Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

These two The Guardian liveblogs and twitter posts within sum up the current vote:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/mar/13/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-leaving-the-eu-with-no-deal-politics-live?page=with:block-5c895d0ae4b0cf92e5a56810#block-5c895d0ae4b0cf92e5a56810

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/mar/13/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-leaving-the-eu-with-no-deal-politics-live?page=with:block-5c895d41e4b0eff8e0fc26c5#block-5c895d41e4b0eff8e0fc26c5

Summed up in two words would be 'absolute chaos'. Sounds like there is severe danger of them shooting themselves in the collective face.

[Dorsidwarf]

Lmao, government promises a free vote, on the day of the vote has the party whips try to force its own resolution to fail, fails at that.

[hector13]

That’s only because an amendment was added to it to completely eliminate the possibility of a no-deal Brexit ever. Still amusing, though.

I don’t understand how this government is still in power. They’ve been fucking about for two years getting nothing, what is essentially flagship policy voted down twice - once by the biggest defeat in history - and they have no time left to get anything new in because they were trying to run down the clock, presumably in the hope politicians were going to be sensible.

Either Brexit happens with a no-deal, which means they’re going against parliament, or they withdraw Article 50, which means they’re going against the people.

Tomorrow there’s a vote on extending Article 50. Working under the assumption it passes (because nobody thinks this government can work something out in less than 15 days, regardless of the EU’s position on budging on the deal they’ve said they’re not budging on) the 27 EU states have to agree to it, and I think they want a better reason than “we’ve been pissing into the wind for two years, and we want to do it some more, please.”

[Egan_BW]

So much nothing has happened that I've become somewhat sceptical of the idea that nothing is going to ever stop happening.

[Frumple]

I've noticed some banging about that at least one nation (Italy, iirc?) is intending to veto an extension request pretty much regardless, too, heh. If the no no-deal was legally binding, we'd probably be looking at a default to revocation if that happened.

... also noticed a leaver or two come out saying they deserve a revoke at this point. Years of incompetent clusterfuck isn't exactly the best showing, I guess.

[smjjames]

Probably the only reason that government is still in power is because nobody really wants the job. The Tories/conservatives don't want Labor or some other group to pick the PM and they themselves don't want the job that Theresa May is doing.

I wouldn't be surprised if she got sacked within a month or perhaps even a week of Brexit crashing out. I read that the tory party no-confidence vote can't be done for another 12 months (maybe that's just an internal party thing rather than Parliamentary, not sure) and theres nothing stopping Labor from starting a no-confidence vote.

Regarding the extension, yea, Juncker and others have been saying that they need a reason for the extension like a referendum or a general election. Plus I've read that they're saying that the negotiations are over, so, the reason can't be 'more negotiations'.

I've noticed some banging about that at least one nation (Italy, iirc?) is intending to veto an extension request pretty much regardless, too, heh. If the no no-deal was legally binding, we'd probably be looking at a default to revocation if that happened.

... also noticed a leaver or two come out saying they deserve a revoke at this point. Years of incompetent clusterfuck isn't exactly the best showing, I guess.

Hadn't seen that about at least one nation intending to veto an extension regardless. Still, they're going to have to come up with a reason besides 'more negotiation'. If this is the best they can get in 2+ years, what hope is there for further negotiations.

As for revoking article 50, I think I've read that the EU is going to effectively keep the UK on a VERY short leash if they end up revoking it.

edit: Regardless of whoever vetoes it, Brexiteers ARE lobbying to have someone veto it and all it takes is for one country to veto it to scuttle the extension.

[Loud Whispers]

But isn't that projecting? Shouldn't one make a decision to leave when such issues actually appear rather than on the basis of one's fear that they might?

Nah, waiting until such a time would not make any sense for me. For starters, the issue has already appeared for me - the UK should not have to continually be defending its sovereignty against the EU, and I am cognizant that every concession against total integration is still integration further under the EU. Couple that with our politicians being pro-EU, the EU being utterly disinterested in even slowing down centralisation let alone reversing it, it would be completely daft for me to wait for the inevitable to occur before acting. In this sense, you would ask for me to hand over control of my country just to ask for it back. Given that the EU has an interest in punishing any European nation for leaving it, it would be easier for you to convince me that I should give away my house to the taxman before asking for it back. I would not want my country to become another Italy.
Also moving away from my logic, on a more pragmatic political sense, waiting to be further integrated into the EU before leaving will inevitably result in more work & uncertainty than if you had left earlier - if countries in the eurozone for example decided to leave the EU, they would have to choose between immediately setting up their own national currency or having their currency controlled by a hostile EU. Imagine Juncker in charge of your country, and you tell him you're leaving the EU

As for it not being just a free trade area - I agree that it won't ever be just that, but then again that's the whole point of EU, isn't it? To make the politics and administrations of all member states so intertwined and integrated that another war in Europe would be all but impossible. As far as I'm concerned that's a goal worth sacrificing some political independence for.

NATO and nuclear weapons are responsible for having kept the peace in Europe. The EU's push for defence agreements in Ukraine have done wonders for stoking up a West vs East conflict, whilst its disabling of national borders have allowed for the free movement of balkan guns & terrorist groups throughout Europe. If however the EU had no designs for common foreign policy and international rivalries, I would still be concerned - It just does not make sense to justify political surrender like this - NATO membership does not require Washington to rule you, so why then does the EU deserve this divine right of Kings? It's a bit cheeki breeki to say that you must subject yourself to yuropean rule to avoid being conquered by the yuropean union ;P
So I believe this: to sacrifice the independence you fought for cannot be the goal; it is defeat itself.

And by the way, I absolutely agree that the discourse has been poisoned by bad faith generalisations, patronising language, and tribalism (or maybe it's always been like that?) - it's always the other side that's emotional and it's always the worst possible arguments that they must be espousing.

I don't believe it's always been like that. I chalk it up to social media putting limited word counts and high post volumes into interpolitical dialogues

edit: Regardless of whoever vetoes it, Brexiteers ARE lobbying to have someone veto it and all it takes is for one country to veto it to scuttle the extension.

Come on Poland
DO IT FOR MEMES
DO IT LADS

[scourge728]

What's so wrong with centralization?

[Kagus]

What's so wrong with centralization?

The sweaty people get even sweatier

[wierd]

You see the absolute fun that is the US's public education system?

Yeah. THAT is one of the things that centralization "Top down" mandates can cause.  Not all regions operate under the same social, cultural, or political frameworks, and so what works in one area might not work so well in another.  Centralized government wants to deal with aggregate, faceless and culturally deficited proxies of what the areas they are managing are actually like, and to impose things that they FEEL are good, but can be toxic as shit, depending on circumstances in the areas in question.

Again, US public education.  You dont want that.

[Loud Whispers]

What's so wrong with centralization?

Probably the wrong question to ask, as centralisation can be many things, even necessary at times. In the general sense, I tend towards decentralisation as I am a firm believer in the pragmatic & moral qualities of decentralised decision making.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

-Leaders from local constituencies understand the lives & problems of their constituency, because they are actually from that community.
-They are accountable & accessible from their community when things go wrong, right or the area could benefit from some project / policy change.
-There is a very short line of communication from the citizen to the nearest authority capable of organising a response.
-Leaders & constituencies both have a vested interest in how their community is run, and both have natural incentive to see it do well.
-Locals tend to be experts in local issues. As the old saying goes, you ask your bricklayers for advice on bricks and your jewelers advice on jewels.
-Smaller social units are easier to keep close and altruistic.
-Smaller administrative units require less bureaucracy to operate.
-Corruption and impunity follow excessive centralisation

In this specific example, I don't want the EU to have authority over the UK, so it's a political decision as well

[Frumple]

Second ref vote got shot down, probably increasing the likelihood an extension request is rejected. What seems to be the current options for UK: No deal in the face of yesterday's vote, general election and pray the EU grants an extension for it, revoking A50, accept whatever deal the EU feels like giving at the last minute. The clusterfuck continues to fuck clusterly.

[Kagus]

https://svaice.webnode.com/
https://www.nrk.no/nordland/_-det-renner-allerede-elver-rett-fra-breen.-da-kan-vi-like-godt-ta-ut-isen-for-den-smelter-1.14463939

A company called Svaice is set up and ready to start chopping up bits of a glacial area known as "Svartisen", "The Black Ice". Pieces of the roughly 3600 cubic meters of harvested ice (per year) will then be flown via helicopter (at least for the first couple months) out to a distribution center, where it will be repackaged and shipped out to exclusive locations around the world... and used as ice cubes for the elite at about $14 a pop.

Some inconsequential numpties feel that this is silly, and that the helicopters and chainsaws may disturb wildlife in the adjacent protected national park. The founder of Svaice quickly DESTROYED all opposition by noting that "It's already melting, what difference does it make if we cut up and sell some of it?"



In other news...

https://www.nsb.no/en/vy
https://www.nrk.no/norge/nsbs-navneendring-vil-koste-opp-mot-280-millioner-kroner-1.14468467

Norwegian State Railways (NSB), the publicly-owned rail system which controls all train traffic (outside of the airport express train, which is a private company that licenses use of NSB's rail network), is getting a name change. Why? Well, because it's time for something new... Also because the current government is working hard on breaking up and privatizing everything that NSB once covered, so they can't very well use a "State" organizational name once the final bits have been bought up. That just wouldn't make much sense, now would it?

Oh, and repainting everything to match the new name/logo/color scheme will cost an estimated 280 million kroner (roughly $30m US). They also need to replace approximately 7,000 employee uniforms. Which, despite having been unisex for decades, now apparently need to have heels and skirts on the ladies' uniforms. At least according to the rough drafts that have been leaked.

There's also a slight issue in that, by Norwegian law, an enterprise's name must be composed of "at least three letters from the Norwegian alphabet". "Vy" is only two, as evident. Spokespersons for NSB/Vy have allayed doubts over this obstacle by saying "We'll just register it under a different name officially, and call it Vy as a front". Certain precocious individuals are now "Curious as to what Vy will actually be called".


Vietnamese-Norwegian hairdresser Thanh Vy is reportedly "Quite happy and excited" about the free advertising.

[Egan_BW]

Fucking dumbass rich people, its literally just ice. You can put tap water in the freezer and get the exact same thing with exponentially less personal cost, waste of fuel, and environmental destruction.

[Kagus]

Fucking dumbass rich people, its literally just ice. You can put tap water in the freezer and get the exact same thing with exponentially less personal cost, waste of fuel, and environmental destruction.

No no no, you see...

1: It's pretty
"This piece is 1000 years old, and it has an exquisite structure of air bubbles trapped inside it."
-Svaice Founder Geir Ludvik Olsen, showing off a test chunk

2: It's more tastelier
"Europe uses chlorinated water to make ice cubes, which ruins the flavor of the water and thereby also ruins the flavor of whatever you use those ice cubes for."
-From the official website's "Controversy/Facts" section

3: It's soundery niceable
"When you put it in a drink, you can hear the popping. You can actually hear the cracks forming!"
-Geir Olsen, being enthusiastic

Emphasis mine.