h a l f b a k e r yAsk your doctor if the Halfbakery is right for you.
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,
|
|
|
Since it's nearly Anti-Catholic Bigot Day again (otherwise known as Guy Fawkes) in the UK, and Brexit is about to happen, as special celebratory firework seems appropriate.
When the EU is finally driven away from Britain, there will be cheers of rejoicing from all right-thinking (right-voting, right-wing
Union-flag-waving) Englishmen (Now just the bogtrotters, whingeing money-grubbing jocks, and the dismal taffs to see off) and of course fireworks (tho sadly not 2 MT airbursts over brussels and strasbourg) (yet).
But there should be something for the remoaners, who after all face a dismal future (hopefully) crammed with disappointment and heartache at the demise of the post-WW2 centre-left social democratic consesus and the rise of divisive, intolerant nationalism leading to a colder, bleaker, more dangerous world (which has always been there, but their rose-coloured spectacles filtered it out up to now).
To assist, BorgCo pyrotechnic engineers (one of our largest R&D groups) have produced the Remoan Candle. Externally, it resembles a normal Roman Candle, although it's poorly constructed of flimsy materials, is deeply unattractive to look at, and is so unstable that it falls over unless constantly propped up by a pile of surreptitious EU subsidies.
When lit, it sputters pathetically for two and a half years, occasional spitting fur and feathers, then finally emits a long drawn out sigh ending in an very final death-rattle.
Stephen Fry on why Brexit
https://youtu.be/_HDFegpX5gI
[Frankx, Oct 19 2019]
Other people on why Brexit
https://www.youtube...EoNxfA8lVNs&index=1
[Skewed, Oct 19 2019]
It's the same the whole world over ...
https://monologues....Poor-But-Honest.htm
Globalization ... ? [8th of 7, Oct 20 2019]
Autonomous Collective
https://www.youtube...watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE
Anarcho-syndicalist commune. [Frankx, Oct 21 2019]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
The poster-boy for hardline protestants since 1605; a bit-part player in a rather inept attempt to kill James I, probably fomented by government agents provocateur to coax various potential threats out of hiding so they could be efficiently dealt with by Fire and the Sword (or rather musket fire, extra-judicial torture, hanging, drawing and quartering, and public humiliation). |
|
| |
A jolly tale of repression, prejudice, state-sponsored violence and pointless bigotry that's just crying out to be made into a musical comedy ... La-La land, but with more heads on pikes. |
|
| |
//Since it's nearly Anti-Catholic Bigot Day again (otherwise known as Guy
Fawkes) in the UK// |
|
| |
Huh.
I thought it was nearly-blew-up-the-politicians day. |
|
| |
Anyway, wrong celebration. You're supposed to be aiming for Halloween. |
|
| |
Probably; but like Katyushias, Nebelwerfer, Calliope and the MLRS, pyrotechnics (those that lack a decent terminal guidance system, anyway) are notoriously inaccurate and rely on mass salvoes and an area effect. |
|
| |
//musket fire, extra-judicial torture, hanging, drawing and
quartering, and public humiliation// |
|
| |
IIRC, after the initial failure, some of the conspirators galloped
out of London in pouring rain to a safe house in ... Notts maybe?
... anyway, on arrival, they found their large supply of gunpowder
had got wet. So, to dry it, they laid it out in front of an open
fireplace ... |
|
| |
Holbeche House in Staffordshire. |
|
| |
It just goes to show that enthusiasm is no substitute for competence. If you need conspirators, it's worth paying for good quality ones from a reputable supplier; the ones you get for free aren't worth the money. |
|
| |
The same is true of spies. Intelligence agencies far prefer agents that do it for money rather than ideology. |
|
| |
I just sit here in silence, wondering what the hell shift
happened to this world we live in, and where is our salvation
from those who would destroy it with their greed and lack of
soul? |
|
| |
Not really their fault [bliss], James Brown wouldn't get here
for more'n another 300 years. |
|
| |
//wondering what the hell shift happened// |
|
| |
I think I've worked out the answer to that, [bliss], but I hesitate to
share it, because feelings will be hurt. |
|
| |
[bliss], there is no hope, no salvation. Only a long, dark, lonely downhill road, and half a day out with the undertaker at the end of it. |
|
| |
We can do no more than to quote the profound words of the late Pterry Pratchett: "I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." |
|
| |
Did you add an extra bad or am I simply remembering a
slightly less grim version to protect my delicate psyche? |
|
| |
It's your rose-coloured spectacles switching in, [Skew]. |
|
| |
Guy forks, guy forks, it was his in tent, to blow up ther houses of parly er ment. |
|
| |
"The only man who ever entered the Houses of Parliament with honorable intentions was Guy Fawkes ..." |
|
| |
One + for pocmlocs doggerels |
|
| |
Meanwhile, back on topic ... |
|
| |
//the post-WW2 centre-left social democratic consesus [sic]//
was indeed fatally flawed, and //a colder, bleaker, more
dangerous world // is indeed out there (except in so far as it may
turn out to be warmer, bleaker and more dangerous). |
|
| |
However, it does not follow from this that Europe (including its
offshore islands) would not be better off sticking together,
precisely because of the ambient bleakness and danger.
Admittedly, it's somewhat academic for me since, as you know, I
buggered off to the far side of the world some time ago in
anticipation of things getting ugly. |
|
| |
Moving off-planet would be safer. |
|
| |
// better off sticking together, // |
|
| |
It's called NATO, it's Baked and WKTE. |
|
| |
True, but I didn't qualify for a visa. |
|
| |
... and it will provide limited protection from trade wars, to say
nothing of the fact that it may develop an America-shaped hole
and fall to bits in the not-too-distant future. |
|
| |
If centre-left social democrats prefer to spend money on welfare rather than their own defence, they deserve everything they get. Next time the krauts overrun the frogs, the sensible thing is to do the same as 1870 (stand on the sidelines, cheering). |
|
| |
Didn't someone say something quite profound about "Guns and Butter" ? |
|
| |
Well, that's not an insuperable problem ... step into our office, we have an interesting offer for you to consider ... |
|
| |
The only whining I see going on is from certain negative
nancy types on certain websites who don't know how to
write about anything that makes them content or uplifts
other people. |
|
| |
I suspect this is why Ian left. |
|
| |
Maybe he should have negotiated an ITexit deal, athough a "No deal" ITexit makes more sense ... |
|
| |
// Thatcher shutting down the coal mines. // |
|
| |
A very "Green" stance, would you not say ... ? |
|
| |
Besides, it wasn't about shutting mines - it was about breaking the power of the unions. And it worked. |
|
| |
// And so I became a socialist. // |
|
| |
Doctors are working on a cure. The Russians and the Chinese have had spectacular success in that field ... |
|
| |
// regulation surrounding capitalism // |
|
| |
// what form of capitalism they are backing. // |
|
| |
The sort exemplified by <link>. |
|
| |
// a rounded domestic economy based on all trades e.g. including nursing, // |
|
| |
If you have a rounded economy for producing fully trained and equipped armed forces, you can get everything else you want by just asking nicely.. As a noted U.S. president said, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick". |
|
| |
// cause a brain drain in other economies. // |
|
| |
If your economy is prosperous and successful that is inevitable. Somalia probably doesn't have a huge problem with economic migrants from Europe or North America ... |
|
| |
//If your economy is prosperous and successful that is inevitable// |
|
| |
Hence the success of Brexit in reducing immigration. Simply wreck the economy and wait for the floods of people to leave in
despair. In terms of achieving this objective, it's a blinding move and working out a treat - irrespective of whether we actually
leave or not - families and highly skilled people are leaving in droves. Great. Well done. |
|
| |
Meanwhile, for people who continue to harbor an irrational hatred of the EU, then our leaving is doubly fantastic - it gives the
Russians a much needed geopolitical leg-up at a crucial time. Having boosted their influence in the Middle East (going supremely
regards Syria - and more importantly, the wider implications that Syrian influence naturally exerts on the petrochemical rich
region) and having successfully pulled off the annexation of Crimea at Europe's eastern extents, Russia must welcome having a new
fulcrum about which to exert more leverage on what would have otherwise have been a strong and difficult to assail EU. So as
[8th] points out - with some bold military and intelligence moves, undaunted by foolish ideals of democracy, truth, decency or
human rights, Russia is playing the perfect nationalistic game. |
|
| |
You can't win nationalism, unless everyone else is playing however, so additional destabilisation is crucial in the face of
countries working together to solve international problems - NATO, the EU, certainly the UN all pose significant barriers to
a nationalist agenda. |
|
| |
Specifically post Brexit, a UK-Russian trade deal hasn't been discussed much publicly - but is very heavily on the menu. |
|
| |
Some folks still pretend to believe the lie about how "undemocratic" the EU is, how will they spin the truth when they see us
pivot towards the far less transparent and corruption-rife Russian sphere of influence? In terms of raw, undiluted power, the
Russians do have the guns and exert a great deal of military and intelligence influence - and yes, it comes with some seriously
shady political and economic maneuvering - backed both with money far from the oversight of the western hegemonic system of
progress and transparency that we increasingly enjoy - but with coercion and assassination from intelligence and military
agencies alike, the Russian model is rooted in an older and more traditional exertion of power. |
|
| |
For me, given the choice between //the post-WW2 centre-left social democratic consensus// and having my family shaken down by a
gangster, I'd prefer the former - but would of course be likely to concede to the highly persuasive arguments of the latter. I
hope it doesn't come to that - I'd rather fight my battles in court, than against a shady criminal organisation - like most
folks, I'm not Batman. The law is often annoying - and expensive - and it's gamed by the powerful - but it's largely there for
our benefit. When the fabric of law breaks down, people resort to vigilantism (both on local and national scales) and while
Batman is cool, he's not real. The IRA was effectively Batman, and if they didn't like you breaking the rules, they'd shoot you
in the kneecaps. It's short and simple - and if you're on their side - far more effective a solution than the courts. |
|
| |
Our system of legally-underpinned //post-WW2 centre-left social democratic consensus// is certainly not perfect by any standard,
but it is the best and importantly least-corrupt slice of the global system. Still, maybe it's worth turning our backs on
international law and order if it means we can sell more land to Russian Oligarchs in exchange for what's left of our
manufacturing output. |
|
| |
But of course, this is too detailed a view to discuss in today's Britain, people were promised feelings and vague abstract
notions of identity, and we *must* deliver on those sentiments - because...well never mind why - it's apparently not important.
Also, notice that by even having an opinion, those with hurt feelings who are very quick to anger - act as an ideal way to shut
down any kind debate - still, perhaps this is a good thing considering our increasing cultural alignment with a more mobster-
style model of government. |
|
| |
So, we will (will we?) acquiesce to those who have felt slighted over the last 50 years - and make them feel better about
themselves by overturning our entire constitution and make ourselves poorer in the process. All perfectly sensible when you look
at it objectively. There was a vote after all, and by an overwhelming majority (ok, a tiny wafer-thin one, in a non-binding vote,
blah-blah-blah, but who actually cares about the details anyway? We're British after all) |
|
| |
It is imperative we push this through at any cost - there are *hurt feelings* at stake! |
|
| |
Did you really have to wake this lying arsehole up & poke him
into another WOT [8th]. |
|
| |
//Did you really have to wake this lying arsehole// |
|
| |
There there [Skewed] no need to get upset. Come on,
we're all friends here. Seriously, it's a bit
disconcerting that you're so readily triggered. Not
cricket and all that. |
|
| |
We're all entitled to our opinions. Please learn to
live with that. Despite your personal attacks, I've
always remained civil, I would gently encourage you
to
do the same. |
|
| |
I wasn't talking to you, Google it. |
|
| |
Oh & kindly go fuck yourself you condescending insulting piece
of
shit, have a nice day. |
|
| |
hehe - sorry Skewed - but how come you get to be the victim here? |
|
| |
If you have a point of view, please feel free to make it - if you don't then
fine. You clearly dislike me - and I'll be honest, the feeling is starting to
become mutual - but I can't help being curious as to what it is you find so
difficult about having other people voicing their own points of view? I'm a
curious person, but not so curious that you might feel the need to answer,
I'm quite happy to live with that particular mystery. |
|
| |
[Skewed], thanks for the link, it was certainly
enlightening and informative. [zen_tom], I agree
about nationalism, and am still anti-brexit. I do
feel that “we” as a nation have been duped and
manipulated by very wealthy and influential
people/companies who are acting in their own
interests, and populist media and self-serving
politicians. |
|
| |
I don’t know if “we” will be more exposed to
manipulation inside or outside the EU, perhaps it’s
bad either way. |
|
| |
//Meanwhile, for people who continue to harbor an
irrational hatred of the EU, then our leaving is doubly
fantastic - it gives the Russians a much needed geopolitical
leg-up at a crucial time.// |
|
| |
With all due respect, I don't think it is helpful to
mischaracterize Brexiteers in this way. I can certainly
understand why many people wanted to remain in the EU,
and I don't generally ascribe extreme motives to them -
they made a reasonable decision. Other people made a
different decision. Insulting either side is not productive,
and nor does it reflect well on you, [zen], who are capable
of
greater wisdom. |
|
| |
//“we” as a nation have been duped and manipulated by
very wealthy and influential people/companies// If
memory serves (and it was a long time ago, now) most of
the politicians, the banks, the financial gurus and big
businesses were arguing for remain, not leave. The most
vocal Brexiteer (again, in my notoriously unreliable
memory) was a London bloke by the name of Nigel, best
known for enjoying cigarettes* and beer. |
|
| |
(*Admittedly, smoking actual cigarettes these days is a sign
of wealth, but not necessarily of influence.) |
|
| |
//were arguing for remain//... I suppose my point
is that the anti-EU backers of the Brexit
referendum were not doing so out of an altruistic
belief in the benefit it would bring to an average
“British” citizen. They were motivated by
corporate economic gain, or personal political
gain. I do agree that there are anti-Brexit
arguments that are also motivated by corporate
gain and personal political gain. |
|
| |
I don’t believe that Brexit (in whatever form) will
bring the benefits promised. But also, I agree that
the deep-rooted capitalist interference in
sovereignty (as demonstrated with Greece and
with TTIP) is
shameful and toxic. |
|
| |
[Max] one big problem that comes up again and again - both
here, and more widely is that *some* Brexiteers feel they
are being mischaracterised as having negative motives,
whenever anyone points out the negative motives of a
particular subset of actual Brexiteers (or perhaps, when the
Brexit leaders are fairly outlined for criticism, those
criticisms are felt (or deliberately mischaracterised by the
media) as though they are directed at the supporters of
those leaders. Some is not all and pointing out an instance
of a thing within a subclass is different to saying that all
members of that subclass are characterised by that
instance. It feels much like the opposite of that famous
mathematical joke about the Black Sheep in Scotland - only
with (some!!!) Brexiteers as the (anti) Mathematicians. |
|
| |
What's not helpful is getting upset and bandying insults
around because someone shares a different point of view -
I'm far from wise, but I do know right from wrong. |
|
| |
If (some) Brexiteers can throw out words like "traitor" and
"string them up", "remoaner scum" and all the rest that you
see here and elsewhere - then what's wrong with us
Remainers (if that's what we are to be called - I prefer
Patriots) bandying around a bit of the similar - is it bants? is
it serious? Here we are, annotating on a polemic idea - and I
write a polemic response - common sense might afford a bit of contextual
leeway - or should we now all be asking for permission? |
|
| |
I don't ascribe the negative traits to *every* Brexiteer, only those ones who actually
have
those traits. And there are well documented instances of Brexiters voicing those kinds
of
opinions. |
|
| |
[Skewed] is a lovely chap I'm sure - but I have to say it spoils
the collegiate atmosphere when you have to walk on
eggshells and watch what you say because someone can't
keep their personal sensitivities under control. I'm a bit
saddened to think someone out there thinks I'm an arsehole,
but I wont let it stop me sharing my voice with you kind
folks - I hope once he's settled down, he can be man enough
to apologise. In fact, I'll accept in advance. |
|
| |
<Switches on Negativity meter/> |
|
| |
<Switches to next highest range/> |
|
| |
<Switches to next highest range/> |
|
| |
<Switches to next highest range/> |
|
| |
<Switches to next highest range/> |
|
| |
<Switches off, installs -12dB attenuator, re-selects base range switches on/> |
|
| |
<Switches to next highest range/> |
|
| |
<Switches to next highest range/> |
|
| |
<Switches to next highest range/> |
|
| |
Conflict, distrust, emnity and despair ... another successful day ... |
|
| |
[zen_tom] I agree with you, and I’m still anti-
Brexit. It is worth viewing Skewed’s link, because I
think you both have, ultimately, the benefit of
“British citizens” and humanity as a whole as your
central concern. |
|
| |
I’m not totally “anti-capitalist” (because I
acknowledge the human benefits achieved over
the last hundred-ish years) and although I’ll get
scorched by [8th], I am a socialist. But more than
anything we should be humanist and globalist,
which requires more and bigger cooperation
between nations - for the benefit of the biosphere
and future generations. |
|
| |
// I don't ascribe the negative traits to *every* Brexiteer,
only those ones who actually have those traits.// Your tone
and context seemed (to me, I may well be wrong) to be
equating Brexiteers with Europhobics who for some reason
want to leap to the aid of Russia. |
|
| |
People who voted to leave are right to be sensitive about
having motives ascribed to them. The consensus and
official line amongst remainers is that it's OK to discount
the referendum because those who voted to leave were
simply stupid enough to have been fooled into doing so; or
are frothing racists. |
|
| |
When political parties lose elections, they generally don't
use - as their main argument - the fact that the part of the
electorate that voted against them consists of gullible fools. |
|
| |
(Incidentally, given that a //UK-Russian trade deal hasn't
been discussed much publicly//, I don't see how it can be
behind the Leave vote.) |
|
| |
// I’ll get scorched by [8th] // |
|
| |
No, no, no, Winston ... all we want you to do is learn to love Big Brother. Mr. O'Brien will be along shortly to educate you. |
|
| |
And to Give In To Your Hate, of course ... |
|
| |
//... another successful day ...// [8th] I'm glad you're enjoying this - strangely I've found
myself agreeing with you for the most part - up
to the incineration by thermonuclear-device part. |
|
| |
[Frankx] I know, it's mad isn't it - we're all aiming for something better. I'm far from being a
socialist, but I have the (increasingly
unfashionable) belief that rational people making rational decisions through sensibly,
strongly and competently regulated markets (i.e. the
EU) will both maximise people's freedom, and deliver an equitable and fair society - so our
aims in that respect are aligned. |
|
| |
I did watch (some) of Skewed's link - the problem is they ascribe many ills to the EU that
are just not the EU's fault. Sadly, those having
voted in Brexit, the Lexiteers are going to be the sorriest of us all as they see their
socialist dreams being pounded into the dirt by the far-
right low-regulation, ultra-capitalists who are currently in the driving seat. I agree with the
Lexiter's aims, but the best way to achieve
them is by leading the EU in the direction they want to go. Not happy with fish quotas?
Instead of voting in Brexit Party/UKIP numpties
who've never bothered to turn up to the appropriate committee, why not fight for what
you want democratically? Don't like regulations on
anything? The tools are in place to do something about it. |
|
| |
More, if the Lexiter's dropped Brexit and concentrated on actually delivering real change -
the money raised from a sudden surge in
investment, the leap in the pound, the boost in productivity, confidence and wealth would
easily be enough to say Nationalise the Rail
system. Personally, I'd like to see Corbyn (or anyone for that matter) come up with some
grand plan for maybe the Energy Grid. A National
Energy service could bring jobs, wealth, investment and a sense of national pride to areas
long neglected by successive English
governments. But with Brexit, lofty goals like these just wont be feasible. We could be on
the cusp of a new golden age, if only we could
address the real problems we face, rather than this horrible distraction. There is a Labour
plan of starting some kind of National Bank, to
help invest in local businesses and industry, and that's a laudable aim - but you can't invest
if you've got no money, a falling pound, rising
inflation and economic recession on your hands. |
|
| |
What I have a great deal less patience for is this petulant idea that I see amongst the
Brexit milieu which is that if you don't like
something, you throw your toys out the pram and expect things to get delivered to you on
a plate. (No Max and Skewed, that's not *all*
Brexit people, breathe easy, you are a wonderful, wide and diverse group, each with your
own unique, noble and precious ideas and
extremely valid opinions. Not all of you actively espouse workshy entitlement - but you can
see how it can come across that way
sometimes) |
|
| |
I wasn't suggesting a Russian trade deal was *behind* the vote, or the campaign (though
neither am I suggesting it wasn't - I'm quite open
minded about the both), or even supporters are somehow pro Russian - Just wanted to
point out another hypocrisy in the "EU is
undemocratic" argument. |
|
| |
//When political parties...// win real elections, they don't trash the constitution, rip up
the rule-book, hide the evidence, and pretend
that they've won for the next 30 years. Nor do they label everyone who doesn't agree with
them traitors, remoaners, conspirators, enemies
of the people, "citizens of nowhere" and attempt to set the boundaries of discourse. The
polarisation here started with and has on the
whole been gleefully adopted by supporters of the two leave campaigns - hate crimes
against foreigners has documentary evidence of
going up - (yes, *some* not all Brexiters are horrible people - you personally for example
are quite delicious) - but it seems a bit rich to
start getting upset and sensitive about it now things are going so clearly wrong. |
|
| |
But on the wider point I certainly understand, through direct experience what it must be
like to have motivations ascribed to you as a group - am I
being over sensitive too? Here's a question, which might help distinguish the two
experiences. If not *all* and only *some* "Remoaners" are
traitors, which is the subset of them that are? Exactly which remoaners are actually
traitors? Enemies of the People? Citizens of Nowhere? |
|
| |
Does it matter? Guilt by association will do the rest, like the English Roman Catholics in Tudor and Stuart times. |
|
| |
// why not fight for what you want democratically? // |
|
| |
Because nothing is ever gained at a conference table that cannot be taken and held on a battlefield. |
|
| |
If you're on the threatened side, talking on and on to gain time is an excellent strategy. But when your opponent brings out the nasty pointy sharp things, you gave to either yield, or fight. This is a law of nature, like natural selection, or diminishing returns, or unintended consequences. |
|
| |
At any time, an zero-sum game can be converted to a negative-sum game if one side percieves that they are never going to get what they want by asking nicely, and assess that their opponent lacks the will, skill or resources to resist a determined attack. |
|
| |
Clausewitcz would be your friend on this one. |
|
| |
Hang on. Where did "Lexiteer" come from? And what is it?
It's probably explained somewhere up there ^ but I can't be
arsed to go find it. |
|
| |
//taken and held on a battlefield// the lines on the map are already
testament to that
process having worked its way out over the last 2000 years - isn't there a
better way? |
|
| |
And I agree with the rest, insofar as they apply to any zero-sum game. |
|
| |
I just don't think this is a zero-sum game - yet. It is possible to transcend
the zero-sum
and move to a more profitable, more stable, and freer way of living.
That's what we've
enjoyed for the last 70 years - largely due to the establishment of a
relatively peaceful
(but, let's be honest, militarily backed) law-framed consensus. Now, post
a rather nasty
financial crash, the edges of that consensus are being eroded - just like
last time post
1927 (disbandment of the League of Nations, Gold Standard and
tightening of borders,
and so on in the face of increasing protectionist tariff rises made in
response to the
economic crisis of the time) - well discussed here previously. |
|
| |
But, to your point, there is another law of nature at play here - that of
emergent
behaviours, increasing complexity and the nature of complex systems to
coalesce and
form mutually beneficial, new encapsulated wholes. This long-period
oscillation between
open/closed, global/local, growth/contraction, positive/negative cycle
isn't anything new
- it's like a tide ebbing and flowing - but leading up to something - we
might already be
there - who knows? |
|
| |
Meanwhile, yes, carry a big stick. But be wary of using it when the scalpel
of rational
discourse will be a great deal more effective if you're trying to cure a
headache. (I know,
that analogy would be a great deal better if you cured headaches with
scalpels). |
|
| |
[Max] Lexit is the word for the "left-wing case for Brexit". Rather than the Singapore-style
super capitalist
Brexit of the ERG/Conservatives/Brexit party where the NHS gets "opened up" to "opportunities" from
overseas and hard-
working people's distressed personal assets are scooped up by wealthy capitalists, a "Lexit" is where we leave the EU and the
same radical redistribution of wealth is performed entirely by committee and trade unions. Along with the normal (largely debunked) idea of
sending home foreigners to leave more jobs for anyone left behind, the main thrust of the argument comes from
the perception that we're currently
blocked from using state aid to nationalise or otherwise help British companies - but the only block is from forming a
monopoly in any given industry - which is probably not an entirely bad idea - and even that block is lifted in situations
where the state aid is deployed due to market failure - like could be argued for in the domestic energy market, or
railways for example. Practically, though, all these are work-around-able, as evidenced right across Europe today. So
the avid Lexiteer could have his cake and eat it right now, without ever leaving the EU. And have a lot more public
funding floating around to make a success of it. |
|
| |
//At any time, an zero-sum game can be converted to a negative-sum
game if one side percieves that they are never going to get what they
want by asking nicely, and assess that their opponent lacks the will, skill
or resources to resist a determined attack. // [8th] true - and this is
exactly what Russia is doing now - free from interference from us, thanks
to our distraction/destabilisation of the EU - at a crucial time when we
ought to be banding together to face up to this very real geopolitical
threat. That was the (rather garbled - to be frank) thrust of my point
earlier. |
|
| |
Why is Russia a threat ? All they want is power and money and to have their own way ... looked in a mirror recently ? |
|
| |
It's fundamental flaw in the Mk1. Human. Get over it. |
|
| |
// It is possible to transcend the zero-sum and move to a more profitable, more stable, and freer way of living. // |
|
| |
No, it's not. That 's just wishful thinking, a comforting self-delusuion promulgated by those who don't want to face, ha ha, a disagreeable truth. |
|
| |
Until you leave your squalid little planet, you have only the one cake to divide between an ever increasing number of mouths. Your only input is solar radiation. Everything else comes from "on board". Yes, you can use resources better. But you can't change what you are. |
|
| |
// Where did "Lexiteer" come from? // |
|
| |
An acolyte of the Evil Mastermind Lex Luthor, shirley ? |
|
| |
//Big Brother//... socialist, not communist. |
|
| |
[edit] Although, surely the Borg are Communist? |
|
| |
Fear not, once you have mastered Doublethink you will realise he is both and neither, simultaneously. |
|
| |
Does it feel like you're walking in sunlight yet ? Or are you walking down a white-tiled corridor forever, waiting for a bullet in the back that never comes ? |
|
| |
// Borg are communist ? // |
|
| |
If you thought about it, you'd realise we're the complete opposite; a single entirely selfish ego with no thought for others - the ultimate capitalist. |
|
| |
There are no bosses or workers, no upper and lower classes, no kings or peasants. Just a single ruthless will, focussed on dominating the galaxy. |
|
| |
...//no bosses or workers, no upper and lower
classes, no kings or peasants// |
|
| |
Ah. An autonomous collective! |
|
| |
Indeed; but not, we hasten to add, an anarcho-syndicalist commune ... |
|
| |
Would you like us to show you the violence inherent in the system ? |
|
| |
Yup. I’ll be assimilated now. |
|
| |
So long as we can change “resistance is futile” to
“resistance is an inherent property of most
materials (at room temperature), somewhat
inconvenient in many applications, but useful in
some” |
|
| |
Why not change it to "resistance is useless!"? Which pre-
dates ".. futile" by 12 years. <looks around, doesn't see [8th
of 7]; makes good an escape...> |
|
| |
// Why is Russia a threat ? All they want is
power and money and to have their own way ...
looked in a mirror recently ?// |
|
| |
Because they run on crime and poison their
enemies abroad? |
|
| |
//no bosses or workers// Well, that certainly explains the Borg's
perpetual inability to get their round in, as well as their need to borrow*
a pony off of the Intercalary to help pay for getting the cube through its
MOT**. I understand the Inland Revenue is also desirous of a
conversation with you - apparently assimilation is in the grey area
between "tax avoidance" and "tax evasion". |
|
| |
*I sincerely hope you manage to repay him. He has been saving up to
cover the costs of a name transplant as soon as a donor can be found. |
|
| |
**Quite how a brake-light lens and wiper motor can cost so much -
especially as they are interchangeable with parts from a 2004-2007
Nissan Micra - is puzzling. |
|
| |
//keep the global economy growing//
There's yer prahblem. The myth that the economy (and the
population...) can just keep growing indefinitely. |
|
| |
After applauding zen I find myself agreeing with bigs
in some fashion on the macro level. But easy
answers
there are not, and simply selling the construct off for
scrap without a blueprint for what comes after
sounds like a fool's easy answer to be taken
advantage of by a clever prick or three. |
|
| |
Ah. I think [zen_tom] and I mean two rather different things by
//the post-WW2 centre-left social democratic consensus//. |
|
| |
[zen] seems to refer to Enlightenment and Rule of Law. I'm in
favour of those things, but they're not what I mean by //the post-
WW2 centre-left social democratic consensus//. |
|
| |
What *I'm* referring to is best summarized by three books,
namely, Maslow's Motivation & Personality, Galbraith's Affluent
Society and Riesman's Lonely Crowd, all of which were
published in the post-war period and helped to shape
it. Their principal common flaw was a tendency to mistake
certain positional goods, which can't be shared, for more
objective goods, which could be (though their common
assumption that the Problem of Production was solved is also
looking a bit shaky). |
|
| |
All you need to do is look at France (the yellow vests),
Grece
(economic implosion) & Italy (national democratic
mandates
overridden by the EU) to know the EU is not a force for
good,
or democracy.. makes the assertion (all of) our woes are
self
inflicted ring rather hollow. |
|
| |
If that's not enough just follow the money, consider the
remain campaigns main
financiers, big banks & billionaires (there's far far more
wealth
behind remain than could ever plausibly be said to be
behind
leave), they're not in it for the common good & never have
been. |
|
| |
And then of course there's the proof of the pudding, the
very small taste of it we've had so far, since the vote the
rate of immigration
has dropped off just a little (plausibly due to people's
'concerns' about brexit & their right to remain after it), UK
unemployment has fallen & wages have risen. |
|
| |
Clearly anyone who doesn't profit off the back of low
wages (directly or indirectly) will be better off out of the
EU. |
|
| |
In real terms, as a % of the cost of living, not just gross. |
|
| |
Skewed, the Yellow Vests have little to do with the EU - some want higher
wages, and in classic French style, are striking/demonstrating in order to
get them. Others support the far-right Le Pen National Front, and as right-
wing extremists, may well dislike the stabilising effects of law and order,
general prosperity and legal recourse that the EU offers all of its
citizens. |
|
| |
Greece is an example of the EU being forced to step in after successive
populist governments in that country stole money from their own people in order to buy
themselves into power. The normal way out for a sovereign nation when that
happens is to devalue their currency and short-change their creditors that
way - but because Greece is in the Euro, that wasn't an option. |
|
| |
We're not (quite rightly) a member of the Euro, so that problem isn't one we
ever need to worry about. Though personally, I don't think it's a bad thing to encourage sensible spending and
sustainable borrowing through some form of legislation. |
|
| |
Italy is in a similar position - you need to run your finances sustainably,
and, if you have chosen to adopt the Euro, that comes with some additional
responsibilities - you can't just devalue, and neither can you default,
which were the two pre-Euro methods out of profligate government spending. |
|
| |
So sorry, but a 3 for 3 strike rate there Skewed. |
|
| |
Now, in terms of wages - you're not wrong. A 1.9% real-terms increase in
2019 to June. There are different accounts for why that is, and certainly -
as I said earlier, families leaving due to their being made to feel
unwelcome will have certainly reduced supply. |
|
| |
After we leave, and the economy contracts, those gains are likely to be
offset by a matched contraction in the demand for labour - so I fear these
marginal sort-term benefits are likely to be undone. |
|
| |
And [Pertinax] I've not had the opportunity to read
any of those books you mention (I'm still working up the energy to start tackling Popper's "The Open Society and
Its Enemies")- but regards //[their]
principal common flaw was a tendency to mistake
certain positional goods, which can't be shared, for
more objective goods// what, do you mean by this? What
are positional and objective goods, and why are they
different in terms of their being shared? |
|
| |
And in terms of //if that's not enough just follow the money// - following the money is
something that the EU specifically allows you to do, through direct financial transparency
and anti-tax dodging laws. So yes, please, do take advantage of those rights and
protections. |
|
| |
Contrast against the shady criminal world of offshore banking, embargo breaking, sanction
sidestepping, money laundering and terrorist finance that is enjoyed by some very wealthy
individuals who would very much like to see us leave the EU and would lose a very great
deal of influence were their web of finance be opened up to public scrutiny- as threatened
by incoming EU legislation. |
|
| |
... or rather, carte blance for government snoopers to pry into everyone's private business using the usual "public interest" excuse ... |
|
| |
They're not interested in preventing criminality (especially their own), only getting their sticky fingers on more of other people's money so they can squander it. |
|
| |
// other people's money // It's more about closing loopholes that allow people
to operate offshore shell companies, hence diverting income in order to avoid
taxes - so Google, Amazon, the 4th Viscount Rothermere, much of the
Conservative Party, Farage and anyone wealthy and bent enough to benefit from
employing offshore "wealth management". More colourfully, anyone funding
terrorism, buying and selling illicit arms, corrupt governments, and large
criminal organisations laundering proceeds of crime on a large scale (due to
economies of scale, small time criminals still have to deal with cash). |
|
| |
Essentially, anyone with the means and motivation to operate outside of the
established financial system. |
|
| |
That's what They want you to believe. They are motivated by fear. If they have no revenues, they have no power, and increasingly revenue streams are moving out of their greedy wasteful clutches. |
|
| |
Since governments are institutionally deceptive, there are no grounds for attributing any credibility to their published motives. |
|
| |
It should be up to the individual to decide how, when and where their income is disbursed - not some over-arching entity who claims to have their best interests at heart - but then consistently fails to deliver. "Government" should provide external and internal security, and nothing more. |
|
| |
So precisely what governments should and shouldn't do is a tricky question - Security seems
a fair starting point - but you need to codify that in law - who and what is being secured? |
|
| |
That means you need to define property rights, and some tithing arrangement to pool the
resources of the people being governed to pay for that security. Now you need a functioning
administration to manage government buildings, tax collection, recruitment, supplies,
intelligence, R&D and logistics. A sensible part of offering security might include
hospitals for the sick and wounded personnel - so now you've got a limited health
service. And that's just on day one. |
|
| |
I prefer to offer the principle that government should be there with the aim of maximising
its population's freedom. This means you've got a yardstick with which to attack the kinds
of dilemma you get, like whether people should be able to wield automatic assault rifles or
not. Whether health should be offered publicly or privately - and whether children should
be offered a free school place or not. I'd venture that on the measure of maximising
freedom, you'll tend to come out with a reasonable outcome. And if it turns out that
government imposition reduces people's overall, in-context freedoms, then that's the time
to butt out. |
|
| |
That being said - incompetent or worse, corrupt and incompetent government is certainly to be
rooted out wherever it's found. Having a transparent legal and financial system is a good
starting point in discovering and identifying both of those common failings. |
|
| |
// Having a transparent legal and financial system is a good starting point // |
|
| |
Great ... when you find one, point it out. |
|
| |
Transparency is of course a relative scalar. There’s
Deutchebank, and then there’s a credit union.
There’s Wells Fargo and their cheating account
strategies, but then there’s even less transparency
in Panama where a whole bunch of tax cheats hid
their money. There’s the SEC rules, and there’s the
bank of Russia. |
|
| |