The Brexit aftermath thread

[Elegiac]

It did, we were sending all our spare cash to the EU

Nooo, you weren't. As evidenced by the mythological 350 million in British monopoly money that still has yet to materialize for the NHS.

And again; nothing stopped them from either taxing the wealthy, mandating higher minimum wages, or cutting off those moochers they call a Royal Family from public funds save their own incompetence at running a country.

No government is as nimble as the private sector

Cool, "nimbleness" isn't what's required when it comes to infrastructure and public services.

Anyway, what do you care? You fuckin' live in Australia. Get your own house in order.

[Fuiking]

Nooo, you weren't. As evidenced by the mythological 350 million in British monopoly money that still has yet to materialize for the NHS.

And again; nothing stopped them from either taxing the wealthy, mandating higher minimum wages, or cutting off those moochers they call a Royal Family from public funds save their own incompetence at running a country.



Cool, "nimbleness" isn't what's required when it comes to infrastructure and public services.

Anyway, what do you care? You fuckin' live in Australia. Get your own house in order.

Im starting to doubt he lives in Australia.. unless Australia means sitting in a cubicle sprouting misinformation, communist propaganda and trolling beside Shalcker.

[Elegiac]

Im starting to doubt he lives in Australia.. unless Australia means sitting in a cubicle sprouting misinformation, communist propaganda and trolling beside Shalcker.

Nah, I'd believe it.

There are a ton of British expatriates who leave the UK for places like Australia due to a lower cost of living/nicer weather/etc. and then proceed to constantly make nuisances of themselves and spend their entire day bitching about how much better it was back in the UK.

[Temp name]

or cutting off those moochers they call a Royal Family from public funds

It is worth noting that the Royal family is a net money maker for the UK
Directly because they, you know, own a shit ton of land and are willingly giving the UK government the profits for that land (and don't say that the government should just take their land, that's a horrible idea, letting any government take a private citizens property for effectively no reason)
and indirectly because it's one of few, and also the largest western monarchy still in effect, which is a novel thing for some people

[Elegiac]

It is worth noting that the Royal family is a net money maker for the UK

Then they won't miss public funds, will they?

(and don't say that the government should just take their land, that's a horrible idea, letting any government take a private citizens property for effectively no reason)

The reason is simple: inherited monarchy is stupid and undemocratic especially when they have effectively no actual administrative function beyond looking nice.

Either they are private citizens as you claim and should be cut off from civil maintenance beyond what any other citizen would receive, or they are public entities in which case the land is ultimately owned by the state anyway. "It's tradition", "it's novel", "it's a tourist attraction" is not justification for enshrining what is effectively a system of caste.

[Temp name]

Then they won't miss public funds, will they?



The reason is simple: inherited monarchy is stupid and undemocratic especially when they have effectively no actual administrative function beyond looking nice.

Either they are private citizens as you claim and should be cut off from civil maintenance beyond what any other citizen would receive, or they are public entities in which case the land is ultimately owned by the state anyway. "It's tradition", "it's novel", "it's a tourist attraction" is not justification for enshrining what is effectively a system of caste.

If you have a lot of assets, the state is very willing to come to some agreement for both of your benefits, the same has happened with the royal family in the UK. They have stuff, the government wants stuff, so the government rents stuff from them.

And yes, they are private citizens, but in the same way as celebrities are. The only difference is that say, a movie star gets their celebrity status from acting, while a member of the royal family gets it from having won the lottery of birth

The reason is simple: inherited monarchy is stupid and undemocratic especially when they have effectively no actual administrative function beyond looking nice.

That may be, but probably the last thing the UK government needs right now is a major upheaval like removing the monarchy

[Elegiac]

If you have a lot of assets, the state is very willing to come to some agreement for both of your benefits, the same has happened with the royal family in the UK. They have stuff, the government wants stuff, so the government rents stuff from them.

Eminent domain is a thing, in the case of places of historical and cultural significance.

And yes, they are private citizens, but in the same way as celebrities are. The only difference is that say, a movie star gets their celebrity status from acting, while a member of the royal family gets it from having won the lottery of birth

Which is, as I said, stupid and undemocratic.

That may be, but probably the last thing the UK government needs right now is a major upheaval like removing the monarchy

Actually, I think comprehensive systemic reform is exactly what the UK needs because it's clear that its ad hoc firetrap of a government is not capable of governing.

[Veggie50]

Eminent domain is a thing, in the case of places of historical and cultural significance.



Which is, as I said, stupid and undemocratic.



Actually, I think comprehensive systemic reform is exactly what the UK needs because it's clear that its ad hoc firetrap of a government is not capable of governing.

Considering the queen doesn't actually govern, it can't be "undemocratic". Democracy means "governed by the people".

In Holland we have a similarly ceremonial royal house. They are basically our PR division, which works wonders. Other countries are more honored to recieve a king than a prime minister

[Huehuecoyotl]

Considering the queen doesn't actually govern, it can't be "undemocratic". Democracy means "governed by the people".

In Holland we have a similarly ceremonial royal house. They are basically our PR division, which works wonders. Other countries are more honored to recieve a king than a prime minister

In theory the queen could govern. She can overrule pretty much any piece of legislation she chooses to, in theory. In practice it isn't used, and hasn't been for a LONG time. It would probably trigger a major constitutional crisis if it was. But it's there.

And no, our country is about as far away from democratic as it's possible to get while still having open and free elections. We have a government that can do anything it likes off the back of about 40% of those people that voted. Lots of people don't even bother voting, because they know damn well their vote could mean nothing depending on where they're casting it. And sitting above Parliament is the House of Lords that is filled with people appointed to the role (or receiving it via hereditary means) without a single vote being cast.

As an interesting thought experiment, we had 47m voters at the last election, electing 650 MPs. Assume they are spread fairly, that's 72k voters per MP. But the turnout in 2019 was on 67%, so the average number of voters per MP was 48k. To guarantee winning a seat would therefore need 24k votes. Which means to get 326 seats (to guarantee a majority) would require 24k x 326 = 7.9m votes. Or a shade under 17% of the vote.

But it's worse than that. Because it isn't just two parties; 20% of the votes in the last election went to other parties. Which drastically reduces the number of votes required to win each seat. The maths is more complicated as a result, but assuming you only need half of 80% of the 48k for each seat, it works out to just 6.3m to get a majority, or just over 13% of the vote.

So a "democratic" process that gives you total control for just 40% of the votes cast, and could in theory give you total control for just 13% of the vote, doesn't sound very democratic to me. It urgently needs major corrections, and that includes taking any reference to the monarchy out of it.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Actually, I think comprehensive systemic reform is exactly what the UK needs because it's clear that its ad hoc firetrap of a government is not capable of governing.

If you think replacing the Queen with a President would change the behaviour of the Tory MPs currently in charge of running the country, I've got a couple of dozen bridges over the Thames to sell you.

[Huehuecoyotl]

If you think replacing the Queen with a President would change the behaviour of the Tory MPs currently in charge of running the country, I've got a couple of dozen bridges over the Thames to sell you.

Getting rid of FPTP and replacing it with proper PR would mean that a moron like Boris would need to find a good number of people to work with him to govern. With his lack of skills, that really isn't going to happen. Especially bearing in mind that PR would mean the Tories splitting into their component parts. There are plenty of Europhile MPs who would have no interest sharing a party with Brexiteers if they could stand on their own. And the centrists would ditch the extreme right in a heartbeat. Suddenly all those parties would need competent leaders capable of political and diplomatic processes just to manage their place in the UK process, never mind the wider world.

So we'd still have the extremist morons, but they'd find it a lot harder to get elected. And their voice would be stifled by the fact that the rest of the political spectrum would be unwilling to work with them on any aspect of governing.

That's the dream, anyway. But as long as we have a big chunk of people in this country that've drunk enough kool-aid to keep voting against their own interests, a dream is all it will ever be.

[Veggie50]

In theory the queen could govern. She can overrule pretty much any piece of legislation she chooses to, in theory. In practice it isn't used, and hasn't been for a LONG time. It would probably trigger a major constitutional crisis if it was. But it's there.

And no, our country is about as far away from democratic as it's possible to get while still having open and free elections. We have a government that can do anything it likes off the back of about 40% of those people that voted. Lots of people don't even bother voting, because they know damn well their vote could mean nothing depending on where they're casting it. And sitting above Parliament is the House of Lords that is filled with people appointed to the role (or receiving it via hereditary means) without a single vote being cast.

As an interesting thought experiment, we had 47m voters at the last election, electing 650 MPs. Assume they are spread fairly, that's 72k voters per MP. But the turnout in 2019 was on 67%, so the average number of voters per MP was 48k. To guarantee winning a seat would therefore need 24k votes. Which means to get 326 seats (to guarantee a majority) would require 24k x 326 = 7.9m votes. Or a shade under 17% of the vote.

But it's worse than that. Because it isn't just two parties; 20% of the votes in the last election went to other parties. Which drastically reduces the number of votes required to win each seat. The maths is more complicated as a result, but assuming you only need half of 80% of the 48k for each seat, it works out to just 6.3m to get a majority, or just over 13% of the vote.

So a "democratic" process that gives you total control for just 40% of the votes cast, and could in theory give you total control for just 13% of the vote, doesn't sound very democratic to me. It urgently needs major corrections, and that includes taking any reference to the monarchy out of it.

Oh my comment was squarely about the royal house. The UK is a complete sham democracy with your house of lords... =P

Only 40% of people voting isn't what makes it a sham imo though. Thats just a personal choice. If you don't want to, you don't need to, but then accept others make decisions for you.

[Temp name]

IIRC, we call it a "compulsory purchase order" in the UK.

And aren't they in the name of the queen? The person you'd be trying to force to sell to the government.. Yeah that wouldn't work well

- - - Updated - - -

Considering the queen doesn't actually govern, it can't be "undemocratic". Democracy means "governed by the people".

In Holland we have a similarly ceremonial royal house. They are basically our PR division, which works wonders. Other countries are more honored to recieve a king than a prime minister

Same in Denmark and Sweden I believe.
They're basically a PR department / diplomat combo.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

And aren't they in the name of the queen? The person you'd be trying to force to sell to the government.. Yeah that wouldn't work well

Court orders are in the name of the Sovereign.

In other news, in the midst of British farmers destroying pigs and sending them to landfill because of a lack of butchers post-brexit, German pork is "flooding" the UK market:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-b1932653.html

And this after the UK government agreed deals allowing both Australia and New Zealand to undercut British farmers.

[Mihalik]

(and don't say that the government should just take their land, that's a horrible idea, letting any government take a private citizens property for effectively no reason)

Legit question... How do you think they came about owning that land in the first place?

They didn't create it. They didn't purchase it.

They simply took it. And that's a pretty shitty argument for being allowed to perpetually own it.

Those properties ought to have been nationalized/eminent domained ages ago.

I'm not against the notion of paying some sort of moderate compensation. But at this point letting them hold onto it, it's literally only there as an excuse to allow people who like the monarchy and have seen that one CGP Grey video to point out how the monarchy isn't really a financial burden (it is when you account for the costs involved around their ceremonial duties).

Also calling the UK a democracy is a very loose interpretation of what a democracy is as long the House of Lords exists.

[dribbles]

Remember how I was totally lying about Tesco stock issues? Yeah...

https://twitter.com/jeremyselwyn1/st...18180692148233
https://twitter.com/annickg87/status...69580812886019
https://twitter.com/JulianCBaker/sta...75842688303107

But who you gonna believe... a random dude on a gaming forum, or photographic evidence?

Instead you link 3 random, probably remainer, oddbods from twitter and call that evidence? Just Nope.

How about some facts, the ones Brexiteers deal in, and we look at how the Tesco share price has performed this year. Obviously if what you claim were true, a business with no wares to sell and empty shelves would have no value and its share price would be on the floor. Instead we see this inconvenient truth... Now who you gonna believe?

[Mihalik]

sip

The value of Tesco's stock has exactly fuck all to do with the realities of shortages.

Tesco's stock could perform better than the market average off the simple fact that Tesco could be the last store in the UK that still has beans and bread to sell while all others would have run out of it.

[uuuhname]

The value of Tesco's stock has exactly fuck all to do with the realities of shortages.

Tesco's stock could perform better than the market average off the simple fact that Tesco could be the last store in the UK that still has beans and bread to sell while all that would have run out of it.

people seriously need to come to grips with the fact stocks are not indicative of anything besides a handful of people making extra money....

[unfilteredJW]

F

Remind me to take pics the next time I go to Tesco. Though, I'm sure I'll be accused of photoshopping empty shelves in or something Of all the things I could ever lie about in life, why on Earth would this be one of the things lol

Because they project their awfulness on to others to justify it.

Poster is a liar and spreader of mistruths so everyone else must be too.

[sircaw]

Oop, there is sircaw, right on cue

- - - Updated - - -


Pretty sad state of being, tbh.

i am beginning to think it might be you making an alt, would not put it past you, you are that attention looking kind of person.