This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?  (Read 4447 times)

Battlemaster

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
  • I am a Bill Maher Democrat.
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #30 on: July 10, 2022, 02:29:51 PM »
Speaking of bojo and ye olde Albion, how is that whole brexit going? I've heard it hurt the britt economy, scotland was considering leaving GB to remain connected to the EU, had no real positive effect abd may never have gone fully into  effect.

So, Brexit, happening, not happening, half happening, just bad effects, any good effects, what?


Fuck the fascist right and the fascist left.

Visitor Q

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2022, 02:41:17 PM »
Speaking of bojo and ye olde Albion, how is that whole brexit going? I've heard it hurt the britt economy, scotland was considering leaving GB to remain connected to the EU, had no real positive effect abd may never have gone fully into  effect.

So, Brexit, happening, not happening, half happening, just bad effects, any good effects, what?

The problem with analysing the impact of Brexit is that the economic damage caused by COVID was monumental, combined with the large degree of global uncertainty caused by Ukraine Russian conflict. Separating that out from Brexit is difficult.

However overall it has probably added 1.5%-2.5% to inflation. On the other hand it made negotiating COVID vaccines much easier and led to an overall easier COVID experience.

I don't think economically it made much sense to leave but it was never just about raw economics.

As for Scotland, the Scotish National Party is the pro-independant group. There isn't any situation that wouldn't lead to them suggesting a referendum.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3370
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2022, 02:46:42 PM »
  I always got the feeling some brits in the UK were a little tired of being told what to do by unelected egg head Germans dictating from offices several nations away.   So yeah, not so sure it was all about economics....being a nation is being a nation, not a free economic zone. 

Garry G

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • G
  • Posts: 392
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2022, 03:03:43 PM »
Brexit happened. It's shite but given covid it's hard to say the degree of shite. At least we're free from being the guys with special privileges who get to tell the Germans what to do. Apparently the next step is to withdraw from the ECHR which was created by that German apologist Winston Churchill.

The Scottish independence thing was decided in a vote in 2014 which was a no in part because it would mean Scotland leaving the EU. It was agreed that it would be a once in a generation vote unless there was a material change of circumstances. Two years later there was a referendum to leave the EU in which the Scottish people voted to stay but other parts of the UK voted to leave. Given the previous conversation about Scotland not being in the EU if it left the UK this might be seen as a material change of circumstances.

During all of this Scotland kept voting parties in with nationalist in their name or others like the Greens who had nationalism as part of their agenda. Given this the guys with nationalist in their name have been led to believe that mibbe it  might be time to go for that thing that's in their name again.

It's slightly more complicated than that but that's the gist.

Battlemaster

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
  • I am a Bill Maher Democrat.
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2022, 03:52:01 PM »
Speaking of bojo and ye olde Albion, how is that whole brexit going? I've heard it hurt the britt economy, scotland was considering leaving GB to remain connected to the EU, had no real positive effect abd may never have gone fully into  effect.

So, Brexit, happening, not happening, half happening, just bad effects, any good effects, what?

The problem with analysing the impact of Brexit is that the economic damage caused by COVID was monumental, combined with the large degree of global uncertainty caused by Ukraine Russian conflict. Separating that out from Brexit is difficult.

However overall it has probably added 1.5%-2.5% to inflation. On the other hand it made negotiating COVID vaccines much easier and led to an overall easier COVID experience.

I don't think economically it made much sense to leave but it was never just about raw economics.

As for Scotland, the Scotish National Party is the pro-independant group. There isn't any situation that wouldn't lead to them suggesting a referendum.

Thanks for an intelligent, informative reply.
Fuck the fascist right and the fascist left.

Battlemaster

  • BANNED
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
  • I am a Bill Maher Democrat.
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2022, 04:12:04 PM »
  I always got the feeling some brits in the UK were a little tired of being told what to do by unelected egg head Germans dictating from offices several nations away.   So yeah, not so sure it was all about economics....being a nation is being a nation, not a free economic zone.

OK, knowing less about the EU  than I do Brexit, so please forbear my ignorance, but I'm under the impression that countries in non eastern Europe are generally democracies. Now I'm trying to understand why democracies would form and join a body that is supposedly so non democratic.

I have heard of the 'Brussels bureaucrats' from many right leaning sources. It just seemed odd to me that democratic nations would create a non democratic agency with great power over them.

Can I request some information on this seeming dichotomy?
Fuck the fascist right and the fascist left.

Visitor Q

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2022, 04:35:20 PM »
  I always got the feeling some brits in the UK were a little tired of being told what to do by unelected egg head Germans dictating from offices several nations away.   So yeah, not so sure it was all about economics....being a nation is being a nation, not a free economic zone.



 

OK, knowing less about the EU  than I do Brexit, so please forbear my ignorance, but I'm under the impression that countries in non eastern Europe are generally democracies. Now I'm trying to understand why democracies would form and join a body that is supposedly so non democratic.

I have heard of the 'Brussels bureaucrats' from many right leaning sources. It just seemed odd to me that democratic nations would create a non democratic agency with great power over them.

Can I request some information on this seeming dichotomy?

Basically the EU didn't come into being fully formed but is an extension of several major economic treaties. The big one being the European Economic Community.

As it expanded its power individual countries wrote EU policy into law. Many of these relate to various economic and commercial regulations. There is a feeling that many of the UKs laws and regulations were not written by Parliament.

In addition the European Convention on Human Rights is a separate treaty but for various not unentirely incorrect reasons is often lumped in with the EU more generally. So there is a feeling there is a higher court that people can appeal to beyond an individual country's own courts.

When the UK joined the EU the membership was quite limited, the entry of the Eastern European countries caused a massive surge of migration that had a profound cultural and economic impact in the UK amongst the working class and the outright poor. Because the EU treaty was embedded there was nothing UK politicans could do about this.

As for the wider economic project and why groups would want to form "non-democratic" systems this is a very complicated question but essential boils down to the EU being a neo-liberal German hegomony. Now there are good economic reasons for this and it would probably increase material prosperity but democratic values are not a particular priority for the drivers of this project.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2022, 04:37:55 PM by Visitor Q »

Garry G

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • G
  • Posts: 392
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2022, 05:05:02 PM »
Any connection of the EU to the ECHR is entirely incorrect. They're totally different things with totally different origins.

Visitor Q

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2022, 05:52:05 PM »
Any connection of the EU to the ECHR is entirely incorrect. They're totally different things with totally different origins.

As a point of law and fact this is incorrect. Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon requires the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. For the last 10 years negotiations have been proceeding to ensure this goes ahead.

Furthermore every member of the EU is party to the ECHR and new members in practice would need to be willing to be party to it in order to fulfil the Copenhagen Criteria (which incidentally draw on ECHR case law)

The origins of the ECHR comes directly from proponents of European integration in the wake of WW2.

Garry G

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • G
  • Posts: 392
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2022, 06:24:08 PM »
Any connection of the EU to the ECHR is entirely incorrect. They're totally different things with totally different origins.

As a point of law and fact this is incorrect. Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon requires the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. For the last 10 years negotiations have been proceeding to ensure this goes ahead.

Furthermore every member of the EU is party to the ECHR and new members in practice would need to be willing to be party to it in order to fulfil the Copenhagen Criteria (which incidentally draw on ECHR case law)

The origins of the ECHR comes directly from proponents of European integration in the wake of WW2.

Nione of which requires a non-member of the EU to sign up to the ECHR which was created with large involvement of the UK which had no plans to join a European treaty at the time. It came from proponents of having human rights protected after one and f the worst destructions of the concept in recent history.

Visitor Q

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2022, 07:12:02 PM »
Any connection of the EU to the ECHR is entirely incorrect. They're totally different things with totally different origins.

As a point of law and fact this is incorrect. Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon requires the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. For the last 10 years negotiations have been proceeding to ensure this goes ahead.

Furthermore every member of the EU is party to the ECHR and new members in practice would need to be willing to be party to it in order to fulfil the Copenhagen Criteria (which incidentally draw on ECHR case law)

The origins of the ECHR comes directly from proponents of European integration in the wake of WW2.

Nione of which requires a non-member of the EU to sign up to the ECHR which was created with large involvement of the UK which had no plans to join a European treaty at the time. It came from proponents of having human rights protected after one and f the worst destructions of the concept in recent history.

This is a separate issue to the claim you made which is that there is no connection to the two institutions. I have demonstrated citing law and EU principles that there is a connection.


Garry G

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • G
  • Posts: 392
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2022, 07:22:23 PM »
Any connection of the EU to the ECHR is entirely incorrect. They're totally different things with totally different origins.

As a point of law and fact this is incorrect. Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon requires the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. For the last 10 years negotiations have been proceeding to ensure this goes ahead.

Furthermore every member of the EU is party to the ECHR and new members in practice would need to be willing to be party to it in order to fulfil the Copenhagen Criteria (which incidentally draw on ECHR case law)

The origins of the ECHR comes directly from proponents of European integration in the wake of WW2.

Nione of which requires a non-member of the EU to sign up to the ECHR which was created with large involvement of the UK which had no plans to join a European treaty at the time. It came from proponents of having human rights protected after one and f the worst destructions of the concept in recent history.

This is a separate issue to the claim you made which is that there is no connection to the two institutions. I have demonstrated citing law and EU principles that there is a connection.

Good for you.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2022, 08:08:57 PM »
A Scotsman admitting he was wrong?

It truly is the end of times.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Pat

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2022, 08:38:06 PM »
A Scotsman admitting he was wrong?

It truly is the end of times.
He's clearly no true Scotsman.

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 787
Re: Bojo no mo'. Can you explain this to murkans?
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2022, 09:26:59 PM »
A Scotsman admitting he was wrong?

It truly is the end of times.
He's clearly no true Scotsman.

Well played.