Sure, go for it.
Printable View
Sure, go for it.
Pretty disgraceful, really - which is I'm sure what Furunculus means - but he also means that if you don't get your polling card you need to follow up. Yes, it's the Council's responsibility not to screw up, but if you think they have you have a responsibility to complain before Polling Day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
apparently the problem relates to Article 9 of Directive 93/109/EC.
doesn't absolve the council from:
failing to send us an ec1 form.
losing the first one we sent in.
How do you feel about the 80-year-ol army veteran who got "Milkshaked" for wearing a Brexit Party rossette?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Not something I'd do. But then, milkshaking Farage isn't something I'd do either. The latter is only notable because of the militant language he'd been using to describe what he'd do for Brexit, in comparison with him taking legal action against someone throwing a milkshake over him. Milkshaking anyone is wrong. But Farage is a hypocrite, which is more wrong, probably the greatest fault a politician can have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
And as expected, May is gone. The next PM, who will not have a Parliamentary majority, will be a hard line Brexiteer. We are looking at no deal or thereabouts.
Should have passed the deal.
Do you blame the ERG as well? After all, they voted against too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
It is a shame to hear that the poor gentleman was subjected to that. Was reading yesterday about a remainer with a sign saying "I believe Brexit will be bad, Change my mind" who had a drink thrown at him and attacked by a flagpole as he was surrounded with chants of "Traitor".Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
It is awful what behaviours people lower themselves too and all examples should be challenged.
I am simply glad it hasn't reached the heights of last time when Jo Cox got shot.
Someone who threw a milshake at me would get a punch in the face.
Pan - yes.
Let's not forget this gem from May: "No deal is better than a bad deal." You voted for Brexit without a manifesto to be held to (eg. Farage touted Norway as a good model). And now we're getting Brexit. Own responsibility for it and its consequences. This is nowt to do with Remainers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
No deal IS better than a bad deal.
There is no logical link between what I have said and your rince cyle repeat claim that Remainers have no blame and that "I must own" brexit.
It was an acceptable deal, we should vote for it.
I will hold parliaments face to the grindstone until I get what I want, even if that means no deal.
But I have without fail defended and advocated on behalf of the deal.
you will get no mea culpa from me.
Is the current deal we have within the EU a bad deal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Sounds familiar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
It's not amusing, conservatives. :worried:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
FWIW, I think that anyone throwing stuff at politicians deserve on the spot retaliation. It was the case with John Prescott, it's the case now. However, Prescott did not blow himself up to be a macho militant. That's why people sympathised with Prescott when he punched the egg thrower. He's just an ordinary bloke who had an egg thrown at him, and he reacted understandably. Farage, OTOH, ramped up the language, saying that he'd bring a rifle to enact Brexit if necessary (remember Jo Cox MP, a Remainer, was shot dead in the original referendum campaign). Then when someone threw a milkshake on him, he pressed charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I don't mind that much when politicians make mistakes, or do stuff I disagree with. They are decisionmakers, and when you make decisions, sooner or later one of them will be wrong. But hypocrisy is unforgivable. That's do as I say, not as I do. That's Farage acting militant, then taking offence when someone does a very mild version of what he's advocated to him. That's Redwood saying that Brexit will benefit the UK, then advising his rich friends not to invest in the UK because Brexit will be bad for the economy. That's Farage saying that he will fight for Britain, but never bothering to turn up to any of the votes involving British issues. That's Farage not doing any of the work as an MEP, yet claiming all the salary paid to an MEP for doing that work. That's Farage saying that a 52-48 victory for Remain will not be the end of the argument, yet claiming exactly that when his side won by that exact margin.
Why do I quote all these examples of Brexiteer politicians? Because Brexit has normalised the corruption of UK politics, and Leave supporters will praise it nonetheless because they are on the winning side. I support moderate politics that takes the losing side into account, accepts opposing views without vilifying it as treason, and I support arguments based on evidence and reason. Because of that, I hate Corbyn. But Brexit is a much more extreme version of all Corbyn's faults.
"Leave supporters will praise it nonetheless..." And you support moderate politics after branding everyone that disagrees ipso facto an extremist... Personally I would say I am a Globalist and I am against the UK being forced into one clique at the expense of all other important power blocks.
For Corbyn, Brexit is only the prelude before he really destroys the country. I don't know how far he'd get before they'd be an uproar and the pound massively devalues.
~:smoking:
to what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
it was unnacceptable before the renegotiation .Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
it was unnacceptable after the renegotiation .
i want the deal, but ill have no deal rather than remain.
i believe we have covered these points on a number of occasions.
Moderate politics is politics that takes the views of the minority into account without deeming them traitors. Moderate politics is politics that respects unwritten but well-established custom. The vast majority of politics before Brexit could be described as moderate politics. Brexit politics has become what people can get away with.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Here we go. This is what Brexit is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBqfuUiBpXsQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What I quoted there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Yeah, There's also the Chretien incident in Canada, though the protester wasn't even doing anything in particular. When I first saw the video many years ago, all I perceived was the comedic and ridiculous aspect of a head of government going Mr. Hyde on a random schlemiel. It takes a more ominous cast these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Mmmmmmm - can we at least agree that staining someone's jacket is not an "attempted assassination" deserving of violently forceful retaliation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Anyway, it appears Farage is attempting to enforce a milkshake-prohibition zone within his vicinity.
Or is it the British police being proactive? Definitely a very British form of prohibition.Quote:
Police asked a McDonald's in Edinburgh not to sell ice cream or milkshakes during a rally run by Nigel Farage.
As hundreds of Brexit Party supporters joined a rally led by Mr Farage at Edinburgh's Corn Exchange, the nearby branch of the fast food chain avoided selling the products - to prevent a repeat of recent dairy-based attacks.
I dont see the parallel between objecting to an assault, and some tangent to far right politics. the act itself is apolitical .
You can talk to him about it at the annual Margaret Thatcher Conference soon: https://www.facebook.com/CentreforPo...type=3&theaterQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Debate the pros and cons, read some think tank studies about the wonders of privatization.
As the EU has demonstrated, just because one side wants to negotiate something doesn't mean the other side has to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
A healthcare system where the state and private providers also are involved?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Like the service in France, Germany and Italy - y'know, most of the countries in the EU.
Oh, yes and of course as is already the case in the UK - almost all GPs are private companies under NHS contract.
~:smoking:
Post-Brexit, we will have a Tory government backed (driven?) by the Brexit party. Most of the decisionmakers, such as the favourite to be PM post-May and the head of the Brexit party whom people like IA adore, are firmly in the Trump camp. So when we lose our bargaining power due to exit from a powerful bloc, and the decisionmakers are inclined to support the above, why do you think we won't negotiate with the US on those terms? Farage, likely to be kingmaker, actively supports dismantling the NHS in favour of the US model. Johnson, likely to become PM, is the favoured candidate of Trump. They're the people who will be in charge of Brexit after May goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Although the USA hasn't managed to get any other country in the world to use a system as bad as theirs and the UK is in the top 10 of the biggest economies, we'll clearly adapt the least efficient one on the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Your ability to see the future when it comes to poor outcomes of Brexit is amazing.
~:smoking:
Remember whne David Cameron wanted to sell off all those forests and then had to agree not to after the public outcry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
We live in a democracy - if the NHS gets privatised it will ultimately because those supporting the public sector option have lost the argument - and that's a fair-ways off.
Unless you no longer believe we are a democracy, in which case maybe you should be fleeing to somewhere like France or Germany.
Mission creep. During the referendum campaign, the talk of Brexit was a Norway type solution. After a few years of trying to implement Brexit, the next PM will be a no dealer (most of the Tory candidates and in particular the favourites are competing for the no deal Tory member vote). And now you're rationalising selling off the NHS as democracy in action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...pg?imwidth=480
Trump has openly backed this guy, the bookie' favourite, to be the next PM. Trump has openly said that the NHS will be part of any future US-UK trade deal. The kingmaker, Farage, has said that the UK should follow the US model of healthcare.
All the evidence of mission creep will be dismissed as Campaign Fear until they're actually here, and then the arguments will change to will of the people. And Leavers will still blame the EU and tell Remainers to go and live in France and Germany.
The main concrete example of mission creep I've seen so far has been the last 30 years with the EU.
~:smoking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Told you Leavers would continue to blame the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
An example of what Trump wants to do with the NHS.
If we get this post-Brexit, will Leavers own responsibility for this? Or will it still be the fault of the EU?Quote:
Donald Trump is ready to use trade talks to force the National Health Service to pay more for its drugs as part of his scheme to "put American patients first”.
Mr Trump has claimed that the high costs faced by US patients are a direct result of other countries’ health services “freeloading” at America’s expense.
Alex Azar, the US Health and Human Services Secretary, has said Washington will use its muscle to push up drug prices abroad, to lower the cost paid by patients in the United States.
"On the foreign side, we need to, through our trade negotiations and agreements, pressure them," Azar said on CNBC.
"And so we pay less, they pay more. It shouldn't be a one-way ratchet. We all have some skin in this game."
He continued: "The reason why they are getting better net prices than we get is their socialised system."
Any bilateral trade deal would take months to negotiate. We are currently at an impasse over chlorinated chicken -- I think you can safely rest on your government's negotiators not selling off the NHS for beads and wampum in any kind of a hurry.
BTW chickens washed in what is, essentially, pool water, does not strike me as much of a health risk. I'd be far more concerned over the possibility of shoddy personal sanitation and cleaning efforts at the chicken processing plants (we never have enough inspectors to watch over everything) than I would be about the chlorine water thing.
It is not really about chlorine, all the drama is really about animal welfare. in theory the eu regulatory model aims to keep animals disease free throughout the life cycle, where the us regulatory model aims to ensure that meat is disease free beyond the point of processing.
both result in safe chicken drumsticks - anyone telling you otherwise is mistaken - but the objectors cant frame the debate on grounds of animal welfare because nobody really cares. give people a choice and they'll buy the cheaper (us) chicken.
... which would lead to aneurisms of moral outrage.
It wasn't blame. It was a fact. A fact you seem to be extremely reluctant to face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
Chlorinated chicken is an issue because, in the US, it's the sanitation catch all at the end of a production process where large parts fail current UK regulations. The chlorine isn't the issue. The reason why chlorination is required in the US is the issue. As an example, there was an investigation last year after salmonella caused 300 cases of sickness and 1 death in the UK. In the US, around 450 die each year from salmonella. No chlorination, and bad production processes is harder to hide. US production methods reduce costs by around 20%. AFAIK one of the US demands is that location of origin is not mandatory labelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
On the unlikelihood of the UK government selling off the NHS: this is what Trump wants. The most likely next PM, Boris Johnson, is Trump's favoured candidate. The man who has influenced the Tories on Brexit more than any other, Nigel Farage, has Bannon's and Trump's support, and is on record as saying that the UK should adopt the US healthcare system. In short, May is going soon (this Friday), and the next government will likely look favourably on Trump's ideas for the UK.
So are you going to be demanding a vote on the US-UK trade deal? Are you going to be demanding a vote on NATO and Five Eyes membership as well? If not, why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
[Sigh]Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Because these two entities - along with NATO amongst others - the ability to have judicial supremacy over UK courts.
Every time I say the same thing. And every time you ignore it since it doesn't fit your narrative.
~:smoking:
we've been over this, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Do you want us to withdraw from the ECHR, the ICJ, and their parent organisations (the Council of Europe, the United Nations)? They have limited jurisdiction over areas of UK law, and we never had referendums on joining these organisations. Doubly so when you count the numerous conventions under the UN banner, such as that on maritime law, and similar. Are you going to apply your principled arguments across the board?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Again - mission creep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And, indeed, the UK is less keen on the ECHR now that they've started telling us prisoners should get the vote - i.e. interfering directly in our democratic processes.
As to Leaver Mission Creep - the current deal is stuck because of the backstop, which actually precludes a Norway-style deal with the UK because a Norway-style deal envisages us NOT being part of a common Customs Regime.
So, really, the mission creep is rhetoric - a substantial portion of Leavers support No Deal as a prerequisite to a Norway-Style deal.
If the back stop is so unacceptable, does this mean that Leavers would like the UK to be able to unilaterally revoke international treaties? Since that is why Ireland (backed by the EU) insists on the continuation of the GFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Do you want us to leave the United Nations as well? There are a host of international conventions under the UN banner that rule over UK citizens, such as that on maritime law that I cited. They do not currently clash with UK law, as they are enshrined in UK law, but when the international law changes, UK law follows suit, and international courts rule on their application. Is this unacceptable to you as well?
The mere institution of border-checks does not itself breach the GFA. It makes it harder to operate certain parts of the GFA but it is not a breach in and of itself, the GFA merely mandates no militarisation of the border. Indeed, many do not want to sign up to the backstop precisely because they do not want to be in the process of abrogating an international treaty (the Withdrawal Agreement) in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
This is why many, including myself, would want a timed backstop - one that lasts (say) five years after the end of the transitional period. Had this been enacted it would have given us a further seven years to sort out the problem. As it is, the EU demands a perpetual backstop, which means potentially perpetual limbo - making leaving the EU economically impractical.
I'm sure at this point you'll want to point out how this shows that we should stay, but remember that it is the EU that has created these circumstances that make leaving so hard - they are not intrinsic - this is a manufactured crisis.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...o-deal-brexit/
YANIS VAROUFAKIS says "No Deal".
*Shrug*
Corrected that for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
The EU doesn't demand a perpetual backstop. It's until the UK comes up with the technological solution they say is there to be implemented. Once that technological solution they tout is in place, the backstop can be cancelled. How is this perpetual? The Leavers say that the solution is there and can be enacted. The EU says, prove it, but until you've proved it, let's have the backstop. Why do you blame the EU for holding Brexiteers to their promises?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Wasn't the EU's mistreatment of Greece one of your main arguments against it? How does that picture against Greece siding with the EU against the UK?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Are private citizens allowed to negotiate with foreign states without the sanction of the government?
While the death rate you note is much higher per capita in the USA, the incidence of Salmonella is not. Link While these are extrapolated statistics which seek to account for unreported incidence, the extrapolation system was the same for both. In a comparison, the USA has 514.8 cases per 100,000 people each year, while the UK is at 514.7 cases per 100,000 people. Given the closeness in rate of incidence, this suggests that the salmonella linked deaths in the USA are NOT the result of the food processing industry/growers/distributors but of something on the treatment (or lack thereof) side. That is still a problem for the USA, but would not likely be imported.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Says the man whose Government has banned referendums lest its people backslide into Fascism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So a backstop with no time limit that will remain in place unless and until it is superseded?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Presumably if the alternative solution does not meet EU approval, regardless of whether it works the backstop will also remain in place.
The backstop is worded in such a way that the UK will inevitably be hostage to it unless and until the EU says otherwise.
So... perpetual in fact.
Do not confuse a government with its people, be it Israel, America, or Greece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If your fear is that the EU will kibosh any solution as unsatisfactory, why not request that the Brexiteers publish their plans for the technological solutions for peer review? Get them to test their solution by implementing it in a small but representative area, test its workability, and show its findings and costs. That's how all technological solutions work, with a blueprint, a prototype, and findings leading back into the feedback loop. The EU doesn't need to be involved at this stage, let alone any backstop. If the Brexiteers are so confident about their solution, they can go ahead and implement a prototype with plans for how to scale it up to full size. Why blame the EU without even taking the first steps that are entirely within your hands? Do you even want to practically break free from the EU, or are you only interested in blaming them for anything and everything whilst taking no responsibility on your side?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Does anyone have any views on Farage's reported plans to engage in trade talks with the US administration?
Is Kerrygold from Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If it's the former, I don't need anything from you lot. Otherwise, send more.
The priority is to negotiate the treaty and get it passed. Then worry about the implementation during the transition period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Except it's now obvious there's unlikely to be a deal by October, so we need to be planning for the cliff-edge.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It's from the Republic - showing the ease with which trade flows between the US and Europe without a deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Where did you get that from? Some Brexit fake news website?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Germany
Actually, I believe it was something relating to how there couldn't have been a referendum on the EU Constitution in Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I stand corrected.
However, this now raises the question of why the German people allow their sovereignty to be progressively stripped away without a peep.
You are not wrong, the Daily Mail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I have a completely different (world) view on sovereignty than you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
You obviously mean national sovereignty, but Germany was once >50 little sovereign nations, some of which did or did not elect a German king. Up to 1871 states like Bavaria and Saxony were their own sovereign nations, which also didn't want to give up their sovereignty to the "Saupreißn" as the Bavarians called them. So now it's not even 150 years and two world wars (in which Germany already got chipped quite a bit, depending on your POV, after all especially the eastern parts previously had other owners as well) and I'm supposed to see the current nation of Germany as the ultimate arbiter of sovereignty, even if I disagree with quite a lot of things in that nation?
Tell me, why should I reject you, edyzmedieval, Beskar and many other people as my peers, but somehow celebrate some old geezer from Bavaria who doesn't share any of my values and does not even use the internet as my national peer who I feel so connected to? The fact is that I don't feel connected to him at all while my connection to you is quite obvious since we are at the very least communicating with one another here.
It's not that I don't have any national pride at all, but even if we assume that Germany did ban referendums entirely, would I be forced to feel proud and patriotic about that even though I would disagree with it? Germany has 82 million people and the EU ~500 million, the difference in sovereignty on a purely democratic level is not really that big and I don't even have any friends in the village where I currently live, so why would I even want any sovereignty on that level? It's not like I feel the other villagers would agree with me anyway. So what's the sovereignty good for if my village votes against everything I want?
And then there is another view on sovereignty entirely that bothers me a lot more. And that is when you enter corporations into the mix, especially large ones that directly talk to the national (or any smaller) government whenever they think about moving 5000 jobs abroad. This power to move jobs around, heavily influence unemployment statistics and investments etc. gives them enormous leverage and power. Additionally, job positions in our federal government and the car industry are often switched between by certain people (aka lobbyists), giving these industries further leverage in our law-making process that is undermining the choice of voters. So if you want sovereignty of voters, you want a more powerful government that doesn't have parties dependent on corporate money and decision-making. The EU is not ideal here, but closer to that ideal than pretty much any national government, it's also the only one that constantly penalizes big international corporations for unfair business practices.
I don't see a world where the government hires private corporations to write laws and asks other corporations for permission to enact these laws as one where I have more sovereignty. The smaller the government (in terms of the market and territory it controls), the more likely it is that a big international corporation will have more power. For proof, just look at how the tobacco industry sued some small countries into submission so even children can smoke there. How is that for sovereignty in these countries? My country may not be there yet, but we're moving in that direction, the EU is a consolidation of power that can (if used correctly) counter this. That's why I see more potential sovereignty of the people in the EU than any national government.
Competition between nations only leads down the path of more corporate power, Trump as a corporate president dfemonstrates that when he says a trade deal between the US and UK after Brexit will have to involve the UK changing its inner setup to accommodate US businesses. How does that in any way make the UK more sovereign? Yes, you can not make a deal, but then who will you trade with? Sovereignty isn't worth anything if power can bully you into submission or make your life miserable. Power is also in unity, as unions and industry organizations clearly show (it's funny in that regard how worker unions are frowned upon, but you never see a libertarian argue against capitalists having industry organizations where they coordinate for their own interests in the same way). Herd and pack animals use the same principles against their foes. The EU is such a union that has more power due to the unity of its members. Whether I disagree about politics with a Hungarian libertarian or a Saxon libertarian is relatively inconsequential to me in that regard.
How does prioritisation preclude Brexiteers from showing how their technological solution works? Different people would be working on preparing for Brexit at the Dover end, and preparing for it on the RoI-NI border. And even if you don't want to implement a prototype, what's stopping you from publishing the blueprint for that solution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Thanks for a clearly expressed point Husar.
I am, as you might well know by now, far more of a patriot in the traditional sense than are you.
Nor do I presume that competition is inherently problematic. How it is managed and channeled, of course, matters a great deal. It is not a slippery slope to violence in all cases.
Our President is probably the least sophisticated negotiator we have had in some time. Part of why his base support likes him so is that THIS is the kind of negotiation style they can understand -- even though most of them cannot do it well. Trump's repertoire includes virtually all of the tactics Fisher, Ury, and Patton label as "dirty tricks" that they coach negotiators how to maneuver around. Trump likes it to be all about willpower as he presumes he has more than anyone. THAT is the kind of competitive attitude that can yield bad things.
I must disagree with you implied allusion that Trump is a pack animal. He differs significantly -- pack animals are actually loyal to their pack.
Husar's post is a good primer on the existence of differing standards, but what it comes down to is that you disagree with the sovereignty traded to the EU and condone - or don't mind - the sovereignty traded to other multilateral bodies, treaties, or pacts, or even the basic political and economic framework of your "democracy". You just don't like the EU and like the other things, that's all. Sovereignty is your fig leaf for noses flying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I got around to dealing with the Telegraph paywall, Varoufakis merely thinks negotiating a comprehensive deal is more likely when both sides have the concrete burden or negative incentive of implementing No Deal, not that Hard Brexit is a good scenario; AFAIK he's been beating that drum for years. As he makes clear here and everywhere else, he is a "radical Remainer" personally and wants the Labour Party to adopt that stance.
Sure, we can have some friendly competition, of the sort that exists in well-managed high school sports matches. Anything more, such as all of history up to now, is the recipe for destruction. As always.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Husar is saying we should be more like pack animals.Quote:
I must disagree with you implied allusion that Trump is a pack animal. He differs significantly -- pack animals are actually loyal to their pack.
Edit: Although I'm not sure it's a great model for humans, since the pack mechanism in herbivores is to my knowledge one that is profligate with the lives and well-being of individuals to promote the survival of the collective. Doesn't sound great, and it probably doesn't sound great to you either, right Seamus?
If you don't want a resort to Stalinist emergency response, advocate for less competition and more cooperation ASAP :stare:
I don't believe that either, I was mainly talking about competition between governments. When governments compete for corporate jobs for example, then they cannot execute the will of the people in terms of e.g. corporate taxation. Especially if the country is small enough that a multinational corporation and investors can easily ignore it. In the end the country will have to do things that the majority of people don't really want (they vote for them anyway because they're blackmailed in the sense that they won't get jobs/business/investment otherwise), or live in the stone age. In the end, the democratic will is forcefully aligned with the will of corporate owners who own the means of production but are a tiny fraction of the population or even foreign individuals. The only ones exercising any sort of sovereignty here are the investors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Of course I'm aware that certain investment securities are important, it's not fun when you invest your entire family savings to start a medium-sized business in country X and then the government takes everything away, but on the other hand it shouldn't mean you now control the government of that country to the same extent as ~10,000 of its voters, i.e. have the same power. The latter is extremely anti-democratic in my opinion.
I didn't want to imply that in any way, except perhaps if he is in some "US association of real estate investors" or similarly named lobbying group to extend his influence on politics before he became president. That doesn't make him a herd animal as much as he is using the advantages of a herd for his own personal benefit. Then again that's the case in quite a few herds, group protection can easily be sold on a selfish level. Vaccination provides herd protection, but most people probably primarily get it so they don't die themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Being part of a herd and being selfish are not mutually exclusive, especially if you can convince a significant part of the herd that you're also selfish on their selfish behalf. :clown:
Been watching Trump play that "man of the people/outsider like you" card successfully since 2015. I just don't get it -- how naïve can you be? Using "blue" language in a campaign rally and always coming back aggressively at any perceived slight does not make you a salt of the earth type. Yet they love it from him. [shaking head].Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Husar, there is another aspect of sovereignty that was taken for granted in the past, in the era of moderate politics, but which is now abused to destruction by Brexit, Corbyn, Trump, and other manifestations of extremism. That is constitutionality. The formal and informal rules that everyone worked by, because if people stepped outside these bounds whilst observing legalities, society would no longer work. I defined moderate politics earlier in this thread as politics that observes customs and respects the losing side, whereas extremism is whatever it can get away with.
Let's take the example of Brexit, as personified (and personification is a common aspect of this) by Nigel Farage. UK democracy is based on governments formed by parties elected on manifestos that the opposition and the press can hold them to. If there is abuse of the electoral system, the candidate who abused the system is disqualified and another election held in the area. Compare with Leave, who made promises that their supporters now claim they should not be held to, who use their referendum victory to claim a mandate for things that they assured the electorate would not happen, and who abused the legalities and customs of normal electoral process yet, because the referendum was supposedly merely advisory, are not subject to the checks of normal electoral process. In the face of this, there is another, equally democratically valid check, that of Parliament. But even here, the organisers of Leave identified that Parliamentary authority is merely custom, and not legal, and despite the flagrant disregard of democratic authority this represented, ignored Parliament's requests to answer their questions.
And what has happened since the Leave victory in the referendum? The architects of Leave, Farage and his close associates in particular, have kept clear of those trying to implement it. Instead, they keep making nebulous claims whilst saying that it is the fault of others that things are not working, culminating in Farage's new Brexit party getting a third of the vote whilst explicitly saying that they do not have a manifesto. In addition to this absence of constructive plans or identity other than opposition, they have also encouraged a culture of seeing divergence from them as treason, and the identification of their ill-defined cause with a personality.
In the UK, Brexit has polarised the country. Politics is no longer the constructive debate of ideas, tested for their workability. It is now whatever whoever gets a momentary backing of a majority can legally get away with. And the tragedy is that there are actually mechanics to correct this. But the Left have themselves enacted a form of the above, which albeit is less extreme than that enacted by Brexiteers, is nonetheless equally uncorrectable within traditional means.
It can be equally puzzling. People despise David Cameron for being a representative of the establishment, given his social background. Yet they love Boris Johnson for being a man of the people, despite having the exact same background as Cameron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You could frame it in terms of the conflict between the ideas of contemporaries Karl Polanyi (socialism) and Friedrich Hayek (neoliberalism). Hayek believed that economics is the locus of public morality and therefore politics, so the polity ought to negotiate its pluralistic values in the sphere of the consumer market. The market therefore arbitrates social costs and goods. Polanyi believed something the opposite, that while economic materiality is central to modern life individuals participating in collective political decision-making should negotiate the priorities and parameters of market or any economic activity. Political planning therefore arbitrates social costs and goods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Hayek's ideas put us on the road to serfdom as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The socialistic ideas are necessary for our survival but are hindered by the lack of any large-scale (i.e. millions of actors) model for democratic collectives. Switzerland doesn't count, the Swiss are not to my knowledge directly responsible for economic management as political actors. Let alone global...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The cruelty is the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'm not saying Thompson has the number, but that she has a solid approach. We know that most Trump supporters know that he lies to them, and that they don't care. Vice can be virtue if embodied in a friend, or vice versa. This is rational if you assume they vest their whole identity and worldview in a strong-coded authority figure who they feel can destroy their perceived enemies. The irrational part is that the gestures and the performance of "owning the libs" hold more weight with them than the results.* I suggest a hypothetical fascist dictator who enslaved or eliminated all the leftists and minorities while raising the living standards of his stakeholder groups could not draw as much support as a failure in these regards, IF the successful one did it quietly and unceremoniously.
I'm pretty sure Hannah Arendt wrote a lot about this, the theater of totalitarianism. See also:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
*This is not to say there haven't been results to witness. Those wishing to see the government put the hurt on Mexicans and queers have a lo to like so far this term.
Maybe you need new traditional means? The ideal you hew to was never really how the world (or even the UK for more than a few decades, I'd venture) worked. You've called yourself a socialist, right? You should have a historically-rooted notion why "moderation" has not been long for this world. The times are polarized. What are you gonna do about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What I call moderation has been how UK politics has worked for centuries, since Parliament took over from the monarchy. Stability based on respect for the collective customs of government, with changes brought in to address issues, framed in those traditions. There might even be an argument that it goes back to English/Anglo-Saxon Common Law, with protections established under the Magna Carta and reaffirmed in the Civil War. What we have now is akin to the absolute monarchy, except it's the far right under the guise of a People's Mandate. Like the absolute monarchy, Brexit is not based on constitutionalism or custom, but is an absolute right based on what it can do without being stopped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What am I going to do about it? What do you suggest? Armed uprising? That's not for me, nor for most Brits. The Loyal Opposition should be opposing the government and forcing it to test its plans against reality, but instead it's collaborating, and as IA and others have illustrated here, even that is not enough, and IA and his ilk regard Parliament as traitors. Since the Loyal Opposition are not doing their job, I'm voting at every opportunity for openly pro-Remain candidates. If this means a united far right gets a plurality; the collaborationist opposition, and the willingness of Brexiters to interpret the opposition as support for their cause (see PFH) leaves little alternative. I expect hard Brexit to go through courtesy of Farage and his kind and their influence on a Parliament where they have not been elected. At the very least I will remind Brexiteers of their responsibility for what Britain will become.
Identifying moderation with the British deep constitutional superstructure itself is - I'm not even sure what the metonymy is supposed to be. The volatile history of the British Isles before the Union to time immemorial certainly doesn't resemble your definition ofQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And while Parliament was a gentlemanly establishment at least in the class sense during the 18th and 19th centuries, the politics of the street was no such thing. An anarchist might cynically say that the state always does "whatever it can get away with", but the relationship of government to subjects was much less one of moderation (of coercion) and respect for liberty than it has been in living memory. Whatever specific traditions you favor, I doubt you can show them to be very ancient, stable, or even functional today.Quote:
politics that observes customs and respects the losing side, whereas extremism is whatever it can get away with.
By no means. But insofar as you value a certain status quo and this no longer obtains, and cannot be restored, declamations alone aren't worth much. Maybe I'm premature, but it seems like a new and improved arrangement needs to be advanced. Or if you believe the politics of your veneration is still extant or still to be salvaged, first consider why it was so easily and quickly subverted by a little extremism.Quote:
What am I going to do about it? What do you suggest? Armed uprising? That's not for me, nor for most Brits.
What is this historically revolutionary Britain that you seem to have in mind? Can you cite examples of what you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Immoderate =/= revolutionary, but OK:
*The Civil War and the Glorious Revolution
*Like, all the wars and revolts ever (monarchy is a hell of a drug)
*Mass unionism and labor and franchise agitation and its violent suppression from the Luddites to the general strikes to Scargill riots
*Enforced intolerance against liberalism and republicanism after the French Revolution until - what, 1848? - including periodic crackdowns on anti-monarchy speech and association such as William Pitt's Treason Trials
And I'm sure you're aware of all the nasty stuff like the government pretty much owning the bodies of the poor and the criminal (including political dissidents) until the world wars, repression of the Scottish, Irish (how many rebellions?), and Welsh peoples, and the white man's burden. None of this was unique to Britain, but that Britain was not unique is just what I'm saying. How was any of this moderate except in the sense that it was uncontroversial to the aristocratic and mercantile ruling elite?
(Extremism doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it extremism)
I left out the Glorious Revolution because I didn't know enough about it, but the first group is the only bit that does not fit what I defined as moderate politics, and I specifically cited the Civil War as a time when the idea of absolute monarchy was overturned. On the others, I note that you define anti-moderate politics to include illiberal politics. Here you fall into the same habits as the Brexiteers, in defining sensible politics to include your side, but condemn the others. I've tried to avoid this, by defining it in philosophical terms, and applying it across the board, to what I would call my side as well as the opposing side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I've excluded armed struggles, from the state or from demonstrators, as the exception than the rule, and not systemic. I've only included examples as anti-moderate politics where the rules themselves are shown to be useless, not people's non-observance of such. Hence I asked you, what do you suggest I do about it? You were dismissive of my observation of how the rules are being abused and made useless, so I described what I do about it, how that's within the rules but made ineffective because the rules themselves are being abused, and asked you for your suggested solution instead. Your response is that Britain has never been moderate, and that I should get used to this as the norm. So I've answered your question of what I am going to do about it. Can you answer my question of what do you suggest I do about it?
Edit: And don't fill your answer with technical terms like metonym that most people don't know. To me, an essay filled with dictionary words merely suggests the responder is trying to bluff with long worded BS, not provide a sensible answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
In any community (I expect even in your neighborhood or even among your family members) you will find a person who doesn't share your worldview and values. Will you stop considering him your uncle or your roommate or your next door neighbor because of it?
No, but that also wasn't my point. My point was that I don't have illusions about how I'd be a lot more sovereign/better off if only that small circle were to decide about the politics that govern my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
But the small circle knows your needs and problems more, so their governing your life may be more beneficial for you. No?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
No, I don't see how, especially if the whole village doesn't have the same job, the same medical issues, the same digestion, the same way to work, the same hobbies, the same face, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Even in an inbred village of farmers they'd probably all have different needs from their inbreeding issues. ~;)
And just because someone knows about your needs, it doesn't mean they care, quite a few people may also use it against you.
you get too excited by the idea of farage as some pied piper character .Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
i think you will agree i'm as committed a brexiteer as they come, yet i have no time for farage and have nevef considered myself a kipper.
i had my own reasons long before he was on my scene, and i didnt much care for him once he waz.
Metonymy is not a technical term, you can double-click > right-click > search [engine] for "metonymy"Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You're not a reactionary, right? You provided a definition:
I don't see how you can think what I listed clears your definition.Quote:
observes customs and respects the losing side, whereas extremism is whatever it can get away with.
But they were systemic. State policy of repression and coercion is not respectful of the "side" that isn't in power, or of people who are so weak they weren't even counted as political agents in "polite society".Quote:
I've excluded armed struggles, from the state or from demonstrators, as the exception than the rule, and not systemic.
What's the distinction? Was Nazi fascism not counted as immoderate because they weren't observing Weimar rules? (Not that the Weimar government was gentle to those out of power.) And wait a minute, your consistent complaint with Brexiteers is that they don't observe your norms. Am I misunderstanding the quoted sentence?Quote:
I've only included examples as anti-moderate politics where the rules themselves are shown to be useless, not people's non-observance of such.
I'm not ultimately confident in how much can be accomplished, but there is no return to the specific arrangements that have existed as the "international liberal order" and its national systems. Leaving aside your view of pre-Brexit UK, what do you think the UK's political system and civil-societal relations ought to look like? Ideally you could build a comprehensive program off that and influence politics with it. A more limited step might be to adopt a "radical Remainer" orientation and try to sell Labour and/or the LibDems politicians and voters on the UK as an activist government within the EU, but that might not be your predilection and it doesn't really address how the internal politics and civil society of the UK should function and how to achieve that. You would probably know better what you want and what is reasonable. The point is you have to be more imaginative than bemoaning the decline of a status quo ante, you can't go home again.Quote:
Can you answer my question of what do you suggest I do about it?
So, people in Berlin know more what road in this Bavarian village needs repairment or what school bus in this village needs replacement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
There are old geezers in Hermival-les-Vaux, Ashcott and Dobrzyca that don't like you because you are German. You'd likely prefer to work with the old geezer from Bavaria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
You don't need the EU for that. You can have separate intergovernmental organizations (don't even have to be European) where member states can cooperate to achieve shared goals; and where they can join, leave or create alternative organizations as they see fit.Quote:
I don't see a world where the government hires private corporations to write laws and asks other corporations for permission to enact these laws as one where I have more sovereignty. The smaller the government (in terms of the market and territory it controls), the more likely it is that a big international corporation will have more power. For proof, just look at how the tobacco industry sued some small countries into submission so even children can smoke there. How is that for sovereignty in these countries? My country may not be there yet, but we're moving in that direction, the EU is a consolidation of power that can (if used correctly) counter this. That's why I see more potential sovereignty of the people in the EU than any national government.
Members of unions are not expected to give up their sovereignty. A union does not decide how its members should live their lives.Quote:
Power is also in unity, as unions and industry organizations clearly show (it's funny in that regard how worker unions are frowned upon, but you never see a libertarian argue against capitalists having industry organizations where they coordinate for their own interests in the same way). Herd and pack animals use the same principles against their foes.