to talking about it.

[Definitely Not Trumptonium]

Not really - Gibraltar follows the rather ironic pattern wherein the regions of the UK who least trade with the EU are those most inclined to support Remain.

Once you look at Gibraltar's economy you realise they will be the least affected from Brexit. Exports make up less than 10% of Gibraltar's economy, while UK military presence makes up about 10% as well. Tourism is about 10% as well, the other quarter-third is domestic consumption, and the rest is a vibrant financial and gambling sector, which is mostly based on the UK economy (e.g. bet365, entirely based in Gibraltar)

One of the main sectors of the economy is the shipping trade, which will no doubt be negatively affected if Gibraltar is excluded from any trade deal. Coupled with the fact that Gibraltar gets over 50% of its imports from EU nations.

Shipping doesn't make up that much of their economy. Also much of it is repairs and bunkering (fueling) which is international and the EU has nothing to do with it.

Gibraltar's shipping exports are 20% of exports, and in turn exports make up 7% of Gibraltar's economy. That's very small.

Imports? That's a domestic UK decision, not an EU one. I dont understand why people keep mentioning imports as a problem in the same virtue as exports. The UK decides its import tariffs, not other countries. Considering that Gibraltar in international laws isn't even part of the UK, it doesn't even need to follow UK import tariff schedule. In fact Gibraltar is the only BOT which is in a customs union with the UK. It can easily leave, and have 0% tariffs on everything (which would be even better than they have it right now), considering they export next to nothing so their industry won't be remotely hindered.

Eg Bermuda and Gibraltar are identical in international law and in their relationship to the UK - they are both British Overseas Territories. Only Gibraltar is in a customs union with the UK (and by extension, with the EU) and hence have the same tariffs.

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/stati ... /E28_E.pdf
https://www.gov.bm/sites/default/files/ ... f-2019.pdf

Bermuda vs. Gibraltar tariffs. Totally different. In actual fact, tariffs are important for Bermuda. In 2015/16 fiscal year, government revenues were $935 million, of which custom duties were $198 million.

Compare that to the UK receiving 3.5 billion in tariffs last year [x], out of almost 800 billion pounds in revenue. I don't think I need to do maths for you to see the % difference.

It's up to Gibraltar to do what they want regading tariffs, as it is up to the UK. EU doesn't decide anything about domestic consumer prices.