h a l f b a k e r yCrust or bust.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Come the day, login into YouGuv, choose to be inny or
an outey.
If you choose inny you don't need a visa to go to the
continent, get to keep on with EU science projects
and so on, get duty frees etc.
If you are an outey, you get independence from all
that EU stuff.
Optional for innies
is pay by Euro in the UK (but only
by bank card).
Space crime
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-49457912
law applied on a per individual, rather than per geography, basis [calum, Aug 27 2019]
Wiki: How to Start Your Own Country
https://en.wikipedi...rt_Your_Own_Country
How To Start Your Own Country is a six-part BBC Television documentary comedy series aired between August and September 2005. The show was presented by British writer/comedian Danny Wallace and followed his quest to start his own country in his flat in Bow, London. The micronation he created was eventually named "Lovely". [Dub, Oct 03 2019]
IMDB: Passport to Pimlico (1949)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041737/
// Residents of a part of London declare independence when they discover an old treaty. This leads to the need for a "Passport to Pimlico". // [Dub, Oct 03 2019]
[link]
|
| |
// get independence from all that EU stuff. // |
|
| |
... and Calais, Aquitaine and Anjou ? |
|
| |
If I were an innie, would I get to keep my human rights, and
other mod. cons? |
|
| |
You should just be required to have your belly
button examined at all border crossings. Innies get
EU benefits; outies get Brexit benefits. Elective
conversion surgery is always available for those
unhappy with their existing configuration. |
|
| |
//would I get to keep my human rights// - if you're
referring to the rights and obligations you have
arising from the UK's membership of the European
Court of Human Rights (ECHR, established under the
European Convention on Human Rights (also ECHR)),
then the answer is 'yes', whichever side you're on,
because the ECHRs are not part of the European
Union and exist under a separate legislative
framework. So, despite frothing-at-the-mouth Brexit
supporters ranting at these strange foreign human
rights (although the UK was a principal author of the
ECHR) encroaching on their ability to be nasty to
others, Brexit will make no difference in this area. |
|
| |
I thought that while in the EU you had heuman
rights. Ha |
|
| |
and you Beata believe it. |
|
| |
iirc, being a signatory to the EConHR and therefore
subject to jurisdiction of the ECofHR is a
precondition to membership of the EU, so while the
mouth-frothers will be able to continue
m.-f.ing for a while, leaving the EU removes an obstacle
to leaving the ECHRs, allowing them
to dream still of being able to be mean to brown people
without legal repercussions (this is
particularly true of the current prime minister, who made
much show of wanting to leave the
ECHRs, primarily because (a) they made her job harder
and (b) she kept fucking up
compliance). |
|
| |
The idea itself is, I feel, just a worked example of the
"what if you could choose what laws
you are required to comply with?" thought experiment /
stoner discourse. The nice thing
about this example is that the EU was not really
concerned with the realms of criminal
activity (at least, not primarily) so adopting a maximally
granular approach to EU
membership doesn't run into mismatches about the right
to get biffed in the beezer. |
|
| |
We can take a lead from the US Tech Giants by having for
each and every person in the UK a
file, the primary purpose of which is to record what their
chosen jurisdictional framework is.
This sort of colossal IT project is of course no problem for
the govt. to manage, not least of
all because there is the option of C&Ping the Chinese
Social Credit Score system and sticking
a crown on it. |
|
| |
Anyway, the reason for the file is to allow the state to
provide the infrastructure for
consumer- sorry, individual-led jurisdictional compliance
and then make parts of it available
to commercial organisations who are then able to bear
the admin burden of compliance (just
as admin burden of VAT is borne by companies, while (by
and large) the cost is borne by
consumers). For example, the Brexit-Elect will see prices
for products which have WTO
tariffs or bilateral-agreement tariffs attached where as
the Brexit-Preterite will not have to
worry about whether their new kettle has a plug on it or
not. |
|
| |
In this model, for the Brexit-Preterite the state acts as a
middle man between the consumer
and the EU. For example, the state will fulfill the terms
of the four freedoms insofar as the
state can, but, when the Brexit-Preterite state-within-a-
state falls into financial ruin, the
state proper will enforce EU-mandated crippling
austerity. As the state has shown itself perfectly capable
of directing austerity so that it harms societal groupings
that were even before austerity less likely to vote for the
Conservative party, I don't doubt that it has the initiative
to be only slightly more targeted about how it metes this
out. Especially if we C&P the Chinese SCS
system. |
|
| |
These primarily technical solutions have one critical
added bonus: they allow the side by side
comparison of the Elect and Preterite models and, if
we're willing to take an anti-Calvinist
approach to things, we might allow individuals to make a
(limited) number of switches
between the two groups, until one group reaches say 75%
of the population and, having tried
the both options, this supermajority of better informed
Crown subjects is enough to fix the
UK's position with reference to Brexit. |
|
| |
Clever - rather than the traditional top-down means
of setting laws, you're proposing a sort of organic,
bottom-up clustering of emergent jurisdictional
frameworks. I think these will naturally move from a
chaotic soup of many bespoke jurisdictions to just a
few, as people decide to go along with their friends,
bow to commercial pressures ("5% off if you adopt the
John Lewis jurisdiction while in store!"), or are
forced into one by their employers ("You can only
work here if you follow these laws"). |
|
| |
This could get messy with families and immigrants
and Gibraltar... |
|
| |
I picture a caste system kind of framework growing
by default. |
|
| |
Some people will choose a framework with less taxes. How will they be selectively denied the related degree of government services? If you join a framework with 50% lower healthcare taxes does the system automatically put you at a lower priority for health care? What about roads? If you want a framework with less government inspection of eating establishments are your complaints about seeing rats in the kitchen ignored? If your framework offers much smaller education costs will your business be forbidden to hire people from well-funded schools? |
|
| |
// If you join a framework with 50% lower healthcare taxes does the system automatically put you at a lower priority for health care? // |
|
| |
Yes. It's called "The U.S.A." |
|
| |
It's part of Greece (small island in the Aegean, north-east of Crete, one of the Dodecanese), so will remain in the EU (until Greece crashes out of the Euro zone because the Krauts are fed up with picking up the tab). |
|
| |
Oh sorry, roads not Rhodes. Pay by use, run by a not-for-profit company independent of central government. |
|
| |
// If you want a framework with less government inspection of eating establishments are your complaints about seeing rats in the kitchen ignored? // |
|
| |
What, like they are now ? On the plus side, you can take your own .22 rifle and personally address the problem while waiting for your meal. |
|
| |
// If your framework offers much smaller education costs will your business be forbidden to hire people from well-funded schools? // |
|
| |
No; they pay higher taxes because they had better education, so you have to pay proportionately more for their services. |
|
| |
No problem there, once Britain invades and conquers Spain. |
|
| |
// to be mean to brown people without legal repercussions (this is particularly true of the current prime minister, // |
|
| |
That seems unfair; the current prime minister doesn't display such prejudice, in that she's mean to everyone without fear or favour - not just the heavily suntanned. |
|
| |
Can't you guys stick to talking about our politics like you
always do? Brexit, Shmexit |
|
| |
Regrettably, the Trump Blocker filter ( NetLingo -
chrome web
store) means I have less than no information about US
politics. |
|
| |
Paradoxically, even with the Trump filter on, the
Trump filter page is still visible on the Chrome Store... |
|
| |
// How will they be selectively denied the related degree
of government services? If you join a framework with 50%
lower healthcare taxes does the system automatically put
you at a lower priority for health care? What about
roads?//
So, not a little part of my commentary was
nibbling around the amazing stupidity of Her Maj's
Government's proposals for a series of *as yet not extant*
technical solutions to the otherwise intractable problem
of enforcing customs checks when you are unable to
impose a hard border between Ireland and Norn Iron). |
|
| |
But! if we are willing to subject ourselves to a Xianjiang-
like high tech surveillance state it should be really rather
easy to ensure that:
(1) ERDF-funded roads are
accessible to only the Brexit-Preterite (which should not
be a problem as the areas of the UK with ERDF-funded
roads (viz. Scotland) were significantly in favour of
remaining as part of the EU)
(2) a lower priority for
healthcare is also immensely doable: you queue here for
the Brexit-Preterite NHS and here, by the bins, for the
US-model Brexit-Elect private health service.
3. The
EU doesn't bother its arse too much with primary and
secondary education (US: K-12, I think) but yes tons of
good research cash is EU-backed and budding PhDs can
choose their status to suit their chances of getting that
funding.
(4) I don't think that the EU gives a franco-
germanic fuck about restaurant inspection - to them
capers and rat shit are all the same - because the EU is
concerned with its four fundamental freedoms within its
borders. It is a trading bloc, it has always been a trading
bloc. The social policy stuff is around ensuring that there
a broadly unified approach to controllable issues which
will affect whether people, goods, capital, establishment
can move with the minimum of friction (recognising that
geographic and cultural barriers are a significant issue,
they focus on what can be managed). Restaurant
inspection is what might be termed a devolved issue. |
|
| |
// its four fundamental freedoms within its borders. // |
|
| |
Freedom for the french to have their own way on everything. |
|
| |
Freedom for the Germans to sit back and quietly analyse their two previous failures (the Schlieffen plan and Fall Gelb) so that they can eventually go for the "Third Time Lucky" option (Hint: don't fight a European land war on two fronts). |
|
| |
Freedom for politicians and bureaucrats to eat big dinners and travel everywhere First Class at everyone else's expense. |
|
| |
Freedom for the spanish to put the entire Atlantic ocean through a fine-mesh net, extract all the marine life down to diatom size, and then sell the resulting slurry as "paella". |
|
| |
^ Yes, but what about the bad points? |
|
| |
Belgium will continue to exist. |
|
| |
//Choose your own apres-Brexit status//
Ah, the great illusion! Regardless of whether you are an inny or an outey, you will still be governed by the government. Faceless bureaucrats & populist politicians will still control your lives & demand that you either give them a good chunk of your wealth every year or be sent to prison. Choice of governments is no choice at all. So there! With knobs on! :) |
|
| |
Hey! I'm a bureaucrat and I'm not faceless! |
|
| |
// //would I get to keep my human rights// - if you're referring to the rights and obligations you have arising from the UK's membership of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR, established under the European Convention on Human Rights (also ECHR)), then the answer is 'yes', whichever side you're on, because the ECHRs are not part of the European Union and exist under a separate legislative framework. So, despite frothing-at-the-mouth Brexit supporters ranting at these strange foreign human rights (although the UK was a principal author of the ECHR) encroaching on their ability to be nasty to others, Brexit will make no difference in this area.// |
|
| |
As an addenendum to what calum said, I have a referendum communication - a pamphlet addressed and delivered to me. It's called:
"NOT SURE WHICH WAY TO VOTE ON 23 JUNE?" |
|
| |
On the back page there's a set of quotes, including one from Sir Richard DearLove, former Chief of MI6:
"Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights ... and, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the European Union." |
|
| |
So there are several points which could be made about that, but I'll restrict myself to two: |
|
| |
1) That this guys career was in politics and spying rather than porn disproves nominative determinism to my satisfaction.
2) He may be an m.f.-er, but he's an m.f-er with significant influence in the department of being nasty to others. |
|
| |
You mean he's also worked in HR? |
|
| |
Just because someone is or has been involved in HR doesn't mean that they're automatically a petty, vicious, friendless misanthropic anally-retentive xenophobic psychopath with delusions of mediocrity. |
|
| |
Then again, a three metre long quadrupedal mammal covered in orange and black striped fur and with huge teeth and long sharp claws might not be a tiger; but the statistical evidence suggests that it probably is. The only way to be sure is to see if it tries to kill you. That will narrow the error bars quite a lot. |
|
| |
Further evidence that NASA has multifarious benefits: the
recent commission of the first Space Crime (see link) has
revealed that there are developed world governments who
are willing to countenance and implement a protocol for the
application of law on a per individual basis. Our dream here
can become a reality! |
|
| |
I am interested in how the proposal put forward in this idea would be enacted in the case of environmental law. For example, thanks to the EU, British beaches are, for the most part, no longer covered in raw sewage. The only solution possible that ensures that, post-Brexit, 'remainers' continue to enjoy the benefits of EU membership in this way without conferring those same benefits on 'leavers' is to retain the existing environmental laws that keep our beaches clean, but at the same time have beaches patrolled by wardens who fling faeces in the direction of these leavers. |
|
| |
// British beaches are, for the most part, no longer covered in raw sewage. // |
|
| |
There are worse things than raw sewage; for example, illegal immigrants keep showing up on the south coast. |
|
| |
Steady on, [8th]; that's the sort of remark that gives bigots a bad
name: you're not going to assimilate many people with *that*
sort of attitude. |
|
| |
Sadly, there seems to be a great deal of irrational and ill-considered prejudice against bigots. What's worse, there seems to be no hesitation in voicing these ideas loudly and in public, which is quite frankly pretty disgusting. Other groups are protected from discrimination by laws and customs, but no-one seems to give a damn about bigots. Shameful, we call it. It's high time something was done. |
|
| |
hippo's shit-in-the-kisser approach to the consistently
granular application of the Brexit-elect / preterite split
has many benefits, not least that it will create jobs, not
just for jobby wheechers themselves but also to ensure
that a quality British product is hurled into the pusses of
the beachgoing Brexit-elect. Yes, farms full of free range
gammon-fed Tories, chinos heaped round their ankles,
straining to eject onto the Lincolnshire turf hard black
pellets of keech, British, blue passport-having keech,
which will
be scooped up by British farm labourers, fed into the
British supply chain and, ultimately, chucked in the
British faces of those
Britishers who want this. |
|
| |
The other option is a geographically based self sorting
approach with slurry blasted indiscriminately all over
beaches in Brexit-voting constituencies, with the Brexit
elect presumably all to happy to schlep across the country
for the opportunity to squelch shite between their toes,
waving flies away while
slurping on the strawberry mivvy that they got for three rat
pelts and a furtive tug at the ice cream man's penis. A
grand day out. |
|
| |
The latest good news is that parliament may be suspended. |
|
| |
We consider this excellent. Brexit or no Brexit, there should be sufficient supplies of chairs and rope to suspend all current and prospective MPs from lamp posts in the highways and byways of Westminster. |
|
| |
Perhaps some could be suspended around the Tower of London, so that the ravens can peck at their eyeballs. That would have the additional benefit of being interesting to tourists, who are always eager to partake of fine old English traditions. Placing the heads of traitors on pikes on Tower Green is well overdue for a revival. |
|
| |
//parliament may be suspended.// |
|
| |
I think this is more face-value than reported. I'll bet the hot
air inside has finally built to levels allowing significant
buoyancy. |
|
| |
Comes with a small houses of parliament, with
an off switch. |
|
| |
Disappointed this is not Schrödinger's Brexit |
|
| |
<Starts charging main weapons systems so as to be ready if [tc] fails to correct the mis-spelling of "Schrödinger" within the grace period allowed/> |
|
| |
I don't think it's controversial to point out at this stage that things are not
going well in the Brexit camp. |
|
| |
They said it wouldn't be easy. It turns out it's quite difficult. |
|
| |
They said we'd have lots of new trade deals. Turns out we risk losing the
majority of the ones we already have. |
|
| |
They said it was for the good of the common folk. Turns out, it's going to
be them who are hit hardest. |
|
| |
They said it was two fingers up at the establishment - turns out the
establishment are riding this wave all the way to the bank. |
|
| |
They said the economy wouldn't be effected. Until it was. Then they said
it wouldn't be effected much. Until it was. Then they said "how about that
Dunkirk Spirit?" as if that was a good thing. Turns out we'll be stockpiling
food and medicine. |
|
| |
They lied, and lied, and lied again - forget the mess it's caused already.
Doesn't anyone care about the bare-faced effrontery of the ever-moving
goalposts sported by serial liars who, under any normal circumstances
would have been facing investigation, criminal charges or at the very
least, media-led shame and sanction by now? |
|
| |
Again, forget the actual nonsense that the Brexit idea was when it was
first raised 3 years (3 years!) ago. We know there was a vote, with a
marginal majority on the one side. How did we get from there to this
objectively corrupt, cynical and sorry state of affairs? Where did
competence go? Sense? Simple practicality? - All those things we'd
normally espouse (perhaps inappropriately, given the recent evidence) as
being "British" values? |
|
| |
I've *never* seen such venal, opportunistic and cynical behaviour in
politics at any point in my life before this shit-shower - but the hi-jacking
of the narrative by evidently corrupt and self-serving snake-oil
peddlers/paid-agitators is something new, something utterly repugnant. |
|
| |
I've voted over the entire political spectrum in my time, but could never,
ever vote Conservative again after this display. In hindsight, Ed Milliband
would have been a far safer pair of hands - we should invest in some kind
of time-machine and go back to 2015 and tell him not to eat that bacon
sandwich. |
|
| |
//Corrupt// and //unelected// both fictitious I'm afraid [bigs] the EU is
one of the most transparent institutions in the world and does more
to actively combat corruption and shadow-money than any other in
the world today. It's the backroom deals of the anti-EU forces that
bankroll most of the un-democratic regimes in the world, as well as
sponsoring terrorism, and stopping the rich from paying appropriate
taxes. |
|
| |
It's a simple case of good vs evil, and Brexit is on the nasty side,
I'm afraid. |
|
| |
But that's not the point - the point I was making was that
*irrespective* of the incontrovertibly immoral and corrupt nature of
Brexit - putting that aside - focusing only on how well everything is
going - it's fair to say, having spent many billions on nothing, and
with the pound withering further, raising prices and lowering living
standards at home, the prospect of food and medicine shortages,
turning Kent into a lorry-park, Swindon, Sunderland, Scunthorpe
and other large industrial casualties, the banks making a packet
and lawyers, back-room traders and spivs creaming off their piece,
it's really not going well so far... |
|
| |
Yes, RT and other biased news-services will continue to spin the
foreign propaganda (since it's clearly in their advantage to do so,
geopolitically speaking) but the rest of the free world is, quite rightly,
wondering what happened to our previously sane, sensible and free
country. |
|
| |
//start of the end of the global economy// that's not a good thing. I
know it's been twisted by many in the alt-media, but globalisation is
a good thing. It can mean upheaval and change - but at least with
the EU, a person is backed and protected against the worst of this,
wheras, without a supra-national set of rights, protections and
principles, any big corporation who wants to bung a small and
desperate government a few shadowy dollars can muscle in on an
unprotected populace and there's no come-backs. That's what
Brexit will enable - big corporations moving in on small and
unprotected communities, fracking, polluting, exploiting whatever
weakness they can create in order to suck out whatever profit they
can make after preying on the frightened local population.
Hoovering up real-estate, putting small enterprises out of business
and moving in, increasing their profit margins, and scalping any
remaining profits in surrounding markets for longer-term gain. It's
an incremental game, and without appropriate regulation - and
being able to actively lobby small and weakened governments -
they'll clean up - to everybody's detriment. |
|
| |
That's the legacy of Brexit - it's not going to be pretty, and the big
businesses have already moved in on the government, they can
smell the meat, and they've branded that smell "Dunkirk Spirit" - it
does wonders in the focus groups. |
|
| |
The mistake was in ever having the referendum, it seems,
and that's surely on Cameron. Nothing like this should
ever have been contemplated without a significantly
larger than 50 percent base of support. After all, even if
things were going that way, they could have waited for a
much larger majority in Parliament to attempt it. |
|
| |
On the other hand, what's really at stake here, and surely
in the States, is does the nation state even matter.
Should it even be a construct. Significant percentages
of us seem oddly for that in some ways (e.g. no borders)
while oddly against that (god forbid Facebook should have
its own currency). |
|
| |
The [UK] will do fine either way, in the short to medium term. |
|
| |
For me it's the natural extension of classical liberal principles to
maximise freedoms at the personal level,
while placing some limitations on the excesses of freedom at the
very large corporate level. Since we now have corporations whose
economies are far larger than the average nation state, it makes
sense to extend governance and legislative scope on an international
scale. Whilst certainly not perfect, the EU did seem to get the
balance in favour of promoting the freedoms of the individual, while
acting as a buffer to the externality-exploiting excesses of the larger
corporations and dodgy money flows. |
|
| |
If you want to solve international problems without resorting to
violence, you need international legislative bodies - ideally
democratic ones like the EU, where everyone gets a fair say. |
|
| |
// If you want to solve international problems without resorting to violence // |
|
| |
But what if you like violence and see it as a rapid and expedient solution ? |
|
| |
depends on your definition of democratic. The Senate and
Electoral College (and even states govts. themselves) are
widely viewed as un-democratic, but they are helping to
preserve the union by preventing tyrannies of majorities. |
|
| |
For the EU to have a long term chance it needs a lot more
revenue sharing from the rich states. In this climate that is
certainly not going to happen. |
|
| |
//But what if you like violence and see it as a rapid and expedient solution
?// Then carry on as we are - Brexit ahoy! |
|
| |
//Capitalism has been great to develop technology and efficiency but now
the rewards all end up in multinationals.// Interestingly, one of the key
benefits of business within the EU is that relatively small businesses can
link up in complex supply chain networks and achieve more in terms of
technological advancement than a single and inefficient multinational can
do - benefiting the individuals up and down the supply chain. Those
supply chain linkages that cross the new border will shrivel as the cost
and instability involved in maintaining them makes them less viable, and
as such many of the small to medium sized, technologically advanced
businesses that hitherto worked so well will have to generalise once more,
losing some of the high-tech advantage they had previously been able to
attain through focus and specialisation. |
|
| |
Importing and exporting our food to and from America and the Southern
Hemisphere anglophone countries is unlikely to do much for our overall
CO2 footprint, vs relatively speedy just-in-time supply logistics already in
place to deploy millions of fresh fruit and vegetables to supermarkets
across the country. |
|
| |
It will be interesting to see what will happen in terms of lettuce and other
fresh vegetables. |
|
| |
If a producer in Span or Italy can effectively deliver their produce to a
supermarket in Weston Super Mare and still make it worth their while,
benefiting as they do from near year-round sunshine, that's going to take
a huge amount of on-the-spot logistics to be running like clockwork. It
might be possible for a UK producer to produce a similar yield using
heated greenhouses, perhaps. That's likely to take time to setup, plus all
the infrastructure and logistics, in the meantime, I'd recommend getting a
larger freezer. Fresh food is going to be more expensive/harder to come
by. |
|
| |
Isolating ourselves might be attractive if you dislike capitalism,
globalisation, progress, and opportunity. I can see that argument is self-
consistent. I think while these things all have their downsides (and
environmental impact is a big and serious one) - they could, on balance,
with appropriate multi-national legal frameworks (like the EU) be improved
and, I hope, see us through for the next however many millennia. |
|
| |
Contrary to how the Brexiters would have it, the "Dunkirk Spirit" is not to
turn our backs on the problems in front of us and run away. It's to make
the best of things and muck in, doing our duty and acting responsibly to
try and make things better. Engaging with and using our considerable
sway in the European Parliament is an opportunity to improve what we
don't like. More, it should be our duty. *That* is proper Dunkirk Spirit. |
|
| |
Isolating ourselves isn't going to encourage anyone else to stop producing
CO2, or to save the planet. We might be able to ignore it in the short-term,
but it'll still end up pricing land at the top of hills at a premium. |
|
| |
Better to use our 3rd largest voice in the largest political-trading block on
the planet and actually use that democratic mandate and power to do
some good. |
|
| |
Instead, our idiot Brexit MEPs do nothing, they fail to turn up to represent
us and argue our case. Fisheries, Farming, Environment, anything, and
they make out the whole thing is some great foreign imposition. They
should be earning their living by doing their job, which is to represent us.
That's fucking democracy. Not whinging from the sidelines like a bunch of
brats. (and I just realised, in case it's ambiguous [bigs] - that last is intended for the
aforementioned Brexit MEPs in particular, and not a disparagement to be attributed
more widely) |
|
| |
if there's one thing that unites all people it is that other
people have to do their fucken job :) |
|
| |
Yes - that is certainly a universal :) |
|
| |
// I don't like throwing whole families into poverty // |
|
| |
You should try to get invited on one of [MaxwellBuchanan]'s Winter Wanderings. When it snows, he orders out the coach-and-six and tours a small portion of his property portfolio. When he finds any residents who are behind with their rent, the men-at-arms following behind turf the occupants out into the road; their possessions, if any, are loaded onto carts in lieu of rent and interest payments. |
|
| |
He particularly enjoys the process if the tenants are widows with children; he spends hours in front of a full-length mirror in his top hat and tailcoat, practicing his MUHWHAHAHAHAs .... |
|
| |
Boris loses majority, kind people in white coats
and large butterfly nets are helping him look for
it |
|
| |
Hopefully there will be an election. There are several possibilities, all of them wretchedly bad for the established parties. Corbyn might be handed the Poison Chalice; Boris might get a thumping majority; best would be another hung parliament with the Brexit party holding the balance of power. |
|
| |
Remember how well the Brexit party did at the Euro elections ? |
|
| |
" I see dead people ... Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead." |
|
| |
If anyone's interested, we're running a special deal this week on canned foods and shotguns ... |
|
| |
//small plastic cows// "OK Boris, let's go over it again.,These ones are small, and," gesturing out
the window, "those ones, are *far away*." |
|
| |
It's been an interesting night, and yes, UK politics should never, ever be this interesting - I'm
looking forward to one day when we can all enjoy a really genuine, all-round inclusive, national sigh of relief - and
let
everything go back to being tedious again - perhaps get it down as some kind of celebratory Bank holiday. |
|
| |
That's probably not going to happen for a good time yet, so in the meantime, for the fun of it - my
preference would be an as-yet entirely fictional labour, lib-dem, snp and green coalition. Though
no election would likely take place before the 31st of October - or until the exit date is expunged and can-kicked
down the road to the next impasse. |
|
| |
The problem is, now that they've prevented Brexit (which
they have), they instead have a large ungovernable population
who have been told that their votes do not matter. This is
far, far worse than any no-deal Brexit. Nobody is going to win
out of this. |
|
| |
I vote going back to the normal British politics,
with some mp droning on about subclause 15b
in a fisheries act... |
|
| |
//UK politics should never, ever be this interesting//
Indeed - this is the most depressing outcome of the whole Brexit omnishambles, that people are interested in, and following every labyrinthine twist and turn of, politics. They are doing this not out of an academic interest in the process or out of admiration for the noble personalities involved, but because they have to be, to see what kind of shit-smeared wool is being pulled over their eyes, to see what self-serving lies and spineless changes of direction politicians are making, to see what new divisions and hatred are being brewed up, and to see what new chaos the country is being plunged into. |
|
| |
There are precedents - the events of 1639-1641, which were followed by what Simon Scharma eloquently described as " ... a breakdown of deference of catastrophic proportions." |
|
| |
This is a typical Black Swan. It's pretty much the end of a 300 year old system, and in a few years, possibly only months, the whole "landscape" will be changed beyond recognition. |
|
| |
It's not a //large ungovernable population//, it's a medium-sized, radicalised population, groomed on a diet of fear,
manufactured outrage
and faux identity politics. |
|
| |
There's no simple solution to the mental-health legacy that's been caused by whipping up this particular sub-group within the
population -
but pandering to it wont cure it of its damaging inconsistencies. |
|
| |
What's needed now is some brutal honesty, more than a little transparency, and the economic oomph that only a quick and definite
revocation
of the madness can bring about. |
|
| |
But, like dealing with a confused wild animal finding itself in unfamiliar surroundings - we need to do this cautiously. Yes,
the wounded
creature might well lash out in blind frustration - we've already seen the harm done by individuals driven mad by the topsy-
turvy lies and
rhetoric. Innocents have been hurt, even killed after the weakest of these sorry folks have snapped under the weight of the
cognitive
dissonance they've been spoonfed and forced to carry around with them for the last 3 years. |
|
| |
After we're free of the poison, we can enjoy the benefits of a new economic golden age, nationalise the railways, build loads of
new
houses, fund public services - enjoy all the benefits of a revitalised and reinvigorated economy. But we need to sort out the
damaging
toxicity first. |
|
| |
Yes [8th] we need to change the //landscape// That might well mean investigating the most dishonest media who've most eagerly
collaborated in the radicalisation - the constant
spewing of black-is-white and white-is-black until we're where we are now and nobody believes anything, no matter how objective
anymore. They've worked exclusively on this unfortunate and vulnerable portion of the electorate who've been so cruelly used
during all of this. |
|
| |
We should also demand a public inquiry into the abuses of power, open dishonesty and criminal profligacy of the political torch-
bearers of
Brexit - it should not be acceptable behaviour to openly lie without sanction - corporate bosses are bound by a legally enforced
expectation of truth - political leaders should have similar obligations applied to them. |
|
| |
But the people? No, we shouldn't fear them, we should be doing all we can to gently rehabilitate them from the worst effects of
the ongoing
cultist abuse they've endured. You can't do that in the middle of a massive self-imposed, fear-induced recession. |
|
| |
//after we're free of the poison, we can enjoy the benefits
of a new economic golden age, nationalise the railways,
build loads of new houses, fund public services - enjoy all
the benefits of a revitalised and reinvigorated economy. But
we need to sort out the damaging toxicity first.// |
|
| |
when you're done, are you available for a few minor Middle
Eastern skirmishes that need solving? |
|
| |
And who will trust the result ? |
|
| |
Thankfully, the credibility of the majority of governmental institutions has been damaged beyond repair, to the point where they will soon be unable to function at all; they're pretty much crippled now. Facts, facts, facts. Policy must be fact-based and be able to demonstrate an academically rigorous methodology, and be externally reviewed and validated. There must be no room for opinions, beliefs or ideology. |
|
| |
// a few minor Middle Eastern skirmishes that need solving? // |
|
| |
Very quick and easy to solve, by means of a few well-placed MIRVs. Simply vapourize Jerusalem and Mecca. That neatly removes many irresolvable sources of contention. |
|
| |
The Vatican is more problematic, but a couple of Davy Crocket sized tac-nukes should do the job. Care will be needed not to damage any of the really historic stuff in the vicinity. |
|
| |
Deplorables suggests it's their fault - I don't think
that's the case. They've just been used and polarised
into a faith-based mindset that rejects information
that doesn't fit their increasingly dislocated world
view. It's the same pattern as that seen in cults and
radicalisation the world over - the only difference
being they're being worked on in plain sight, using
the industrial-grade communications infrastructure
owned, run and developed by a relatively small number
of offshore foreign interests. |
|
| |
///Facts, facts, facts. Policy must be fact-based and be able to demonstrate an
academically rigorous methodology, and be externally reviewed and validated.///
Exactly - and precisely this. Any public inquiry should work on a rigorously and
objectively monitored basis - the whole working of government needs to be moved to
working like this. |
|
| |
Well done. You have recognized the new world order, and - more importantly - how it operates. What's more, the traditional institutions are uniquely vulnerable to that class of attack and they have (nor can they have) any effective defence against it because of they way they have evolved; the environment for which they were suited has been destroyed. |
|
| |
// the whole working of government needs to be moved to working like this. // |
|
| |
It does; indeed, it will. That means the end for politics and politicians, of course, but nobody will mourn their passing. |
|
| |
A public enquiry can establish "the facts", but in a bigger sense it's too late. There is no way back. In the same way that tanks, fluoroposphonyl chemical weapons and 3D printing cannot be "un-invented", it is not now possible to return to the status ad quem, no more than it is possible to go back to crop rotation under the three-field system or regular stagecoach services. |
|
| |
The world as you knew it has gone. Adapt or die. |
|
| |
If you do find a way to cram the large glowing mushroom cloud back into the nice shiny little plutonium sphere you had a few microseconds ago, we'd be fascinated to know how you do it. |
|
| |
To sum up: "We are the Borg. Resistance is Futile. Your will be Assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.Freedom is irrelevant, self determination is irrelevant. You must comply. Your life as you know it is over. " |
|
| |
We now return you to your regular programming ... |
|
| |
So you're suggesting some kind of academic technocracy? Or a more nanobot-centric executive? |
|
| |
Many laws on the current statute books deal in the long-term delegation of legal powers to
(independent,
technically competent) technocratic institutions; The Bank of England, FCA, the many Ofxxx-s,
Environmental Agencies of various descriptions, the CAA, ORR, and countless others.* |
|
| |
* I think many of the smaller ones of these used to be called Quangos, until the term became
unfashionable
- interestingly after their existence was questioned by the "TaxPayer's Alliance" (one of the anti-
institutional lobby groups ("Think Tanks") running under many names, all operated out of 55 Tufton
Street,
and all promoting a right-wing, centralised, back-room style of powersharing for the connected -
often by
boosting unhelpful stories in the media and setting the narrative such that these kinds of centres
of
excellence were quietly dismantled) |
|
| |
After placing the crown-jewels of monetary policy and regulation out of harms way - there's
normally not a
great deal left for the government to do other than fiddle about with tax. |
|
| |
Similarly, much of the civil service remains the domain of a very bright and capable group of
experts. For
the Bannonites, these would be the "deep state" so hated by those who wish to wield raw and
unfettered
power. |
|
| |
The system is under attack - but interestingly it is these meritocratic, academically-robust
bastions of
our nation that have both prevented the worst of the excesses of the populist executive, but also
that the
same executive has spent the most time trying to dismantle and discredit. They seem to act like a
kind of
antibody system, rejecting foreign influence wherever and whenever it tries to infect the body of
the
nation. There is real hope there - that good people, with simple honest values, will stand in the
way of
schemers, liars and shennaniganisers wherever they may reveal themselves. |
|
| |
If that last cultural and institutional line of defense is overcome, then yes, a true
transformative event awaits. |
|
| |
The real question is whether there is anyone prepared to pick up a sword* or an axe and decapitate the designated victims. |
|
| |
Thankfully, the answer to that is also undoubtedly "yes" If you put up a sign at the main gate of the Tower saying "WANTED: Executioner to cut the heads off politicians. No experience necessary. £35,000 p.a." the queue would start at the portcullis and end somewhere around Putney bridge. |
|
| |
After all, £35,000 is only about £2900 a month; quite a lot of people would cheerfully pay that to get a chance to trim bits off some vermin. |
|
| |
*The sword is reserved for royalty; traitors get the axe, so get out there with your hatchet and practice on some firewood. It's all in the backswing. |
|
| |
I have a confession to make: I am one of those people who has
made money from Brexit. No, I did not vote for Brexit, nor fund
Brexit, nor surreptitiously organize nor encourage Brexit, but I did
see Brexit coming, and made financial dispositions accordingly. |
|
| |
This was possible because the roots of Brexit are much deeper
than any scheme by evil plutocrats - though, of course, evil
plutocrats have been involved. And, no, I'm not just talking about
the GFC; it goes further back than that. |
|
| |
A clue can be found in the phrase "swivel-eyed loon" (or "swivel",
for short), which is the most telling of the epithets used by
Remainers against Leavers. A related clue can be found in the
epithet "gammon". Some people have said that "gammon" is a
racist slur on white people, but that's not quite true. To be
gammon it is necessary, but not sufficient, to be white; to be
gammon you must also lose your cool: the resulting distinctive
pink flush is what makes someone gammon. That cool/uncool
distinction is the clue. |
|
| |
Just have everyone in the country fucking revote on
Brexit already. |
|
| |
They're working on that, [Ray], they're working on it. |
|
| |
Hope so - but now [pertinax] I'm intrigued by this
coded link between a cool/uncool-driven event and
how that can be turned into financial gain. I've
been trying to think of products/devices that would
highlight this particular split - but the best I
got was the likelihood of falling out of fashion of
"retro" objects - that until fairly recently had
been gaining fetish-levels of ironi-coolness - but
which increasingly might feel tainted with less
than frivolous associations. Who wants a kitsch
table-spread, or knitted tea-cosy anymore if they
are now only reminiscent of food shortages,
deprivation and xenophobia?
But
try as I might, I can't get from here to any actual
profit. |
|
| |
Have you tried hocking Dutch tulips? |
|
| |
//a cool/uncool-driven event and how that can be turned into
financial gain// |
|
| |
"Indirectly" is the answer. That is, the gain came from
anticipating the outcome of the vote, and the anticipation came
from an awareness of a previously unacknowledged "iceberg" of
grievance, on the part of the uncool, against the cool. It was an
"iceberg" in the sense that it was mostly out of sight. |
|
| |
Declare HB a Nation State, issue passports and claim dual citizenship?
Passport to Pimlico, anyone?
Jutta as monarch, Danny Wallace as foreign secretary, etc... |
|
| |
Oooo ! Oooo ! <Frantic arm-waving/> Can we have the "Defence" portfolio ? |
|
| |
[8th of 7], naturally... and a separate (bigger budget) for offence, too |
|
| |
Hey, I just realised that if we crash out, we don't
have to do the Eurovision song
contest. No more GB....nil points |
|
| |
You've never "had" to do it ... it's like doing the Three Peaks challenge for charity, the pointless* suffering is an important and inherent part. |
|
| |
The difference is, with the 3 peaks challenge, the pointless suffering is restricted to the participants |
|
| |