Thirded so long as we can drop the border down to include Cumbria, Northumberland, and Tyne & Wear... maybe North Yorkshire, too. I'd love to be Scottish if they'd be happy to have us!
Manchester should be fine, and Wales is a given. Who wants to pay £4bn for a project which only benefits England?
We may need to include Merseyside, Lancs and Cheshire just to have a land connection between New Scotland and Wales so we don't have to consider touching England.
Ah yes, because any scenario where the rest of the EU going to war wouldn't also basically mean automatically that the UK was also going to war already!
with that .ml tag you'd think someone would be better at remembering NATO is still a thing and the only non overlap between the two are countries that are defacto protected by it anyways.
This kind of cycle back and forth between full-throated conservative idiocy and then demanding to be saved from the consequences of their own actions is what really makes me so depressed about the majority of voters.
I could excuse a young person maybe for being naive and inexperienced enough to think conservativism might have some kind of merit, but grown-ass adults have literally no excuse to ever believe the right-wing ever about anything.
As the vote for new EU Members is one with veto rules, my bet is that it's going to be an opportunity for all manner of EU members to make demands, such as Spain demanding Gibraltar back.
Well such timescale would in any case depend on EU, not on convenience for any british parliament. There are now N. Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, [ Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo ?], Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, [Turkey ?] all in the queue to join EU. On the other hand, it might help from point of view of geographic and economic balance, otherwise the centre of 'gravity' will shift even further SE away from Brussels. I think to expand EU has to reform processes, to end all vetos and generalise multi-speed / opt-outs.
Meanwhile a new british government could implement obviously convenient win-win cooperation step by step, until there isn't so much left to change. And I'd be happy to see Scotland and Northern Ireland take a lead.
Sure, but diplomacy is not logical, and EU has a habit (mistake?) to do things in mega packages (look at 2004). Last I heard, the gossip was 'by 2030'.
Nope, everyone behind Ukraine is now screwed. If they want to speed things up they need to help Ukraine win it's war. Sorry, I don't make the rules I just pretend to know them.
Although... Moldova and Georgia might as well. We all know they're next on Putin's list.
I would love for the UK to rejoin the EU, but the survey results mentioned in the article don't really support the claim that there is a general desire to do so. A shift from 52% against to 52% in favor of EU membership is really not that significant.
Why specifically 3 years? Any other time frame will not support your argument? There is no trend on either direction currently, has not been for 1.5 years.
Brexit happened at the end of January of 2020, so 3 years is really the only viable amount of time to consider {since this year isn't over to be considered).
This is not a "will the UK try to rejoin one day" trend, this is a brexit regret trend.
The people responding "rejoin" to these polls probably imagine that EU accession will be done on the previous terms. If you did the same graph but made it clear to pollees that rejoining would entail a switch to the Euro and many more legislative constraints, it would almost certainly read overwhelmingly "Stay out".
Joining at this point would require an insane effort on the UKs side. I am pretty sure that an undemocratic institution like the house of lords would not be acceptable under current EU laws and that is not even accounting for the UKs voting system. The UK would also have to join the currency union. The last point alone makes rejoining very unlikely in my opinion. I think the only thing UK citizens can realistically hope for is, at best, something similar to the Norway model.
Norway is a rule taker that pays into the EU without any influence. They're also tiny and they know it.
This is said with love from a neighbour who would love to see Norway join the EU.
I don't think the UKs collective ego would allow them to join on Norway terms.
If I remember it correctly, members of the EFTA such as Norway have a vote with veto, and during the Brexit Deal negotiations they weren't at all keen on having the UK joining the EFTA because it's far bigger than all the others and would likely dominate.
Yeah, all EFTA members have veto rights towards new members, and you're pretty much correct but it's even worse. The UK economy is bigger than all other EFTA countries combined. There's no way they'd let the UK in.
The conservatives still have power in the UK and will continue to have influence for the foreseeable future. As long as conservatism has any place in UK politics, the UK should not be permitted to re-join. Conservatives will eventually just re-Brexit.
There is simply no place in a healthy, modern society for a conservative government. Let the UK rid themselves of their plague of conservatism first before being allowed to further harm the UE with this dangerous illness.
The conservatives still have power in the UK and will continue to have influence for the foreseeable future. As long as conservatism has any place in UK politics, the UK should not be permitted to re-join. Conservatives will eventually just re-Brexit.
I see what you are saying, but I don't think you are completly right. Re-join can takes years and it will be under the EU rules, not UK, so no more special treatment like before. That alone is difficult to sell to UK, but I am not sure that if UK re-join people will vote again to exit, given that Brexit was sold with lies that was already exposed.
There is simply no place in a healthy, modern society for a conservative government. Let the UK rid themselves of their plague of conservatism first before being allowed to further harm the UE with this dangerous illness.
Disagree. A good government is a balance of progressivism and conservatism. Real life it is not black or white but a shade of grey (for the most part).
While balance can be good some times, the idea that a group of business interests and oligarchs coming together for the sole purpose of lowering their tax bills and buying the nations assets for peanuts, maskerading as a political party, could provide said balance is a strange one.
Conserving the established power and wealth as well as keeping everyone else down is the only thing they look to conservatives look to conserve. The rest is the lies they tell, in order to get in to do it.
While balance can be good some times, the idea that a group of business interests and oligarchs coming together for the sole purpose of lowering their tax bills and buying the nations assets for peanuts, maskerading as a political party, could provide said balance is a strange one.
On the other hand even trying to level everyone to the lowest level is wrong.
Conserving the established power and wealth as well as keeping everyone else down is the only thing they look to conservatives look to conserve. The rest is the lies they tell, in order to get in to do it.
True, the correct balance would be conserve the power and let everyone else to rise, but I undestand it is an utopian vision (the established power would never allow it).
But in the end I think that the main problem is that both parts lost the contact with the normal people but the conservatives are now starting to talk to them again while the progressives are still talking only to themself in an ivory tower.
On the other hand even trying to level everyone to the lowest level is wrong.
If only there was a third option. Somewhere between "a doctor and a kitchen hand earning the same money" and human greed, expressed in economic form. Oh well, never mind I guess.
True, the correct balance would be conserve the power and let everyone else to rise, but I undestand it is an utopian vision (the established power would never allow it).
Its not so much that. Its that their power is power over other people. Its the power to charge a levy (exactly like a tax) on the money people earn for using their things etc. The idea that one can be lifted while the other is retained is a contraction in terms.
but the conservatives are now starting to talk to them again while the progressives are still talking only to themself in an ivory tower.
Considering the conservatives are about to be whiped out at the next election, I hope that was meant to be ironic.
However, if we are to talk about Italy, its always had a problem with fascism, being its birthplace and all. A millenniam long hangover from Romes slave economies and Christianity is to blame for what makes it very much the outlier and not the norm here.
I know. What I mean is that I would not be so sure that what people say they will vote will be what they actually vote.
In Italy many people told they would never vote for Berlusconi but somehow he won the elections. Same with Trump, the poll gave him losing yet he won.
The point is: don't trust the polls, especially if there is a social stigma associated with one of the options.
However, if we are to talk about Italy, its always had a problem with fascism, being its birthplace and all. A millenniam long hangover from Romes slave economies and Christianity is to blame for what makes it very much the outlier and not the norm here.
You sentence is the exact reason why people are going to vote for the right wings.
The only people talking about fascism in Italy is the left wing. At the last EU election the points of the left were that the fascism must not win and that their secretary is a multigender woman. Not a word about the actual problems we have (for example, that people have seen their purchasing power drop by a considerable amount, a couple that want to build a family must relay on their parents to be able to buy an house and even more if they decide to have a child, lines at soup kitchens get longer and longer and so on).
The point is: don’t trust the polls, especially if there is a social stigma associated with one of the options.
Its true, most right wingers are selfish cowards. Although, lets be real, the polls are never that wrong.
The reason people will vote right wing is because Italy has a problem with fascism? Well, thats an interesting take.
I mean, if anyone is upset at their purchase power dropping, having to live with their parents or lines at the food kitchen and chooses to vote right wing because of it, they're beyond stupid. Nothing anyone could say to them would work, as you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
"I know, I'll vote for the people who are directly funded by the groups who directly profit from those problems! I'm so smart!"
What do you even say to that kind of "thinking"?
"No, its not that you're stupid, its just that, actually, when your house is on fire, its generally considered more sensible to reach for the fire extinguisher instead of the flame thrower. I know, I know, I've heard the term fight fire with fire before too. However, I'll tell you what I told my friend, shortly after they lost their job. No, you can't always fight fire with fire. Especially when you're a firefighter, you doughnut."
The point is: don’t trust the polls, especially if there is a social stigma associated with one of the options.
Its true, most right wingers are selfish cowards.
Some right wingers. Many not.
Although, lets be real, the polls are never that wrong.
Oh well, the one about Trump was. And even some more recent ones. What I noted lately is that the polls are no more reliable in any case, they are wrong most of the time even if not by that much, I agree.
The reason people will vote right wing is because Italy has a problem with fascism? Well, thats an interesting take.
No, the reason people in Italy vote right wing is because the left wing has nothing to offer. How the left wing can win when their entire political program is only "the right wing should not win" ? Man, I can vote the left, but they need to have something more concrete than just "the others should not win".
I mean, if anyone is upset at their purchase power dropping, having to live with their parents or lines at the food kitchen and chooses to vote right wing because of it, they’re beyond stupid. Nothing anyone could say to them would work, as you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
I agree. But you are missing the point, which is that they voted for the only side that at least acknowledges there are problems. Then I concede that maybe their solution is not the best or even the correct one, but at least is something concrete.
“I know, I’ll vote for the people who are directly funded by the groups who directly profit from those problems! I’m so smart!”
What do you even say to that kind of “thinking”?
Wrong, the choice is between a side (the left) that consider you as part of the problem and a side (the right) that promise you to solve the problem. What do you think a person will vote ?
“No, its not that you’re stupid, its just that, actually, when your house is on fire, its generally considered more sensible to reach for the fire extinguisher instead of the flame thrower. I know, I know, I’ve heard the term fight fire with fire before too. However, I’ll tell you what I told my friend, shortly after they lost their job. No, you can’t always fight fire with fire. Especially when you’re a firefighter, you doughnut.”
True, but also calling for the one that spread the fire don't seems a good idea.
It is really simple: the left had its chance, they failed and so people vote for the alternative. To continue to vote for the same people that create the problem is not that intelligent either.
To me, you described a cowardly act that we agreed is carried out by most right wingers.
Oh well, the one about Trump was
Fair enough "never" was too far.
No, the reason people in Italy vote right wing is because the left wing has nothing to offer.
Thats just an overly sweeping, thought terminating, cliché thats only ever said by people who would never vote left of Reagan anyway. You'll excuse me if I don't bother arguing that "da left" policies =/= zero, I'm sure.
agree. But you are missing the point, which is that they voted for the only side that at least acknowledges there are problems.
I think you would struggle to show me anything with "the left" saying there are no problems. They might not agree with made up problems that don't contribute to the difficulties people face but that's not the same thing.
Wrong, the choice is between a side (the left) that consider you as part of the problem and a side (the right) that promise you to solve the problem. What do you think a person will vote ?
Of course, I must be wrong. Its not wealthy business interests who benefit from the housing crisis or falling wages. No, clearly its the left! Sorry, I'm not going to fall for the "considers you part of the problem" rhetoric. Youre either lying to push some "you can't even be white these days" trope or are genuinely part of the problem and deserve it.
It is really simple: the left had its chance, they failed and so people vote for the alternative. To continue to vote for the same people that create the problem is not that intelligent either.
The right have been in power in Italy and the UK and have been for years. When will you lot grow up and admit your own mistakes and abject failure to do anything other than make already very rich people far richer? The right wing are the ones who had their chance and their time is over, for now, and much deserved. They only ever have one goal which is why they only ever achieve one thing: that.
Thats just an overly sweeping, thought terminating, cliché thats only ever said by people who would never vote left of Reagan anyway. You’ll excuse me if I don’t bother arguing that “da left” policies =/= zero, I’m sure.
Fair enough and you are welcome.
I think you would struggle to show me anything with “the left” saying there are no problems.
The mayor of Milano for one. Even if some area of the city are basically off-limits after a certain time, expecially for women.
They might not agree with made up problems that don’t contribute to the difficulties people face but that’s not the same thing.
Again, fair enough. They can think that it is a made up problem. But what should be the correct answer ? Because if I say "look, there is too many illegal immigrants around in this area of Milano (Stazione Centrale) and it is not safe because of the petty crimes", the answer could not be "you are too ignorant to understand why it is not a problem", you should explain to my how having thousands of illegal immigrant around living by petty crimes is not a problem, if you can (just an example btw).
Or if I ask for more kindergartens so I can have children you cannot answer to me that we are already too many and the next week say that we need to welcome more immigrants because the population is declining.
Of course, I must be wrong. Its not wealthy business interests who benefit from the housing crisis or falling wages.
Ok, assuming you are right, where is the benefit of a housing crisis where young people could not buy an house since they cannot have a mortage from the banks due to the low wages ? I would understand if the housing crisis rise the price and people could afford to buy more expensive houses, but it not seems to be the case. Ok, I understand that there could be some very short term benefits, but then ? It is not that you can eat the house and as the price increase the number of buyers goes down.
No, clearly its the left! Sorry, I’m not going to fall for the “considers you part of the problem” rhetoric. Youre either lying to push some “you can’t even be white these days” trope or are genuinely part of the problem and deserve it.
Given that the left was in power (in one way or another) for more than 20 years of the last 30 years, at least in Italy, I would say that maybe it not all their fault, but they are not innocent either.
The right have been in power in Italy and the UK and have been for years.
Ok, facts checks.
Here the list of Prime Ministrers from 1994 to today (so the last 30 years) in Italy:
Berlusconi (Right): 11/05/1994 - 17/01/1995
Dini (undefined): 17/01/1995 - 18/05/1996
Prodi (Left): 18/05/1996 - 21/10/1998
D'Alema (Left): 21/10/1998 - 22/12/1999
D'Alema (Left): 22/10/1999 - 26/04/2000
Amato (Left): 26/04/2000 - 11/06/2001
Berlusconi (Right): 11/06/2001 - 23/04/2005
Berlusconi (Right): 23/04/2005 - 17/05/2006
Prodi (Left): 17/05/2006 - 8/05/2008
Berlusconi (Right): 8/05/2008 - 16/11/2011
Monti (undefined): 16/11/2011 - 28/04/2013
Letta (Left): 28/04/2013 - 22/02/2014
Renzi (Left): 22/02/2014 - 12/12/2016
Gentiloni (Left): 12/12/2016 - 1/06/2018
Conte (Mostly Right): 1/6/2018 - 5/9/2019
Conte (Left): 5/9/2019 - 13/2/2021
Draghi (undefined): 13/2/2021 - 22/10/2022
Meloni (Right): 22/10/2022 - today
The 3 undefined are what we call "Governo tecnico", so not really from the Left or the Right.
Tell me again how the Right have been in power for years, please. Maybe it is true for UK.
When will you lot grow up and admit your own mistakes and abject failure to do anything other than make already very rich people far richer?
Ok, so what the Left did to stop this ? Just make anyone poorer ? Yeah, of course I am part of the problem and continuing to call me "part of the problem" or "too ignorant to understand" obviously will make me to vote for you. Good job.
Again, fair enough. They can think that it is a made up problem. But what should be the correct answer ? Because if I say “look, there is too many illegal immigrants around in this area of Milano (Stazione Centrale) and it is not safe because of the petty crimes”, the answer could not be “you are too ignorant to understand why it is not a problem”, you should explain to my how having thousands of illegal immigrant around living by petty crimes is not a problem, if you can (just an example btw).
"The left" aren't pro illegal migration, never have been and never will be. Thats a right wing trope and anyone who falls for it is a moron, sorry. Not allowing in vast amounts of cheap labour, to bring down wages, benefits the people funding the right wing parties, not anyone remotely left leaning. I'm also willing to bet that the bigger problem is the legal migration system the right wing allowed business interests to fuck into the ground, to stop wages from rising.
Or if I ask for more kindergartens so I can have children you cannot answer to me that we are already too many and the next week say that we need to welcome more immigrants because the population is declining.
How do you think tax cuts for the rich are paid for? All the money that should be going towards those things are going into the wealthy pockets of the people who then convince you the problem is anything but them.
Ok, assuming you are right, where is the benefit of a housing crisis where young people could not buy an house
The housing crisis for you and me is the record profit boon for landlords and property developers. Very few groups support the right wing more than they do. They'll have to switch to topping it up with public money going into their pockets soon enough, for a longer term solution, like they do in the UK.
Given that the left was in power (in one way or another) for more than 20 years of the last 30 years,
Youre saying they haven't been in power for 6 years but its still all their fault? That seems a stretch.
Continuing to call me “part of the problem”
I never said that once let alone continued. Please drop the victim complex and some people do stupid things. I do stupid things too. However, believing the right wing will save people from themselves is a stupid thing i don't do. But sure, keep acting the victim and blaming everyone else. See if that makes me vote for you.
“The left” aren’t pro illegal migration, never have been and never will be. Thats a right wing trope and anyone who falls for it is a moron, sorry. Not allowing in vast amounts of cheap labour, to bring down wages, benefits the people funding the right wing parties, not anyone remotely left leaning. I’m also willing to bet that the bigger problem is the legal migration system the right wing allowed business interests to fuck into the ground, to stop wages from rising.
Ok, then a brutal question: why are they opposing the mass deportation of illegal immigrants ?
How do you think tax cuts for the rich are paid for? All the money that should be going towards those things are going into the wealthy pockets of the people who then convince you the problem is anything but them.
Ok, that's true but overall I don't think that not cutting the taxes to the rich could put a dent in the total amount (btw, how much one need to earn to be defined rich ?). I mean, I fully support the idea that everyone should pay the taxes based on how much they earns but I don't understand this idea that the rich are the source of all the problems. Yeah, they may not pay that much taxes but they are also a really small number.
The housing crisis for you and me is the record profit boon for landlords and property developers.
That's true if you and me can buy (or rent) an house. If you and me need to stay in our parent's house, the landords and property developers end with empty houses (landlords) or bankrupt. And there are other factors to contribute to the house crisis other than the price.
Youre saying they haven’t been in power for 6 years but its still all their fault? That seems a stretch.
In the UK ? I am not saying it is all their fault but for example in Italy we will pay the damages done by the left (and an idiot on the right) for years to come, whatever the left or the right will be in power.
I never said that once let alone continued. Please drop the victim complex and some people do stupid things. I do stupid things too. However, believing the right wing will save people from themselves is a stupid thing i don’t do.
Look, it is not to play the victim card. The point is that when people vote you need to convince them to vote for you. It is not always a rationale reasoning, I agree, but in general people tends to vote for who say will handle the problems people have (or think to have) in the day by day.
Now, in UK the right were voted, they did not well so now people will presumably vote for the left. Good. In Italy we have the opposite situation: the left was voted, they did not do well and now people vote the right. BTW, in Italy the right wing won because at the last elections people who vote for the left wing did not showed up to vote, now they cannot cry "the right win", they should have moved their ass that day.
The question is: can we really blame someone that have (or think to have) a problem when he vote for the side that at least acknowledge the problem ? Yeah, most of the time he would not belive in what that side promise but what's the alternative ?
But sure, keep acting the victim and blaming everyone else. See if that makes me vote for you.
Probably not.
I can do that too you know. I just choose not to.
I know. But even choosing to continue to vote for someone that not solve the problems does not seems a good idea.
Ok, then a brutal question: why are they opposing the mass deportation of illegal immigrants ?
Theres probably a lot more to it than that. I certain you could even answer your own question. It might be along the lines of "not deported there or not like that etc."
Where are all these empty houses? Even then, they appreciate in value, even empty and propery price appreciation is the best place for a trust fund based in the caymans to obscure ownership of earnings. There isn't a bigger effect from a few empty properties than house prices exploding 2 of 300% in a couple of decades.
I don’t understand this idea that the rich are the source of all the problems. Yeah, they may not pay that much taxes but they are also a really small number.
There dont need to be many of them. Their source of power is their wealth, not their number. If it was about numbers, you and I would have that power.
The question is: can we really blame someone that have (or think to have) a problem when he vote for the side that at least acknowledge the problem ? Yeah, most of the time he would not belive in what that side promise but what’s the alternative ?
Thats a fair point. To me, one is clearly the lesser evil. I can agree that lesser evil arguments suck but its the best I can find, personally. I choose the one I see as the side who won't deliberately make it worse for us and better for the people they represent. Personally, I'm a post structuralist and I don't think anyone can be trusted enough to allow mechanisms of power and hierarchy to exist.
Probably not.
I'm just saying, I think you and I are past rhetoric, by now.
However, short of a utopian, philosophers revolution, the best I have to offer is a lesser evil argument. Thats where I'm at. The way I see it, maybe wrongly, is that people on the right share my same frustration but that's been captured by the very powers that force it on them in the first place. They have our neighbours looking down to find the solution and not up, where the problem has always been.
Where are all these empty houses? Even then, they appreciate in value, even empty and propery price appreciation is the best place for a trust fund based in the caymans to obscure ownership of earnings. There isn’t a bigger effect from a few empty properties than house prices exploding 2 of 300% in a couple of decades.
Here I can speak for Italy: everywhere, since there are too many risks to rent them, even for the a trust fund based in the Caymans
No easy way to get the house back at the end of the contract if the tenant decide to not leave. The eviction process can last years, assuming there is not some laws to block all the eviction processes (a quite common thing)
No easy way to get the house back if the tenants do not pay the rent: you cannot simply evict them
The landlord often still need to pay for some expense of the rented home which would be way lower if the home is empty (some consumption-based expenses)
In case of damages from the tenant, you need years to recover them (if you are lucky), and most often than not what are paid is way less of what you need to repair them
If you register the contract to have done it lawfully, you need then to pay taxes bases on the rent income (correctly) even if the tenant is not paying you. Basically the state say "you have x income from the rent, pay me y even if you are not getting paid and I (the State) do not want help you to be paid"
if you use some kind of agent to find the tenants, they obviously are not responsible (should they?) for what the tenant do after, and you need to pay them a share of the rent.
last but not least, you can decide to sell a rented house but assuming you can, the price would be way lower given the points above (obviously there are exceptions to this).
So people prefer to keep the houses empty and take the cost, knowing where renting it lawfully could led.
Milano has a lot of empty houses (some research say at least 1/3 of the total) but they are not property of some big fund based in the Caymans (right, maybe the very expensive ones in the historic center of the city, but are not that many). They are property of people who get as inheritance or who bought them years back when they were less expensive.
Thats a fair point. To me, one is clearly the lesser evil. I can agree that lesser evil arguments suck but its the best I can find, personally. I choose the one I see as the side who won’t deliberately make it worse for us and better for the people they represent. Personally, I’m a post structuralist and I don’t think anyone can be trusted enough to allow mechanisms of power and hierarchy to exist.
The only problem with your approach (that I respect) is that this way you are rewarding anyway the same people that are creating the (supposed) problem you have. While you are thinking that you are voting for the lesser evil, they interpret it as an approval of what they are saying/doing, so they have no reasons to change.
Honestly I prefer to vote for someone else because it is the only way of saying "you are doing it wrong" and have the message delivered.
But what really I am having trouble with is that now everything need to be black or white, there could not be some middle ground point we can agree. People think that if you do not agree with a side then you are obviously be against that side: problem is that both side say intelligent things and both side tell stupid things, so I can agree with a side on an argument and with the other on another but for some reason that is lost.
However, short of a utopian, philosophers revolution, the best I have to offer is a lesser evil argument. Thats where I’m at. The way I see it, maybe wrongly, is that people on the right share my same frustration but that’s been captured by the very powers that force it on them in the first place. They have our neighbours looking down to find the solution and not up, where the problem has always been.
Maybe we should start to vote for who say intelligent thing irregardless of the side he is. I think that both your lesser evil approach and mine "vote for someone else just because" approach are not good enough to offer a stable solution.
So people prefer to keep the houses empty and take the cost, knowing where renting it lawfully could led.
Wow, you would think all that market pressure would make house prices fall. Surely people would want to sell those properties, as renting sounds like a death sentence. Its almost as if they're lying and making a killing as they're doing it.
and have the message delivered.
How did the message delivery work out for you?
I think that both your lesser evil approach and mine “vote for someone else just because” approach are not good enough to offer a stable solution.
Wow, you would think all that market pressure would make house prices fall. Surely people would want to sell those properties, as renting sounds like a death sentence.
The houses price would fall if all these houses would be put on the market at (roughly) the same time. Keeping them empty rise the house price because there is less offer on the market. And they sell these properties, simply in a very diluted period, so when they really need some money, for whatever reason.
Its almost as if they’re lying and making a killing as they’re doing it.
To be clear, keeping an empty house cost money to the owner (taxes, maintenance and some other expenses depending on the house) but this amount is still less of the money it would cost to rent it to the (way too often) wrong tenant. It is simply a lesser evil solution.
How did the message delivery work out for you?
Well, if only the left wing would understand the message it would be better, but at least they are not in any position to make more damages.
At least we can agree they both suck.
Yeah. And I am afraid that there seems not to be an alternative
The houses price would fall if all these houses would be put on the market at (roughly) the same time......
It seems that you answered your own question. You didn't need me at all. I was just getting in your way.
Well, if only the left wing would understand the message it would be better, but at least they are not in any position to make more damages.
Why is the problem not that the message is from people who have been deliberately miss informed, through no fault of their own, or even that the right haven't made their message good enough? Why does it have to be someone else's failing?
Yeah. And I am afraid that there seems not to be an alternative
By design of course. I mean, who would choose to live in an employment based, market fundamentalist society where its socialism for the rich and rugged, free market wage slavery for everyone else, if there was any alternative? You can see it from American foreign policy. "Socialism must fail everywhere its tried." Not "socialism will fail" or that it will probably fail because its sooooo rubbish. No, they have to ensure it does, as official policy. In that statement they admit that nearly any alternative would be preferable.
Why is the problem not that the message is from people who have been deliberately miss informed, through no fault of their own, or even that the right haven’t made their message good enough? Why does it have to be someone else’s failing?
Irregarless of the reasons, the message is clear: after 10 year in power people clearly voted them out.
I agree that the Right may have not made their message good enough (but for what ? To understand how bad they are ? I don't belive it) but the Left provide the open for them and don't even try to fight back. Evidently people decide that, all your past action aside, it was not enough that the only arguments you talked about in your entire electoral campaign was about what the Right should not allowed to do.
The problem is that the Left still have not understood it: they are still only talking about the (supposely) bad things the Right is doing instead of proposing what they would do. How could not be their fault ? The Left is ignoring every messages and it is again on the "if people did not vote for us then they are fascist" mantra. Seriously ?
By design of course. I mean, who would choose to live in an employment based, market fundamentalist society where its socialism for the rich and rugged, free market wage slavery for everyone else, if there was any alternative?
The ones that saw how the supposed alternatives (socialism and comunism) worked out. I don't know how old are you, but I am old enough to remember what was Europe before the fall of the Berlin wall. And I am old enough to remember that even in the comunist side of Europe the end result was the same: a few powerfull ones and the vast majority living in poverty, with the added fact that you could not even had tried to make your life better, it was a crime against The Party.
So I much prefer the actual system, it seems to be the least bad of all the others. Is there a better one ? Probably. What is it ? I don't know and at the moment I can only think about some utopian sci-fi like scenario.
You can see it from American foreign policy. “Socialism must fail everywhere its tried.” Not “socialism will fail” or that it will probably fail because its sooooo rubbish. No, they have to ensure it does, as official policy. In that statement they admit that nearly any alternative would be preferable.
Nah, I think USA have a very peculiar definition of socialism, they are too much "me centered" to understand everything else.
And while it is true what you say about the American foreing policy, you would have found the opposite in the socialist and comunist states foreign policy.
Therein is the hypocrisy of the position. Its the lefts fault for not listening and for not being heard. I mean, could it possibly be because a large group of very stubborn and fact resistant people have declared their the lefts policies literally equal zero? Could it be that people refuse to listen, regardless of what the left says? No, that would be crazy talk. Its everyone else's fault......
How do you get through to someone who has just declared not-zero to be zero and refuses to accept that what they made up is factually untrue? Is it my fault they do that?
The ones that saw how the supposed alternatives (socialism and comunism) worked out. I don’t know how old are you, but I am old enough to.....
That was fascism with red trim and nothing close to what socialism was meant to aim for.
So I much prefer the actual system, it seems to be the least bad of all the other
You don't seem to like that argument when "the other ones are bad" comes from the left and not trying anything else is the mentality of a depressive who views hope as a dangerous illusion.
Nah, I think USA have a very peculiar definition of socialism, they are too much “me centered” to understand everything else.
And while it is true what you say about the American foreing policy, you would have found the opposite in the socialist and comunist states foreign policy.
Youre missing the point. The point is, by their own policy, they admit that socialism doesn't just fail of its own accord, as they claim it does. The point isn't that an equivalent doesn't exist.
Therein is the hypocrisy of the position. Its the lefts fault for not listening and for not being heard. I mean, could it possibly be because a large group of very stubborn and fact resistant people have declared their the lefts policies literally equal zero? Could it be that people refuse to listen, regardless of what the left says? No, that would be crazy talk. Its everyone else’s fault…
Well, for not listening is obvious, they are the ones not listening.
For not being heard is a little more complex. Maybe they are heard but simply their message is irrelevant to the listener, or maybe is wrong or targeted to the wrong audience. I mean, you can try to talk about cricket to me and I will not get your message since I don't care about cricket. Is it your fault ? No, you cannot know everything I am interested in. But it become your fault if you don't understand that I don't care about cricket and you continue to talk only about it.
The same with the left, they talked about something, people said "look, all interesting but we have some more pressing day by day problems" and the left continued to talk about the same thing. Is it their fault ? Not at the beginning but it became their fault once they don't understand that what they are talking about is not what the people need to talk about.
How do you get through to someone who has just declared not-zero to be zero and refuses to accept that what they made up is factually untrue? Is it my fault they do that?
A too simple example but I get the gist. Short answer: you cannot and it is not your fault.
But the problem with politics is not that until today people are leftist and from tomorrow they suddently become fascists, even if this is what some part of the left like to think, but that it is a process. And since it is a process it is a fault of each parties if they don't understand it: it is a fault from the left if they don't understand the process that drive their voters to vote for the right and likewise is a fault of the right if they don't understand the process that drive their voters to vote for the left.
You don’t seem to like that argument when “the other ones are bad” comes from the left
It is more a "I don't agree it is so bad that it need to be replaced"
and not trying anything else is the mentality of a depressive who views hope as a dangerous illusion.
I am afraid that trying something on a State level is way too dangerous, especially if the "something" already failed more then one time.
Youre missing the point. The point is, by their own policy, they admit that socialism doesn’t just fail of its own accord, as they claim it does. The point isn’t that an equivalent doesn’t exist.
I get the point: there are two opposing blocks and each one is actively trying to make the other fail. So ?
Well, for not listening is obvious, they are the ones not listening.
Obvious to who? To the person declaring that no one is listening to them? What would the difference between them not listening and you being ignored, as you were wrong look like?
For not being heard is a little more complex. Maybe they are heard but simply their message is irrelevant to the listener, or maybe is wrong or targeted to the wrong audience. I mean, you can try to talk about cricket to me and I will not get your message since I don’t care about cricket. Is it your fault ? No, you cannot know everything I am interested in. But it become your fault if you don’t understand that I don’t care about cricket and you continue to talk only about it.
The problems come when people such as yourself claim the problem to be due to football, despite being caused by cricket, and then when you try to explain to them the problem is actually cricket they tell you they don't care about cricket. Therefor, the problem must be football.
A too simple example but I get the gist. Short answer: you cannot and it is not your fault.
With the greatest respect, you're doing that exact thing now.
But the problem with politics is not that until today people are leftist and from tomorrow they suddently become fascists, even if this is what some part of the left like to think, but that it is a process. And since it is a process it is a fault of each parties if they don’t understand it: it is a fault from the left if they don’t understand the process that drive their voters to vote for the right and likewise is a fault of the right if they don’t understand the process that drive their voters to vote for the left.
Lol stalin was always a fascist. Simply declaring oneself to be a socialist doesn't make someone a socialist. For example, even the nazis claimed to be socialists. I agree with the latter part though.
I am afraid that trying something on a State level is way too dangerous, especially if the “something” already failed more then one time.
Capitalism has failed the 99.9% every single time, yet you're okay to stick with that. It failed the planet and our our grandchildren. Please don't come to me with that.
I get the point: there are two opposing blocks and each one is actively trying to make the other fail. So ?
So, by their own admission, it doesn't fail of its own accord, like capitalism.
Obvious to who? To the person declaring that no one is listening to them?
To everyone with critical thinking. There is a part that ask about a problem and the other part never talk about the problem, it is open to be seen. And I have no problem to say that this is true to some extend both for the left and the right.
What would the difference between them not listening and you being ignored, as you were wrong look like?
There would not be any difference in the end result, which is why people feel they are ignored. Personally I can get that I can be wrong but if you don't even try to explain to me the reason, the only conclusion I can make is that you are not listening to me.
The problems come when people such as yourself claim the problem to be due to football, despite being caused by cricket, and then when you try to explain to them the problem is actually cricket they tell you they don’t care about cricket. Therefor, the problem must be football.
I don't think you are right. For example, if people claims that a part of the city is dangerous because all the (documented) petty crimes committed you cannot answer that the problem is that there are not enough bike paths in the city, people could rightfully say that they don' t care about bike paths if they cannot walk on the street without being robbed.
Capitalism has failed the 99.9% every single time, yet you’re okay to stick with that. It failed the planet and our our grandchildren. Please don’t come to me with that.
Then I suppose that you can make an example of a actual nation where socialism (or any other system) works better.
And, btw, it is not only capitalism that supposedly failed the planet.
So, by their own admission, it doesn’t fail of its own accord, like capitalism.
It was a fight. The strongest won. If socialism was that better, it should have won.
To everyone with critical thinking. There is a part that ask about a problem and the other part never talk about the problem, it is open to be seen. And I have no problem to say that this is true to some extend both for the left and the right.
I agree that it can be both but it wasn't clear to me at the time that you meant both. Maybe we just got out wired crossed there.
There would not be any difference in the end result, which is why people feel they are ignored. Personally I can get that I can be wrong but if you don’t even try to explain to me the reason, the only conclusion I can make is that you are not listening to me.
I feel like the other side would say that they have explained it to you and you rejected what that said and didn't listen to them.
I don’t think you are right. For example, if people claims that a part of the city is dangerous because all the (documented) petty crimes committed you cannot answer that the problem is that there are not enough bike paths in the city, people could rightfully say that they don’ t care about bike paths if they cannot walk on the street without being robbed.
Sure but its not their foreign-ness or their being from a different race that makes it happen. It's general poverty. The way the right frames it is as if they wouldn't care if the crimes were committed by italians or that italians would never do those things. Its simply that the poorest do those things. Those types happen to be the poorest. Not saying you, personally of course or that they actaully think that but thats how they frame it.
Then I suppose that you can make an example of a actual nation where socialism (or any other system) works better.
Can you name an example of a socialist country that wasn't attacked as much as possible, by the worlds only super power, specifically to ensure that socialism failed? Of course, you can't. No one can. It would be like me tripping you up and then claiming you can walk properly.
Define you use of "better" here. Better in what way and for whom?
And, btw, it is not only capitalism that supposedly failed the planet.
For sure, it's not only capitalism. However, when you have the same economic outlook as cancer, you can't act surprised when you kill the hosts ability to sustain life. We can't logically justify an economic model thats incompatible with not having to demand perpetual growth on a finite planet.
It was a fight. The strongest won. If socialism was that better, it should have won.
No, one side wanted to fight. The others wanted to he left alone. The problem is, capitalism can't tolerate any alternatives, as people will choose them over capitalism. Your other option HAS to be to starve on the street. Isnt it weird that no one sees a problem with those being your only two choices?
Also, capitalism had over a century's head start. I mean, its very true to capitalist form that you refuse to admit the outrageous advantage some groups start with, lest you accidentally acknowledge the fundamental problem with capitalism. However, let's be fair here. I mean, even without that, the number of people living under each is vastly different.
I feel like the other side would say that they have explained it to you and you rejected what that said and didn’t listen to them.
It is an option, of course. And sometimes it happen. But many more times did not. What it seems is that the left wing lost their ability to talk to the common people on the street, which historically was their voters. It is an open discussion here that the right basically win over the left taking over the arguments the left had until 5/10 years ago. As i said, it was a process.
Sure but its not their foreign-ness or their being from a different race that makes it happen. It’s general poverty. The way the right frames it is as if they wouldn’t care if the crimes were committed by italians or that italians would never do those things. Its simply that the poorest do those things. Those types happen to be the poorest. Not saying you, personally of course or that they actaully think that but thats how they frame it.
True, but they can easily frame this way because is what people see. In these areas people don't see Italians, they see migrants because the migrants are there, not Italians. They see that are migrants that commit the petty crimes (I've seen more than one myself), not the Italians. True, maybe the right exaggerate this, but the people see this.
Honestly, if I see that in a certain zone (Central Station for example) the majority of the petty crimes I saw was committed by foreigners or people from a different races, my logical conclusion could be that these people are a problem, which in itself did not exclude the Italians, but simply start from the more visible aspect. I agree that it could be limitating of course.
Can you name an example of a socialist country that wasn’t attacked as much as possible, by the worlds only super power, specifically to ensure that socialism failed? Of course, you can’t. No one can. It would be like me tripping you up and then claiming you can walk properly.
All the comunist block before 1990.
Define you use of “better” here. Better in what way and for whom?
Better for the common people. Back at the time, my parents had it a lot better than the equivalent parents in a comunist/socialist state.
We can’t logically justify an economic model thats incompatible with not having to demand perpetual growth on a finite planet.
Agree on that.
No, one side wanted to fight. The others wanted to he left alone. The problem is, capitalism can’t tolerate any alternatives, as people will choose them over capitalism. Your other option HAS to be to starve on the street. Isnt it weird that no one sees a problem with those being your only two choices?
I distinctly remember that URSS tried pretty hard to destroy capitalism, like USA tried to destroy socialism. So URSS never wanted to quit the fight, they simply lost it.
Also, capitalism had over a century’s head start. I mean, its very true to capitalist form that you refuse to admit the outrageous advantage some groups start with, lest you accidentally acknowledge the fundamental problem with capitalism. However, let’s be fair here. I mean, even without that, the number of people living under each is vastly different.
As I said, I do not know how old are you, but I am old enough to remember that at the time the end result of the socialism was the exact same result of the capitalism: few ultrarich and powerfull people and a lot of poor people. Difference was that poor people from the west were anyway richer than the poor people in the comunist block, even if it started a century later. For some aspect it was way better: they arrive at the same result starting way later.
It is an option, of course. And sometimes it happen. But many more times did not. What it seems is that the left wing lost their ability to talk to the common people on the street, which historically was their voters. It is an open discussion here that the right basically win over the left taking over the arguments the left had until 5/10 years ago. As i said, it was a process.
I put it to you that its not that they dont listen, its that they (despite having listened) disagree. As a group, its been decided that it must be that they didn't listen because who could disagree with something so True^^^^tm ? I would also add that the UK labour party which is the closet thing we have to a left just won nearly the greatest landslide in their history, forcing the tories to the lowest seats since thd 1830s, specifically because the right lost the common people in the street. How do we reconcile that with such a broad term as "the left wing" when talking about the ability to talk to the common person in the street?
True, but they can easily frame this way because is what people see. In these areas people don’t see Italians, they see migrants because the migrants are there, not Italians. They see that are migrants that commit the petty crimes (I’ve seen more than one myself), not the Italians. True, maybe the right exaggerate this, but the people see this.
I'm not saying they don't see this. I'm saying they're wrong to associate it with their foreign-ness which I'm glad we seem to agree on. But you simply can't counter that kind of weaponsied ignorance. The only way to is to sink as low as the people making it out to be due to their foreign-ness and not their being poor. But then you're not the good guys anymore. So, its pointless. To me, I have to just accept that some people simply don't even care what the truth is too. I mean, its what they see but they're an adult and its a simple explanation.
Honestly, if I see that in a certain zone (Central Station for example) the majority of the petty crimes I saw was committed by foreigners or people from a different races, my logical conclusion could be that these people are a problem, which in itself did not exclude the Italians, but simply start from the more visible aspect. I agree that it could be limitating of course.
Violent crime per capita has fallen across the world for centuries now. You think its bad now, you should have see the state of it 100 years ago or even 30. Thats why we have to go with data analysis. That doesn't make it less intimidating or not a problem. But it also means that what the right is using for is a lie (blaming the economic situation on them).
Can you name an example of a socialist country that wasn’t attacked as much as possible, by the worlds only super power, specifically to ensure that socialism failed? Of course, you can’t. No one can. It would be like me tripping you up and then claiming you can walk properly.
All the comunist block before 1990.
But they were attacked all the time. They were excluded and cut off from the rest of the world too. There isn't an instance of it failing of its own accord or unmolested. Would you accept me tripping you over and using that to claim you fail at walking? I don't imagine you would.
Better for the common people. Back at the time, my parents had it a lot better than the equivalent parents in a comunist/socialist state.
And now their children and grandchildren will have less than them. Yes, I agree that socialist states are starved by the rest of the world. Even more so, if its not socialism for everyone, its not socialism at all. None of those countries were socialist.
Agree on that.
But I just described capitalism.
I distinctly remember that URSS tried pretty hard to destroy capitalism, like USA tried to destroy socialism. So URSS never wanted to quit the fight, they simply lost it.
Let's say that was true, how about Cuba and all the Latin American countries that tried to be socialist, until America "liberated" them from what they had democratically chosen? Even then, what has convinced you that anyone would choose to be dumb enough to cut themselves of from the counties that make up nato? Also, it was American policy of containment. Also also, the ussr was awful, just to be clear.
As I said, I do not know how old are you, but I am old enough to remember that at the time the end result of the socialism was the exact same result of the capitalism: few ultrarich and powerfull people and a lot of poor people. Difference was that poor people from the west were anyway richer than the poor people in the comunist block, even if it started a century later. For some aspect it was way better: they arrive at the same result starting way later.
If you genuinely beleive the USSR was socialist then you simply do not know what socialism is. I'm sorry to be blunt. I don't know how old you are either but I'm old enough to know what that word means and that simply declaring ones self to be something doesn't make someone that thing. If I paint something orange and declare it to be blue, its still orange.
They weren't poor because they were socialist. They didn't lose because they were socialist. They lost because the richest countries in the world they would lose. Firstly, they weren't socialist. Secondly, they could have had any model ever and they would have lost. Capitalism has to claim victory for the things it isn't responsible for and blame everything else for the things it is responsible for.
Heres a good thought experiment, try defending capitalism on its OWN merit. For that, a person can't just claim others to be bad or worse of course. They also can't claim the things that we have due to the passage of time, like medicine. Otherwise, you're claiming that those things would never have happened if capitalism didn't happen which would, on reflection, obviously be very silly.
There is not a single thing the conservatives are completly right about and the progressives are completely wrong (or vice-versa of course), so I cannot truly pinpoint something specific.
The progressives are completely right about allowing two consenting adults to marry each other, regardless of other factors such as their skin color or their gender.
That's just one thing. I can name more. We do not need condervatives in government, they are only holding us back.
The "conservatives" nowadays are just another far-right party, only they're led by posh twats instead of rabble rousers and unlike in most of Europe (with noteable exceptions being Hungary and maybe Austria), in the UK are mainstream rather than fringe.
I fear the EU will take them right back and set a precedent for leaving and rejoining without so much problems as figuring out new contracts and agreements.
I'd demand worse terms for every time they leave and then try to rejoin (aka the cut was 50% but now the contribution has to be at least 55%)
I dont think so. Its in the EU interest for them to come back in. It will show others that leaving is not a good idea. However, they wkbt want it to be easy as it might encourage others to leave. They will join in the same terms as new entrants.
They will have to join the euro and they wont get their previous favourabke rebate for agriculture.
Its still a good deal for both sides but Britain make a mistake, as most are aware.
All it takes is for one member country, no matter how tiny, to say "No" and it's no, and in some countries like Belgium even a single region (say, "mighty" Walonia) can block it.
For example, I expect that Spain will want Gibraltar back as a condition for a Yes on a UK Membership vote.
In regards of Gibraltar, the problem is it being a fiscal paradise. If one of the agreement was that Gibraltar has too have the same rules as the rest of the EU it could be enough for the Spanish government.
And if that meant enforcing the same for Ireland and Luxemburg, even better.
It's my impression that it's actually a lot more about national pride for Spain than about Gibraltar's fiscal paradise status, since Gibraltar as not part of a member country can just be treated the same as any other offshore fiscal paradise, such as the Bahamas, which includes it being added to black lists. In this day and age, it's not geographical proximity that matters when it comes to fiscal paradises.
This makes sense since Britain too doesn't really gain much from having possession of Gibraltar so holding on to it is mainly a question of national pride for the UK - it would be strange if Spain's motivations were wildly different.
PS: Also it's funny how during the Leave campaign a lot of the "reason" why the EU would give Britain quasi-membership rights (without the responsabilities) after leaving the EU were a lot like this, about how those other countries or interests inside those countries would do it because they stood to gain monetarilly from it in the short term. All that turned out to be mainly wishful thinking and a serious misreading of the motivations of the leaders and people in said other countries.
Just found it funny how there are still people around thinking other countries are mainly motivated by the short term gains in sovereignty affairs, even whilst Britain itself again and again keeps doing things motivated by national pride when it comes to such affairs - one would've expected that "they're a lot like us" would somehow been figured out by now.
A single region within a member country can veto an entire block's will, even if the rest of the country assents? That seems very broken as a voting system, to me.
Belgium has an unusual constitution that lets its regions have veto power over some of its decisions in the international stage and adding a member to the EU is actually a change to a major Treaty that Belgium is part of.
For most EU member countries, there is no such thing, though I believe some (Luxemburg, Malta?) are actually smaller than Walonia in terms of population.
Is Brexit an ignorant, lazy, myopic tantrum you can undo?
No, you can only ask to join again, then start the discussion and if everyone agree, join again. But this time it will be on EU terms, not UK terms.
And the process can take years.
[..] 43% in favour of rejoining the bloc, compared with 40% who want to stay out. But once the 18% who say they don’t know are taken out, 52% back EU membership with 48% opposing it [...]
That's not a "majority of voters", that's a "majority of people who report to know what they want". These are not the same populations.
