The Brexit aftermath thread

[AeneasBK]

Do you blame paladins for using bubble while you're dying to a one-shot ability?

Bad example I played Paladin and there weren't any one-shot abilities in the game when I was playing it Are you honestly saying there weren't people who thought Paladin bubble was busted OP and should be removed (didn't it *get* removed in the end?)...

You can say "Hate the game not the player" as much as you want; that isn't going to change the fact that some people still hold people or groups responsible for their actions, regardless of how much license they had to behave how they did. In anycase I wasn't trying to make an argument for how people *should* feel. I was pointing out how they *do* feel.

And when it comes to the previous Labour government they get flak for Iraq; and the banks get the flak for 2008. Whether or not in the grand scheme of things it was totally the governments of the Western worlds fault.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you mean with still?

"up to and including the present or the time mentioned; even now (or then) as formerly." At least that's what I meant.

[AeneasBK]

I cannot hold someone accountable for murder if the legislators failed to make murder a crime.

Really?

You think the only reason people should not murder each other is because it's currently unlawful, rather than for ethical reasons; or rather, if murder was made legal you would no longer consider it wrong to do, or hold someone who commited murder accountable? I was going to use exactly this example earlier but thought it was a little extreme. If they decided stealing was no longer criminal, you wouldn't blame anyone who considered your stuff a free-for-all?

I mean, I figured the retort was "Banking is a helluva lot more complicated than murder or theft" which is hard to argue with; certainly selling people loans that you know full well they have no hope of repaying is more morally grey than "should you kill someone who has something you want".

I think I maybe misunderstood. Sorry I should really have learned not to weigh into any debates with bombastic comments before midday it's only going to lead to people trying to explain things that are for the most part way over my head.

[AeneasBK]

I would consider the legislator to be the problem though. I cannot actually seek any redress, i.e. hold to account, from the murderer because what they did is suddenly legal. My actual issue would be with the law because unless I'd want to become Batman (and I don't look good in a cape) I wouldn't be able to do anything against murderers because of it.

Okay, but despite that, you wouldn't think what they had done was wrong? We're talking about blame here; the British public couldn't necessarily legally attain redress from the banks but that doesn't mean we have to think what they did was acceptable, even if it was legal. Similar to the tax avoidance issues.

[Mayhem]

Bad example I played Paladin and there weren't any one-shot abilities in the game when I was playing it Are you honestly saying there weren't people who thought Paladin bubble was busted OP and should be removed (didn't it *get* removed in the end?)...

No, that is what you're saying. That it shouldn't be removed, but that paladins just shouldn't use it.

You can say "Hate the game not the player" as much as you want; that isn't going to change the fact that some people still hold people or groups responsible for their actions, regardless of how much license they had to behave how they did. In anycase I wasn't trying to make an argument for how people *should* feel. I was pointing out how they *do* feel.

And when it comes to the previous Labour government they get flak for Iraq; and the banks get the flak for 2008. Whether or not in the grand scheme of things it was totally the governments of the Western worlds fault.

If you just hate the players the game will not change and the players you've hated will just be replaced by other players for you to hate on. That's not an improvement, that's just insane.

"up to and including the present or the time mentioned; even now (or then) as formerly." At least that's what I meant.

Well, of course, they still can do that, because they are all part of the single market.

[Mayhem]

Okay, but despite that, you wouldn't think what they had done was wrong? We're talking about blame here; the British public couldn't necessarily legally attain redress from the banks but that doesn't mean we have to think what they did was acceptable, even if it was legal. Similar to the tax avoidance issues.

Sure, blame them, it does fuck all to improve the system, but if it makes you happy, blame the banks.

Well done, now bend over and get fucked again because nothing changed.

[AeneasBK]

Sure, blame them, it does fuck all to improve the system, but if it makes you happy, blame the banks.

Well done, now bend over and get fucked again because nothing changed.

I mean, we could always do both. Blame banks for being unscrupulous shits while also seeking to change the system (idk?)

[Slant]

Again, a significant proportion of the British public will see this as good news. We don't like banks, and don't care that they support the nation. Rather have less work that's honest than just be a haven for crooks. Which is what bankers are without exception.

Oh, I know it's trendy to hate on bankers. I'm not particularily concerned about the bankers. I'm talking about the trillions of assets leaving the country. About Google removing their payment system from the country.

[AeneasBK]

The political parties hold them hostage, not the other way around. I am not sure what the political situation is in the UK but there must be politicians who are clearly in favour of regulation.

I was pretty sure it was the other way around, here Or maybe its just the banks own the papers which choose the politicians; that's how it seemed to go since the 90s, maybe before; it's all kinda bullshit I've got to vote tomorrow but frankly they all seem pretty fucking useless.

[Slant]

You seem to find the concept that people would accept being poorer if it meant that we weren't "at the mercy" of a bunch of public school educated wanker banker toffs as totally crazy.

You seem to think that would be totally outrageous...

[AeneasBK]

You seem to think that would be totally outrageous...

Wat ?

[Slant]

Wat ?

Being poorer if it means you can get rid of bankers... it is crazy. You're poorer. That's the only part affecting you.

[dribbles]

In other news... just got a mail from Google telling me that in the future all payments are routed through Google Ireland instead of Google UK. That's pretty undramatic. Just one more company taking their business out of the UK. We're talking about hundreds of different stories like this by now. I wonder, how long can you say "It's just one company, but those 350 million per week will make up for it!" before it gets ridiculous? I mean, even if there was 350 million per week...

Edit:

Just to continue this trend of good news for the EU:

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/ba...elled-20190128



Oh, Dribs... now you have to crash out. You really need those 39bn and the 350m a week to compensate for this. Still feeling like a winner, are we?

Of course, we are winning. The UK economy is booming, despite brexit. Whereas the EU economy is heading down the toilet because of brexit.

Oh, I know it's trendy to hate on bankers. I'm not particularily concerned about the bankers. I'm talking about the trillions of assets leaving the country. About Google removing their payment system from the country.

And your celebration of google moving a bit of business to the Irish tax haven temporarily, until the EU harmonises its extortionate tax rates upwards will be very short lived.

Meanwhile all because EU exports to the UK are drying up, that'd be the brexit effect...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...rce=reddit.com

You still feeling like a winner?

[AeneasBK]

Being poorer if it means you can get rid of bankers... it is crazy. You're poorer. That's the only part affecting you.

Did... did you miss the part about being at the mercy of bankers? Next time they fuck it all up and we have to spend 500 billion pounds fixing the problem they created (but apparently it's entirely the politicians fault) and spend nearly a decade undergoing "austerity" measures to try and fix the economy? People can argue that the rational reaction is to forgive them for being cheeky and punish the lawmakers for not keeping up with them or pandering to them or w/e; but that isn't going to change the opinion of those who's lives have been screwed over by the welfare or NHS budget cuts etc. that came as a result.

[Shalcker]

Did... did you miss the part about being at the mercy of bankers? Next time they fuck it all up and we have to spend 500 billion pounds fixing the problem they created (but apparently it's entirely the politicians fault) and spend nearly a decade undergoing "austerity" measures to try and fix the economy? People can argue that the rational reaction is to forgive them for being cheeky and punish the lawmakers for not keeping up with them or pandering to them or w/e; but that isn't going to change the opinion of those who's lives have been screwed over by the welfare or NHS budget cuts etc. that came as a result.

Maybe you should try making another argument to him:
"EU not giving in to UK demands and going with Brexit instead? It's crazy. You'll be poorer. That's the only part affecting you"

[Slant]

Did... did you miss the part about being at the mercy of bankers? Next time they fuck it all up and we have to spend 500 billion pounds fixing the problem they created (but apparently it's entirely the politicians fault) and spend nearly a decade undergoing "austerity" measures to try and fix the economy? People can argue that the rational reaction is to forgive them for being cheeky and punish the lawmakers for not keeping up with them or pandering to them or w/e; but that isn't going to change the opinion of those who's lives have been screwed over by the welfare or NHS budget cuts etc. that came as a result.

You know, it wasn't them, right? Not on their own. Bankers don't own the country. And bankers in the UK aren't responsible for the near outright criminal activities they call daily life on Wall St. in another country. The rational decision is not to forgive them. Why would it be? The rational decision, however, is not blaming them for literally everything.

I think there's a pattern here. As long as UK politicians got a scapegoat, everything'd fine. Blame the EU, blame the bankers... but don't blame us. I'm so glad Brexit is exposing the incompetence of UK politicians.

[AeneasBK]

I think there's a pattern here. As long as UK politicians got a scapegoat, everything'd fine. Blame the EU, blame the bankers... but don't blame us. I'm so glad Brexit is exposing the incompetence of UK politicians.

I mean, apart from it being 10 years ago and another political party in power, I agree theres very little in terms of competency to distinguish between the current crop and them. Maybe this is just a semantic thing between "forgive" and "lay blame" because in one post you seem to suggest that its okay to blame the banks (not forgive) but also that it is scapegoating to blame them.

[AeneasBK]

See here is the problem. It's not that lawmakers could not keep up with the banking system and it kept finding ways to escape regulations. It's that they removed those regulations. It's not even a case of avoidance, they outright made it easier for them to do increasingly risky crap all the while maintaining their guarantees.

Yeah I think the next few words were "or pandering to them". At any rate if the implication is that banking is inherently corrupt and will do their best to fuck over innocent people in the name of chasing money for themselves, and as such requires stringent regulation from authority watchdogs to ensure they don't do this; then it isn't a strong argument in favour of it being an industry people want to support. Whether it makes lots of money for people in London or not.

[Slant]

I mean, apart from it being 10 years ago and another political party in power, I agree theres very little in terms of competency to distinguish between the current crop and them. Maybe this is just a semantic thing between "forgive" and "lay blame" because in one post you seem to suggest that its okay to blame the banks (not forgive) but also that it is scapegoating to blame them.

What I'm saying is, there's enough blame to go around for everyone. But people tend to blame just one thing to exoneratea themselves. And that is a fallacy leading to the next disaster. And even blaming banks being legit or not, you can't just remove banks from the equation. As much as you might hate them, you need them, because they keep the money going.

- - - Updated - - -

Read up in the the thread. UK politicians of all political parties have very clear and direct connections to the banking system. You can't divorce the political class from their masters. Blaming the political class for the failure of banks is like blaming the tail for wagging the dog.

Yes, you can divorce them. It may hurt, but it needs to be done. Politicians will always be attractive recruits to business, but they should do this after their political career, when they can't vote on laws anymore. Not while they're legislating.

[Kronik85]

Watching PMQ and May's strategy seems to being teased out over the course of it. Unsurprisingly it's to shift the blame of a CU Brexit onto Jeremy Corbyn, thus keeping the Conservatives together and wooing Brexiteers for the coming GE.

Not too bad a plan but we will see how Jeremy reacts.

- - - Updated - - -

Nicola Sturgeon's warning to Corbyn on meeting with May.

IT'S A TRAP!!

[LeGin Tufnel]

Watching PMQ and May's strategy seems to being teased out over the course of it. Unsurprisingly it's to shift the blame of a CU Brexit onto Jeremy Corbyn, thus keeping the Conservatives together and wooing Brexiteers for the coming GE.

Not too bad a plan but we will see how Jeremy reacts.

- - - Updated - - -

Nicola Sturgeon's warning to Corbyn on meeting with May.

I don't really understand where she's going with this. If the Tories are going to split over a softer Brexit, whether or not she can pin it on Labour won't help? They'll still split, and her legacy will be the PM who failed to deliver Brexit and oversaw the fracturing of her party. When the blame for the latter really should be pinned on Cameron.