UKMT April 2019 - Join the JCBJQ today! - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT April 2019 - Join the JCBJQ today!

«‹›2 »

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Julio Cruz posted:

tell it to whoever bought it for me in the first place (and I have my suspicions)

you won't get an update for every brexit thing not happening jesus

thing took me like hours

# ¿ Apr 1, 2019 17:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 20, 2024 12:56

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

goddamnedtwisto posted:

I've heard the opinion that we've never actually left the EFTA and EEA so Norway can, in the words of international law, loving jog on.

that's dumb even in the brexit context

seriously who the gently caress thinks rules lawyering international law might work

# ¿ Apr 1, 2019 20:23

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

# ¿ Apr 1, 2019 21:50

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Bardeh posted:

Where the hell are the rest of the Tories?

maybe they're taking a rest of the Tories

# ¿ Apr 1, 2019 22:21

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

JFairfax posted:

Finally some good news

Pete Doherty says his band will be 'destroyed' by Brexit

http://flip.it/NH_GqI

quote:

�I don�t believe that this Great British nation is capable of doing that to itself � and destroying my band in the process, because I�m the only British passport holder in the band.�

He continued: �It will be the best thing in the world for music... There will be an incredible backlash.�

this likely means more pete doherty, not less

# ¿ Apr 2, 2019 17:45

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

I dunno. The EU can't really agree to another delay in return for gently caress-all, can it?

# ¿ Apr 2, 2019 18:17

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Ratjaculation posted:

All this brexit mess has made me fancy a war film tonight. Recommendations please

cecil b demented

# ¿ Apr 2, 2019 20:30

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

gently caress thomas friedman i hate him

# ¿ Apr 3, 2019 11:17

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Gort posted:

If a Nazi assassinated Corbyn I wonder if any of these Tory shites would even cry crocodile tears for the public

Surely, this once and for all makes clear the grievous consequences of opposing the Will of the People

# ¿ Apr 3, 2019 12:28

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

What I enjoy most with ol' Jordan P is how unhappy he is

# ¿ Apr 3, 2019 16:52

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

brian posted:

I mean it's fine to not feel safe here when there's a realistic chance of a tory government at any point in time but it's certainly no different on the continent, it just sounds like she's safe from the other awful results of right wing governance or is lucky enough to be from finland I guess in which case go back it's way loving better than here

lmao what the gently caress

# ¿ Apr 3, 2019 19:44

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

brian posted:

hey this is a perfectly good jape because it sounded like i was saying that but finland is really cool and britain is really lame so that was more my point and i didn't mean for it to sound like the thing you made fun of

The only way you think "go back where you came from" could ever be a good-faith proposal is you've never interacted with a racist, so,

like,

check your privilege you luminescent wanker

# ¿ Apr 3, 2019 19:48

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

brian posted:

edit2: it's not racist to say get the hell out of this hell hole of a country if you believe it to be uniquely awful and there's better options available and you're not otherwise forced to be here (i.e. family and friends you care about too much etc), especially if you're from and live in that country but go off i guess

if you don't like it here go back to reddit or whatever

i'm being constructive

# ¿ Apr 3, 2019 20:06

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

This graun writer's weird

quote:

No question, the customs union certainly makes it easier for multinational companies to ship parts and semi-finished goods backwards and forwards across the Channel. But the real test of the worth of the current system is whether it has done anything to improve Britain�s trade performance.

Overseas business done by UK companies can be divided into four categories: exports of goods to the EU, exports of services to the EU, exports of goods to the rest of the world, and exports of services to the rest of the world.

Given that the customs union mostly affects physical trade goods, it might be thought that goods exports to the EU would be the best-performing category of the four. In fact, it is comfortably the worst, not just in recent years but over the past two decades, during which time exports have grown by just 0.2% on average. That�s actually worse than growth in goods exports to the rest of the world (up 3.3% a year).

The UK�s record in services has been much better. Exports to non-EU countries have grown by 5.6% a year for the past two decades, while services exports to the EU have increased by 5.2% a year.

Since the late 1990s, a deficit in goods with the EU of �6bn a year has ballooned into a deficit of �95bn a year. What�s more, the two goods sectors where the UK runs its biggest trade deficit with the EU are motor vehicles and food and drink, the ones that get the most protection from tariffs. Per head of population, the UK�s deficit in goods with the EU is bigger than the US�s bilateral deficit with China, which Donald Trump is so fired up about.

In part, that�s due to the EU�s miserable growth performance, but there�s more to it than that. Despite all the form-filling they have to do, Chinese, American, Indian and Brazilian goods exports to the EU have increased faster than Britain�s.

Certain conclusions can be drawn from this. The customs union works well for German carmakers and French farmers, who have a captive market for their products, but has not delivered anything like the same benefits for the UK.

I don't get this, is he being intentionally disingenuous? What really matters is the UK's trade performance, not its dependence on food imports or upholding EU food standards? He even mentions US hormone beef but doesn't engage with the issue at all

# ¿ Apr 4, 2019 08:34

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Guavanaut posted:

The UK is mostly a tertiary/quaternary sector economy, so short of reindustrializing, which we can't do overnight, CU puts us at a disadvantage compared to SM.

Sure, but a lot of things you import are needed for eating. Saying the worth of the customs union is only about trade performance is pretty weird imo

# ¿ Apr 4, 2019 08:47

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Guavanaut posted:

Why are they making these trade and customs treaties political?

This is a very good point which bears repeating. the idea that trade and customs are somehow independent from the exercise of political power was dumb from the start. To very lengthily quote Ivan Rogers from back in december,

quote:

The sovereigntist argument for Brexit, which was one powerful element of the referendum campaign � taking back control of laws, borders and money � is a perfectly legitimate case to make.

If you think the consequences of living in a bloc where the pooling of sovereignty has gone well beyond the technical regulatory domain into huge areas of public life are intolerable for democratic legitimacy and accountability, that is a more than honourable position.

But others who have chosen to pool their sovereignty in ways and to extents which make you feel uncomfortable with the whole direction of the project, have done so because they believe pooling ENHANCES their sovereignty � in the sense of adding to their �power of agency� in a world order in which modestly sized nation states have relatively little say, rather than diminishing it.

They did not want that pooling to stop at the purely technical trade and regulatory domain.

Brexit advocates may think this is fundamental historical error, and has led to overreach by the questionably accountable supranational institutions of their club. They may think that it leads to legislation, opaquely agreed by often unknown legislators, which unduly favours heavyweight incumbent lobbyists.

Fine. There is some justice in plenty of this critique.

Then leave the club. But you cannot, in the act of leaving it, expect the club fundamentally to redesign its founding principles to suit you and to share its sovereignty with you when it still suits you, and to dilute their agency in so doing.

It simply is not going to. And both HMG and Brexit advocates outside it seem constantly to find this frustrating, vexatious and some kind of indication of EU ill will.

We have seen this in both former Brexit Secretaries� conceptions of how deep mutual recognition agreements should be offered to the U.K., alone of all �third countries� with which the EU deals, and in the initial propositions on both financial services, other services and data.

We saw it with the bizarre � and total non-starter � Schroedinger�s Customs Union FCA proposal of the PM whereby we got all the benefits of staying in a CU whilst leaving it to have a fully sovereign trade policy.

We see it in the constant have your cake and eat it demands which run through every document the European Research Group produce or endorse, and we even see it in the railing against the �subordination to inflexible pooled law of the EU� which Richard Dearlove and others view as intolerable on national security grounds in what the Prime Minister is prepared to sign up to in her proposed deal.

But if by sovereignty we must mean more than purely nominal decision-making power and we mean something about the genuine projection of the UK�s power in a world where autarky mercifully, is not an option, then, as we get into the deeper trade, economic and security negotiations ahead, we are going to need a far more serious national debate about trade-offs.

And the trade-offs are real and difficult. No-one should pretend that all the answers will be great.

To take just one technical example, though it rapidly develops a national security as well as an economic dimension, cross border data flows are completely central to free trade and prosperity � not that you would know it from listening to our current trade debate, which remains bizarrely obsessed with tariffs which, outside agriculture, have become a very modest element in the real barriers to cross border trade.

The EU here is a global player � a global rule maker � able and willing effectively to impose its values, rules and standards extraterritorially.

Before the referendum, we had Brexit-supporting senior Ministers and advisers who should have known better, fantasising about the autonomy we would have to plough our own furrow once sovereignty had been resumed and we were no longer obliged to live under the jackboot of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Sobriety only started to set in in this debate after the referendum, as the implications of a failure on the UK�s part to achieve a so-called �adequacy determination� under GDPR from the EU started to sink in � because corporates across a huge range of sectors started to set them out for Ministers.

But it goes well beyond corporates. Ministers start now to understand that the value of the national security exemption in Article 4.2 of the Treaty on the European Union might have been much easier to defend and enforce when we were in the EU, than it will be from outside.

The same applies to so-called �equivalence decisions� in masses of financial sector legislation. Again, the consequences of failure to achieve such decisions will be the substantial erosion of market access into EU markets by U.K. companies.

What, really, are these �equivalence� and �adequacy� stories about? They are the EU projecting power � it does so quite as well as, probably more effectively than, Washington, in multiple critical regulatory areas � and using its pooling of internal sovereignty to impose its values and standards well beyond its borders.

�Going global�, unless it�s purely an empty slogan, is precisely the ability to project both force and influence beyond one�s borders.

Why does the current U.K. debate on sovereignty leave so many corporate players mystified and cold � and I am not, incidentally, for one minute saying such views outweigh others�?

Because in �taking back control� over our laws and leaving the adjudication and enforcement machinery of what used to be our �home� market, we are privileging notional autonomy over law- making over real power to set the rules by which in practice we shall be governed, since departure from norms set by others when we are not in the room will in practice greatly constrain our room for manoeuvre.

So yea trade and customs and standards is pretty much how the EU, in particular, does project its political power. It's p mystifying how brexiters managed to convince themselves and others that UK imports of wine and cars meant the EU would just surrender all of that

# ¿ Apr 4, 2019 11:25

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

V. Illych L. posted:

basically undoable given the composition of the eu, it really is quite fundamentally broken ideologically

Arguably yes, but this is often oversimplified a lot. The limitations on state market intervention is actually a pretty necessary one in place mainly to keep multinats from demanding tax-free access to smaller countries (as evidenced by the Ireland google refund), without it we'd have even worse bidding-for-jobs like they did in the US with the Amazon headquarters. There are exceptions in place that can be used in some cases of legitimate national interests too, which a competent left-wing government can use if it wants to.

The regulatory authorities have some resistance to regulatory capture, as evidenced by stuff like the RoHS, GDRP and neonic bans etc, things which utility can sometimes be debated but which aren't solely in response to market concerns. This doesn't mean it's immune to lobbying of course, but there's a lot more independence and skepticism toward corporate monopolies involved than it's usually given credit for. The EU certainly gives the multinationals lots more trouble than national governments, which are prevented from actual regulation by some combination of economic dependence and lack of authority

It's entirely fair to point out the ways that the EU hinders policies aiming at economic redistribution, and the freedom of movement of money and people certainly plays into that. But rather than the EU being fundamentally ideologically broken, I'd argue the bigger problem is that Europe is. I don't think the EU structures would be the greatest obstacles to a Europe intent on socialist policies, though I may be wrong, but rather the unsound nationalism that seems to give people answers to the problems brought by economic integration and rapid societal change, as well as the ones brought by economic stagnation. Also the idea that the EU gets blamed for the ~immediate threat of immigration~ to Hungarian and Italian (and british) sovereignty is a pretty solid pro in my eyes, it's hard to merit that amount of fash rage without doing a couple things right I figure

# ¿ Apr 4, 2019 12:34

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Rustybear posted:

I think the key idea is not that socialists can form majorities to achieve stuff (of course they can) it's whether they can leverage European institutions to achieve stuff without a overwhelming mandate; and the answer is that the institutions almost always act as a brake not an accelerator of change if that makes sense.

Not always, there are lots of instances where the change is brought about through the imposition of regulations, like in areas where corporations have vested interests and are reluctant to change. Like with incandescent light bulbs, remember the boomer rage about that one? lmao

V. Illych L. posted:

the EU has utterly failed on all the major challenges issued to it, from dealing with the refugee crisis in a civilised manner to empowering its reactionary central bank to completely hamstringing our economies' ability to adjust to e.g. the urgent need for a much greener economy through its ridiculous state aid rules. other environmental issues are not nearly so bad, but the Union is still cheerfully complicit in a mass extinction event which genuinely threatens to make the world itself uninhabitable over time

i actually agree that most eu regulations are eminently sensible and well-designed within the still-hegemonic neoliberal programme. the issue is that this programme is clearly fundamentally unfit for the challenges facing us, and has to go - but it is constitutionally baked into the EU via a number of treaties and regulations which it would take a generation of concerted effort to change. that the neoliberal programme breeds a particular kind of reactionary opposition, making it increasingly difficult to maneuver for anyone sane, is only the cherry on top of the shitpile that is the EU

just the Council veto means that actually changing anything is all but impossible. now that fascist wreckers are one of the largest factions in the legislature, the faint hope of reform through that alley is stone dead

so now we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. gently caress the EU, gently caress the reactionaries, long live socialism

Again, I find it hard to view the refugee crisis as a EU failure rather than a Europe failure, though I certainly agree the EU wasn't up to the challenge. EU members have never given the EU the authority or power needed to deal with something like that in the face of member states' obstruction, the blame for that one should mainly fall on national governments imo. The governments least hostile to immigrants were the ones that wanted a joint EU immigration response, and it failed mainly because of countries demanding 'no muslims'. it's also hard to see how it could have been worked out better by some alternative authority imo; if you'd try to work out a better response to the next refugee crisis, where'd you turn to?

The climate response is absolutely an EU failure though, I agree the EU's response to climate change is terribly insufficient and far too slow to change. But national vested interests in defending their carbon-based industry wouldn't be subject to a more restrictive authority if it were absent, would they? The EU is pretty much unarguably the authority best placed to enforce industrial development toward less earth destruction, through its internal regulations yes, but also through imposing change on other economies through its imports regulations

It's kind of hard to discuss the EU's failures because I often find myself agreeing with the basic criticism but the proposed solutions never add up. Is the proposed solution to a given EU criticism that more power be centralised to EU authorities, or less, or none? It's just naive or dishonest to claim that there's some alternative structure that'd step in to uphold the basic underpinnings of the European economy, and whichever authority you propose do the job would be subject to much of the same limitations and be forced to juggle the same international/national/local considerations, with no guarantee they'll be any more resistent to corporate demands

# ¿ Apr 4, 2019 13:41

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

V. Illych L. posted:

for the extent of the flexibility accorded to the sufficiently audacious in the EU, look no further than Hungary

of course, free markets are much more important to the EU than silly stuff like human rights, so the reaction will probably be stronger - but then, the UK is also a much stronger country than Hungary

The lesson there is also that there are very different sets of rules of play for member states and non-member states. It's certainly not the case that countries outside the EU get to play loose with the rules without consequence, it's got fairly decent ways of making trading partners hurt

# ¿ Apr 4, 2019 13:47

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

mediadave posted:

How hard is it to grow veg in your back garden? Not because of Brexit (It's too late to start thinking about that), but I have a spare section in my garden that's growing nothing but weeds.

I have thought about veg (and herbs?) before, but I don't want to get myself into something that'll suck up a huge amount of my time.

depends on the veg, you can choose the difficulty level yourself pretty much. also depends on sun and wind conditions of course

If you're looking for something to plant and forget, get yourself some currants or gooseberries. They require basically nothing and make tasty stuff happen

# ¿ Apr 4, 2019 18:29

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Tesseraction posted:

Honestly I'd pay so much for a live stream of May in her constituency.

woman stares angrily into space

:munch:

# ¿ Apr 5, 2019 15:22

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

quote:

Meanwhile, the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, said that the government was refusing to countenance changes to the political declaration negotiated with Brussels.

what the gently caress's wrong with her

# ¿ Apr 5, 2019 19:54

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Pesky Splinter posted:

How loving empty and brainspidered does your life have to be when your concerns are either:
A) What colour your passport is.
B) That they removed some words that people would otherwise barely loving notice.

yes how dare she

# ¿ Apr 5, 2019 20:52

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

The hatred towards landlords itt felt p weird at first, I've never thought of it as more problematic than any other unfair consequence of private property. It's never even come up as a thing around here

The pennies dropped when I found out you permit people owning more than one flat and letting it second-hand without time limits or justification, and about right-to-buy being a thing for decades, and leaseholds and social housing and market rents and all that loving stuff, jesus. It's like the system was consciously designed to maximise spite and resentment, in addition to forcing people into unsound and unfair economic dependency. Also tenants can, for some reason, be made homeless despite paying their rents, without court decision? What the legit gently caress.

Not that Sweden's solved housing by any means, and it seems the political agenda's warming to the UK model for some reason that's so depressing I consciously avoid reading about it. But the limits on ownership of apartments, rules on letting second-hand, rent controls, and the lack of social housing certainly keeps the temperature down

# ¿ Apr 6, 2019 09:37

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Miftan posted:

There's a limit on the number of houses you can own in Sweden? Can you elaborate? I'd love to bring this up for the 'scandis are so successful because they embraced capitalism with some minor safety nets!' crowd.

housing is complicated

To be very brief, almost all "owned" apartments in Sweden are what you'd call co-ops I think? You own a part of a cooperative, which in turn owns the property, which means you own the right to live in the apartment, not the apartment itself. It's in the Swedish word for it, bostadsr�tt, meaning something like 'right to live in' or 'right to residence', but does not imply ownership. Almost all such cooperatives have restrictions on membership stating that the owner must be officially registered as resident in the apartment, or you can be refused or expelled as appropriate. So, there are probably rules for people who work in different parts of the country different parts of the year, and there will usually be rules allowing you to sublet your apartment for shorter periods of time (normally when moving because of new job or relationship) but there's no buy-to-let economy as such, or at least, not a legal one.

Sweden's got almost no social housing, in the sense you use it I believe? We have municipal landlords that let property, and private landlords competing with them, but it's not like we've got apartments specifically built for low-income people. You're also not entitled to rent an apartment unless you live in it, this is according to law I believe--you're certainly not allowed to rent multiple apartments (except temporarily and/or because of specific circumstances, like above). Also if you let second hand, you're expected to let it to the same rent that you pay as tenant, with maybe a 10-15% extra if it's furnished.

The restrictions don't apply when renting out rooms in your owned or rented apartment as long as you yourself live in it, that's fine, as long as you or they don't gently caress things up, and you can take whichever rent your conscience allows you to.

Rules on property that you own outright are different, you're entitled to let that other house on your land, or if you own an entire building or something you can be a private landlord, without the restrictions above. However, you're not allowed to set rent freely, it will be negotiated with the renters' association or something, in the grand ol' Swedish corporatist tradition. It's not like we've solved exploitation or housing or any of that, plus the restrictions on market rents give incentive to a thriving 'black' renting market in larger cities. But it's not a commodity to the extent you've got in the UK I think

Tijuana Bibliophile fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Apr 6, 2019

# ¿ Apr 6, 2019 13:44

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Necrothatcher posted:

clarity

lmao no

# ¿ Apr 7, 2019 00:37

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Ratjaculation posted:

No but you see visa conditions and

that's the thing ain't it. Passport says EU -> you get to stay and work, that's a clear policy. Anything involving UK home office bureaucracy, even if it were trying to enforce a consciously generous policy, isn't. You're already locking up delinquent legal residents and you can loving pay to get your application "fast-tracked" jesus

# ¿ Apr 7, 2019 00:46

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

OwlFancier posted:

If your complaint is that the government might decide to murder you on a whim you might want a different country tbh.

or vote for it, surely

# ¿ Apr 7, 2019 01:34

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

quote:

A suspected poacher was killed by an elephant at a South African national park, before a pride of lions ate his body.

The man was hunting rhino when the creature struck, South African National Parks said in a statement.

It added that his accomplices contacted the man�s family, who in turn asked rangers at the Kruger National Park to recover his remains.

Don English, the park�s regional ranger, led a search party for the body, assisted by field rangers and members of the park�s air wing, who flew above the area.

They later discovered the man�s remains.

gently caress yeah

# ¿ Apr 7, 2019 20:26

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Spangly A posted:

UK has it's own nukes, they're in plymouth and stuffed full of condoms to stop them blowing up when squaddies use them as goalposts

I seem to recall they're in all nuclear subs too and there's a locked safe there with instructions on what to do when the Motherland falls silent

# ¿ Apr 8, 2019 17:31

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

ThomasPaine posted:

She's so unfunny jfc

https://twitter.com/francesweetman/status/1115187998667214848?s=19

the joke is she knows she's pathetic, but is oblivious of just how

# ¿ Apr 8, 2019 19:24

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

or perhaps, she's claiming that her around-men-she-likes pathetic is a lot better than her social media pathetic

I dunno

# ¿ Apr 8, 2019 19:26

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

jabby posted:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1115319944122699778
Wales only, but interesting considering the 'received wisdom' is that the current chaos will hurt both main parties.

numbers look weird

what's a bxp and how surprised should I be about the ukip->chuk thing

# ¿ Apr 8, 2019 19:33

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Jose posted:

loving lmao

Not even token mentions of environment and equality and social mobility? The loving USA has centrists better at centrism

# ¿ Apr 9, 2019 19:56

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Lady Grinning Soul is the best Bond theme

# ¿ Apr 9, 2019 19:57

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Renaissance Robot posted:

I was quite distressed to learn it was originally much longer but all the extra scenes got tossed down a Transylvanian salt mine to rot for some reason

there's a bad joke about you being salty in here somewhere but I can't justify doing it

# ¿ Apr 10, 2019 17:39

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Grouchio posted:

God damnit EU you were supposed to flip off May's pleas for a delay.

I was anticipating the start of the next recession on friday.

Yeah, while still being arguably not a good idea, it's looking like Brexit will work out pretty sweet. after all, the people suffering negative consequences will overwhelmingly belong to the privileged classes. while the fubpees and fash dish it out over who and what's to blame and fight over the shrinking pie of rent available to be extracted from society, labour's in position to leverage the breakdown into a solid post-tory--and post-EU--socialist mandate lasting a decade-to-generation or so. can't measure something like that in words on a passport lol

While labour's brexit strat's worked out pretty sweet so far, maneuvering the government into inevitable stalemate on brexit, I'm a bit surprised they're willing to give legitimacy to may's fake negotiation poo poo. I thought the point of the six tests etc was to make sure that there wouldn't be any potential to mix up ~disastrous tory brexit~ with labour policy. I could see this screwing with labour's post-election angular momentum, particularly if the permanent customs union position gets dirtied with all May's concessions to EU regulations and stuff

# ¿ Apr 10, 2019 18:13

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Slightly more sincerely, I enjoyed this graun thing on the absurdity of neoliberalism and public governance. Bit disappointed he stopped at hayek and von Mises, and didn't discuss the fresher and hipper threats from New public management and such, there are loads of more recent stuff people would recognize from their closest PR or HR or management consultancies that doesn't involve knowledge of old austrians.

gently caress but I do hate management consults and public relations consults and their loving ilk

# ¿ Apr 10, 2019 18:36

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

This might not be the Brexit you wanted, but you can't argue it's not the Brexit you deserve

# ¿ Apr 11, 2019 02:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 20, 2024 12:56

Tijuana Bibliophile: Dec 30, 2008; Scratchmo

Cerebral Bore posted:

In addition to this, if Assange is extradited to the US and not Sweden the message being sent is literally "we don't give a poo poo if you raped someone, only that you went against US interests", which is kinda extra hosed.

I don't think we even want him any longer? The arrest warrant was dropped a while ago.

Anyway Assange very probably deserves to be locked up without internet for things he's done, it's too bad him being extradited to the US means he'll be locked up for bullshit. I'd have preferred him doing time in Equador for pissing on his host's carpet

# ¿ Apr 11, 2019 19:32

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT April 2019 - Join the JCBJQ today!

«‹›2 »