British Politics

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Padme said:

I'm not talking about a vote for or against anything. I'm talking about change. If the fishing industry is gone. Then come up with something else. 

Some towns already have started regenerating their town centres and redirecting their energies into tourism and restaurants but it does not mean anyone should expect them to support the European Union. 

What do you expect?

It is like when the Americans bomb some middle eastern town causing ''collateral damage'' and suddenly look surprised when all these Islamic terrorists start appearing.

If somebody shags you up the arse you don't go back for seconds. 

 

[SoulMonster]

It's probably for the better the EU put down some limited quotas, we need to protect our dwindling fish stocks. You know, sustainability and all that, not something conservatives and traditionalists tend to understand.

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, AtariLegend said:

 

Well I'd say he is an idiot. The Empire began dismantling nearly thirty years' before the UK even joined the EEC. The EU are guilty of many things but not the disintegration of the British Empire.

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It's probably for the better the EU put down some limited quotas, we need to protect our dwindling fish stocks. You know, sustainability and all that, not something conservatives and traditionalists tend to understand.

Why are you here?

Your country voted to stay out - twice.

You should be agreeing with me!!

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why are you here?

Your country voted to stay out - twice.

You should be agreeing with me!!

We did vote no. A very selfish and short-sighted decision. 

I voted yes, of course.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

We did vote no. A very selfish and short-sighted decision. 

I voted yes, of course.

Bet your no voters were ''racist...Little Norwegians'' who drive ''white vans''?

That is the sort of smug elitist piffle directed at leave voters here.

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Bet your no voters were ''racist...Little Norwegians'' who drive ''white vans''?

That is the sort of smug elitist piffle directed at leave voters here.

Can't really remember what sort of criticism they got back in 1994 when the last referendum was held. Racism, sure, but more in the vein of being isolationists, nationalists, navel-gazing simpletons and confused and fearful of the world outside our borders. You have to keep in mind that whereas England has been deeply embedded in European culture and society (for lack of a better word), we Norwegians have always been on the outskirts. We haven't travelled that much to the continent. We haven't had as many dealings with Europe. We haven't been to that extent emerged in Europe. So for us it wasn't as much cutting ties and leaving something as it was not opening the door towards something. The idea was that we hade done well so far (oil!) and thus we could survive not taking part in something bigger where we would likely have to give up stuff (fish quotas being one of them). But most who votes no were simply afraid that we would be giving up our sovereignity, that we would be selling Norway to foreigners. It was a highly nationalistic referendum. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Can't really remember what sort of criticism they got back in 1994 when the last referendum was held. Racism, sure, but more in the vein of being isolationists, nationalists, navel-gazing simpletons and confused and fearful of the world outside our borders. You have to keep in mind that whereas England has been deeply embedded in European culture and society (for lack of a better word), we Norwegians have always been on the outskirts. We haven't travelled that much to the continent. We haven't had as many dealings with Europe. We haven't been to that extent emerged in Europe. So for us it wasn't as much cutting ties and leaving something as it was not opening the door towards something. The idea was that we hade done well so far (oil!) and thus we could survive not taking part in something bigger where we would likely have to give up stuff (fish quotas being one of them). But most who votes no were simply afraid that we would be giving up our sovereignity, that we would be selling Norway to foreigners. It was a highly nationalistic referendum. 

You have some sensible people in Norway then? I was beginning to give up hope talking with you so much. 

De Gaulle vetoed (''non'') Britain's first attempt to join the EEC in 1963 for reasons due to solely his (well known) Anglophobia.

[SoulMonster]

The irony is that though our agreements with the EU, we are sort of a pseudo-member anyway :D. We don't really get to have a vote in what happens, but we still have to adjust to EU policies to a large extent. So critics even on the no side of the argument, is saying we would have been better off being part of the EU than we ended up with. We really drew the short (or long?) straw. So they want us to terminate the deals we have with the EU, while the pro contingent wants us to build on the framework of agreement we have to make us more into a proper member. In fact I think I remember that Norway and our deal with the EU was used to scare people in the UK as an example of how bad the outcome of Brexit could be. It was like, "We need deals with the EU post-Brexit, but it is not going to be like what Norway got! We will be getting something better, surely" :D.

[wasted]

I see the EU as being about avoiding wars. If it breaks up anything can happen. UK won’t be keeping the peace. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, wasted said:

I see the EU as being about avoiding wars.

I think the EU, or any trade agreements that benefit both parties, have a huge pacifying effect. It is a tangible, fiscal reason to not go to war. And then trade means that people collaborate across borders. And people who collaborate know each other. And when people know each other they are less likely to want to fight each other over misunderstandings and xenophobia, at least. So yeah, EU, and its predecessors, does help to avoid wars.  

[wasted]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think the EU, or any trade agreements that benefit both parties, have a huge pacifying effect. It is a tangible, fiscal reason to not go to war. And then trade means that people collaborate across borders. And people who collaborate know each other. And when people know each other they are less likely to want to fight each other over misunderstandings and xenophobia, at least. So yeah, EU, and its predecessors, does help to avoid wars.  

Common interests avoid wars. So UK getting isolated in that way is a bit worrying. But there downsides to the EU too, but avoiding wars almost trumps everything. 

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think the EU, or any trade agreements that benefit both parties, have a huge pacifying effect. It is a tangible, fiscal reason to not go to war. And then trade means that people collaborate across borders. And people who collaborate know each other. And when people know each other they are less likely to want to fight each other over misunderstandings and xenophobia, at least. So yeah, EU, and its predecessors, does help to avoid wars.  

I don't agree. It was NATO which ensured a pacific Europe. Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Holland, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom were already locked in a military alliance eighty years' prior to the beginnings of European Unity. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I don't agree. It was NATO which ensured a pacific Europe. Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Holland, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom were already locked in a military alliance eighty years' prior to the beginning of European Unity. 

You don't agree that the EU is a pacifying force in Europe, or that trade agreements in general are? 

And of course military alliances secure peace

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You don't agree that the EU is a pacifying force in Europe, or that trade agreements in general are? 

And of course military alliances secure peace

I suppose they would be under any other given situation but NATO renders the point rather academic as war in Europe would have/would not have happened irrespective of the formation of the EU.

Further, Britain is not departing from European supra-nationalism completely. She'll still, besides her aforementioned NATO commitments, be a member of the Council of Europe and the European Space Agency. She still has bilateral treaties with many individual states. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[soon]

Just learned about Brexit Preppers. They are concerned about the fall out of a no deal exit from the EU. So they stock supplies. Theres too much going on in the world for me to go super deep into the day to day of the Brexit reality. Is this the type of thing that regular folks would take seriously and buy a few extra cans of beans, or more of a fringe thing?

There's a Facebook group with over 1,000 members where people can discuss "practical preparations" for a "life after Brexit."

There's also a leaflet called "Getting Ready Together" circulating.

"We can't change a lot of things, but we can be ready for the worst possible outcome, because nobody died from being over-prepared," former police officer James Patrick, the leaflet's author, told the New York Times, which reported on the preppers.  

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.4868294/meet-one-of-the-worried-brits-stockpiling-goods-as-brexit-looms-1.4868301

[SoulMonster]

36 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I suppose they would be under any other given situation but NATO renders the point rather academic as war in Europe would have/would not have happened irrespective of the formation of the EU.

It might be superfluous considering the existence of NATO, but that doesn't mean EU also doesn't help keep the peace. Besides, my post was about trade and multinational agreements in general.

Edited October 22, 2018 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

Question. Norway had two referenda, 1972,

and 1994,

Who are those mysterious people in green? Are they your Guardian reading Londoners, Soul?

[Padme]

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Some towns already have started regenerating their town centres and redirecting their energies into tourism and restaurants but it does not mean anyone should expect them to support the European Union. 

What do you expect?

It is like when the Americans bomb some middle eastern town causing ''collateral damage'' and suddenly look surprised when all these Islamic terrorists start appearing.

If somebody shags you up the arse you don't go back for seconds. 

 

First of all compearing a bomb that kill a big amount of people with the EU is out of place. In fact one of reason behind the creation of EU was to avoid as many wars as possible.

Second, joining the EU is not the same as electing MP. One election people vote one party. If later they are not happy. They vote other party. If the UK was only interested in trading. Then the UK should've done something about it during foundation of the EU.

And third, a lot people voted Brexit because they were not well informed of many things like the Irish border issue. And because the Brexit campaign made a lot of silly promises. Making Brexit look like Disneyland when it is far from it.

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, Padme said:

First of all compearing a bomb that kill a big amount of people with the EU is out of place. In fact one of reason behind the creation of EU was to avoid as many wars as possible.

Second, joining the EU is not the same as electing MP. One election people vote one party. If later they are not happy. They vote other party. If the UK was only interested in trading. Then the UK should've done something about it during foundation of the EU.

And third, a lot people voted Brexit because they were not well informed of many things like the Irish border issue. And because the Brexit campaign made a lot of silly promises. Making Brexit look like Disneyland when it is far from it.

So you cannot even bring yourself to admit that the reason areas of the country voted leave was because the EU had crippled their industries? You cannot countenance such an idea? I live in the actual area I'm describing, and relaying you why people voted leave here! I am sitting in the bloody place right now, as I speak!! 

You cannot bring yourself to entertain such a notion.

[SoulMonster]

47 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Question. Norway had two referenda, 1972,

and 1994,

Who are those mysterious people in green? Are they your Guardian reading Londoners, Soul?

Are you thinking that people in the green counties all voted 'yes' and people in the red counties all voted 'no'? 

So, largely speaking, people in cities would tend to be less opposed to the EU - because, well, they are not ignorant hicks who are afraid of everything foreign - resulting in counties with highest population densities to be slightly more in favor. Oslo is, as you might know, our largest city and not far from the middle of the green area on the map. If the map was more finely divvied up, you would have seen green areas popping up around our other clusters of population, too, like around Bergen, Trondheim, Stavanger and Tromsø.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Are you thinking that people in the green counties all voted 'yes' and people in the red counties all voted 'no'? 

So, largely speaking, people in cities would tend to be less opposed to the EU - because, well, they are not ignorant hicks who are afraid of everything foreign - resulting in counties with highest population densities to be slightly more in favor. Oslo is, as you might know, our largest city and not far from the middle of the green area on the map. If the map was more finely divvied up, you would have seen green areas popping up around our other clusters of population, too, like around Bergen, Trondheim, Stavanger and Tromsø.

Do you know anything about your own politico-geography? It is clearly by counties.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Do you know anything about your own politico-geography? It is clearly by counties.

Uhm, I actually confirmed the map displays voting results per counties  But if we would have divvied up by "kommuner" instead (which is a smaller administrative unit below counties), you would have seen the green color more scattered across the country because, as I said, pro-EU sentiment was mostly found in urban centers whereas anti-EU sentiment was mostly find in rural areas.

[soon]

20 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Uhm, I actually confirmed the map displays voting results per counties  But if we would have divvied up by "kommuner" instead (which is a smaller administrative unit below counties), you would have seen the green color more scattered across the country because, as I said, pro-EU sentiment was mostly found in urban centers whereas anti-EU sentiment was mostly find in rural areas.

Huh, so its divided across the same lines as Zoofilli 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, soon said:

Huh, so its divided across the same lines as Zoofilli 

Exactly!  I am sure there is a positive correlation between being against the EU and zoofili!

Edited October 22, 2018 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

On that tardy topic: One of our most popular authors (Erlend Loe) just released his new novel about a group of people who travel to Africa to bum the "big five"  Apparently it is about environmentalism.