Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "A Different Bias" channel.

  1. The question is, wouldn't it be in the best interests of Sinn Fein to let brexit happen? Couldn't this increase the chance of an Irish reunification?
    23
  2.  @ADifferentBias  The difference is that in the UK Wales, NI and Scotland together still can't get a majority, in the EU getting a majority due to a co-operation of the smaller countries is possible. Basically in the UK England has a majority in westminster on its own, in the EU there is no nation that is even close to having a majority on its own.
    12
  3. Guy Verhofstadt, the representative of the EP in the negotiations, has an english oldtimer car that you could see him riding (or at least see him try) in the documentary (at least the one I saw). And it is even said in it that he loves the UK, just not the leaders or what they are doing now (leaving). What EU leaders (and their staff) showed was discontempt for the UK leaders/government, who couldn't get shit done, were woefully unprepared and didn't even see a problem in keeping the Irish/NI border open without an agreement or plan. They were completely in their right to be contempt towards the UK leadership and their "plans".
    12
  4. I was surprised I nowhere saw anything about border problems due to brexit with regards to hauling, now I know why this was the case, there is no hauling happening :p
    11
  5.  123 456  Absolutely not
    7
  6.  @chethemerc7841  That is why Sturgeon's approval rating is 50% net (72% good vs 22% bad) in scotland and why she's the third most popular politician in the entire UK.
    6
  7.  @l33jcm  Honestly I'd say brexit is a step forward on the road to a USE, they always would have stepped on the brake anyway
    5
  8.  @benoitseron2392  No it wouldn't help climatically minded parties in power, since usually it are older people who go and vote, more so than the young ones. Personally I think mandatory "voting" is better then voluntary voting, but ofcourse both systems have advantages and disadvantages.
    4
  9. LMFAO :D
    4
  10.  @thepenguin305  So when Germany, in 2006, agreed to meet the agreed 2% of GDP on defence spending it lied? There was never an agreement about it, at best there might have been a non-binding pledge or saying of an intent or some other vague non-binding thing. Germany was quite happy to house NATO troops with the benefits that accorded the German economy, Germany also pays a pretty large yearly fee for the troops that are stationed in Germany though. I believe it was somewhere around 1 billion euro's or dollar, could be wrong though.
    4
  11. the june "check up" is basically for one or two reasons. 1) Did the UK properly participate in EU elections (like did they really mean the election or did they just "play a game")? 2) Does the UK make any headway (is a referendum agreed, is a general election planned, are talks between May and Corbyn moving farther succesfully, although the last one should be finished by then, ...)? I am not certain about the second reason, but the first definitely plays a part.
    3
  12. Spain would oppose it if there was no brexit. But if the UK leaves, this creates an entirely different situation, seeing Spain isn't going to do a spexit (or whatever) anytime soon.
    3
  13.  @Oldmanplum  Then why not give these powers immediately to the prime minister? It seems rather stupid that the Queen is basically just a talking doll in this. I believe you might be right about this Queen, but another monarch might actually do something different here. At the very least stall things, or maybe even say "a courtcase is being looked at, I can't prorogue untill there has been made a declaration in it" or something like that. Moreover, while it might not recently have happened that a monarch went against a PM (that we know off), it hasn't really happened either that a PM gives this kind of "advice" while not having the backing of a majority in parliament on this and it being a clear way to circumvent parliament and with it the people as a whole. I'd think handling in favor of the people (and their representation) should be more important than following your PM's advice and precedent. Afterall, there has to have been a first time for this existing precedent too.
    3
  14.  @happyguilmore4253  You mean the nation that had the British empire, France and Russia/USSR trembling in their boots 2 times in a two front war? And the nation that has won the most battles (or wars?) in history, which also controlled nearly the entire of Europe for a short time? And lastly the nation whose soldiers fought well according to all accounts, but just had terrible leadership/lacked the material?
    3
  15. Why don't remainers just form a "caretaker" government under Corbyn untill an extension is reached and after that the other parties give him a choice: a second referendum or they drop him and go for a general election. This would also ensure that labour can't pander to remainers in this GE. I'd say this probably is the best outcome that remainers can get now.
    3
  16. To me it is just a general interests in politics. I likewise follow politics in the US to stay up to date, eventhough I live in Belgium. The only times brexit is mentioned here is if there is something about it in the news (currently almost never) or if the UK comes up for some reason, like my father saying he'd want to go to England again sometime when we were discussing possible holiday locations for the future.
    2
  17.  @stuartpaul9995  nah, they won't, just like borders haven't become meaningless with the introduction of planes/choppers/cars/...
    2
  18.  @neildoerdan2298  I don't know where you get that from, but that's complete bullshit.
    2
  19. I doubt the EU will demand a people's vote, it would just give more power to the idea that the EU forces more referendums on the people if the first isn't in their favor. The EU demanding a public vote is very destructive to the EU's image. If the leaders choose for this option, the EU certainly will be in even bigger trouble than a no deal brexit especially if the UK votes to remain. Therefor I don't think this is on the table. I personally hope the EU leaders say: "we gave you untill now to come up with a solution, your parliament litteraly rejected every possible solutions, therefor we can do nothing else but to cut you loose".
    2
  20. Seems like a UK problem, other (west european) countries don't seem to have those problems. So this says more about the UK than anything else.
    2
  21.  @GeorgeGeorgeOnly  So, given the combined European membership of NATO (if say they were to represent themselves as one under the EU flag), what are the proportions now in terms of balance of power? US would still hold the main power, however it definitely would be more like equals. At this moment EU members in nato would spend around 300-350 billion in their military if they spend 2% of their GDP (which would be the most likely target for a EU army), while the US spends 700-1000 billion into their armed forces (official budget is around 730 billion, but much of the presidents discretionary budget also flows to the military, how much this is exactly I can't tell) which makes up for around 3,6 to 5% of their GDP, so probably double that of what the EU would set as their goal. Now, in terms of strength it might get closer than you would think based on these numbers. The US spends a lot on maintaining many foreign bases and waging costly "large scale" military operations globally, while this offers more global power, it offers little to regional/base power in terms of bang for bucks, which is what the EU would probably focus on (more defensively orientated). And especially Nato would be focused on the region around Europe. Furthermore it isn't exactly clear how efficient US spending is used. If the EU spends it more efficiently it might in the long term match US "regional" or "base" power with lower spending. For example, Russia only spends 60-70 billion on defense, but is still considered the world second strongest military with several innovations.
    2
  22.  @GeorgeGeorgeOnly  It doesn't govern NATO in that they can make the others do what it wants. However, thanks to its power and influence the US can often push NATO members to do what it wants, however in the end the members ofcourse can still decide themselves. And they definitely are seen as the leader of the alliance, though sometimes large european nations (Germany, France, ...) try to push back against this. A united EU in NATO would definitely be more seen as a "co-leader". Then again besides these two, the only other members are Canada, Iceland, Albania, Montenegro and Turkey. It is therefor possible that a united EU army might lead to a degrade to a more regular military alliance of the US, EU, Canada, Turkey and Iceland. Albania and Montenegro are likely to eventually join the EU if it exists long enough and could just be guaranteed by the EU untill then. But this would be rather far into the future either way.
    2
  23. I think it depends. Here in Belgium we have had youth skip school and protest every thursday and during about 12 weeks the protests attracted more than a thousand people (the highest was 36k, which is a lot in a nation of 11 million, where the greatest climate protest ever was 70k people). After the 12-14 weeks it went down to maybe a few hundreds (but they still refuse to stop). There was a massive amount of press attention for these protests and there was a lot of discussion (not in the least because they did skip school). It has made the climate an important topic for the regional, federal and european elections in may. So if done right and in a persistant manner, the impact will be just as high and much more positive.
    2
  24.  @andysm1964  I live in Belgium, there is no real problem with seperatist notions, maybe 15-20% of Flemish people support it, no more. The only reason a "seperatist" party got around 22% of all (belgian) votes in the previous federal election was because they shelved their seperatists sentiments in favor of the economics.
    2
  25.  @ChristianIce  I personally will never accept anything like the 2nd amendement in my nation, but I am not an american, it's their choice.
    2
  26.  @ChristianIce  Actually, it was more because they didn't have a federal army untill several years after independence was won (a federal army was only formed after the french revolution and there was a serious chance they'd get involved) and even then it was limited, so there was a need for state militia's for protection in general. But afterwards, yes slavery was most definitely a reason why they didn't abolish it.
    2
  27.  @twat240  But what if, for example, they make one on the right to live? Something that no one could ever contest, something that's very clear? Well would that be used to block any form of abortion whatsoever? Or block euthanasia? Ofcourse whenyou make a constitutional law, you always make sure to be very carefull with the wording and lots of experts would look at it and try to find possible unwanted implications and change it to account for something. And if you are somehow blocked, you'd try find a workaround. In your example, they'd just say that because the embryo up to week x isn't alive/viable to live yet (medically), it therefor doesn't have the right to live yet and therefor an abortion untill week x is possible. In case of euthanasia, it is even more easy, the right to live doesn't mean you are forced/obligated to live and therefor you can choose to end your live/have you live ended. You see how important the wording can be? And if it is absolutely impossible to get around, you just need to change the constitution. In fact, this is exactly what Ireland did. Particularly as we don't have proportional voting If you get a written constitution, maybe at the same time you can chance to PR. But again, it mostly depends on the UK situation and yes, the UK the situation at the moment is difficult. In my eyes partly because the UK is falling/has fallen behind other democracies on democratic systems (FPTP and constitution).
    2
  28.  @Willywin  first it was, the economy will collapse as soon as you vote to Leave then it was the economy will collapse when you invoke Article 50 Just few people actually said this and this would was always more dependent on how markets would react and wasn't a 'collapse' as you say, rather a hit to for example the pound. The markets reacted better than expected, possibly because essentially nothing was clear or decided at those moments, for all they knew the EU and UK would reach a deal that would cause nothing to change in terms of trade. And for the record, the pound has been falling the last few years compared to the euro and there has been a lot of investment moved out of the UK to the EU or investment that was expected to be done in the UK put on hold or moved to the EU. Does this mean there was no investment? Ofcourse not. And again, a lot of bussiness wanted to first see what would happen, if you don't need to move production, work, whatever obviously it would be cheaper to not move it. Much will again depend on how bussiness will react now to the deal reached and the actual impact of brexit/end of transition. then it was the economy will collapse when we left on Jan31st Anyone who said this was just stupid, the transition agreement ensured essentially nothing would change in terms of trade for almost another year. So why would the economy collapse at that point? then it was the economy will collapse at the end of the transition period It would collapse without a deal, guess what, a deal has been reached, so any economic impact won't be as worse as could have been according to the worst case scenario. Besides this, only one day has gone by: a holiday during lockdowns, so a negative outcome can still come. Moreover most people that know what they speak about said the hardest hits would come overtime, initially not noticed, unlike covid which hit directly and has a direc huge impact, the brexit impact to the economy will happen over a prolongued time almost unnoticed while it is happening. 'There would be queues miles long from the get go - then when there are no queues - 'well there's no trade...' Well, yeah, there is no trade, get the numbers yourself if you don't believe it. It is a holiday, with lockdowns, uncertainty among hauling companies on what to do/what will happen especially after what happened last week, ... So obviously there aren't lines now. Sure some people said there would be queues immediately, the problem is, this was under the assumption that there would be as much trade as usual, there isn't. Last week we could already see how much impact a temporary closure had after a few hours, eventually the impact lasted for days after the border was opened again. That there will be delays at Dover is not disputed, even the British government has prepared for it. Now at some point I am sure there will be some minor disruption somewhere which will be quickly resolved as companies and Governments in Europe want to sell hassle free to the UK as well You do know that the UK governments position is to get deliveries into the UK as hassle free as possible (since this involves things like food, medication, essential supplies, .... things that will immediately be noticed by the population if missing), even if it means just waving them through upon entering the UK. It is the EU that plans to treat the border as it is: a border. The delays are expected to hit traffic coming from the UK to the EU and the EU can't care less about that. But you need to move on, everyone else has, Labor, Lib Dems, the EU Oh, don't worry, we have moved on and accept the UK is out, you already were out almost a year ago, and I am happy about that, I would have detested another extension. But just because we have moved on, doesn't mean we can't look at and expect/discuss the impact of brexit. Labor does this too, as do the lib dems, EU, ...
    2
  29.  @harryst.george514  oh please, it is easy to discard the advantages of something if you only look at the initial clear costs. Upon close examination you'll find Erasmus was a net benefit for the UK, both economically as well as educationally. This is just like with the EU budget, only looking about what the UK payed into it and received from it, while ignoring everything else it brings, like trade, influence, ...
    2
  30.  @LarsPallesen  Funny enough, the US is against the formation of an EU army. When they talk about European nations taking more responsibility, they essentially mean to just spend the 2% or more on the military (40% of which on material according to the NATO guidelines) and preferable buy more US arms (tanks, planes, ships, guns, ...) with that increase in funding. They fear an EU army would make the EU too independent, both in terms of strength and material, leading to a loss of influence and income for the US.
    2
  31.  @prout7569  Belgium has taken in more migrants than the UK proportionally, the UK is among the worst countries of the (current and former) EU-members in regards to migrant crisis impact (ie how many you took in) and Belgium is the second highest net contributor to the EU budget proportionally, right after Germany (for 2007-2013). The UK is only 7th in that metric, after the UK there are only 3 other net contributors. Between 2007 and 2013 the UK only contributed 3,5 times more to the budget that Belgium in absolute numbers, while having a gdp over 5 times higher. Clearly you are full of bullshit. In regards to migrant workers, it is rather simple, migrant workers either did jobs for which there aren't enough qualified british people or they did low paying manual labor jobs British people don't want to do. So yes, you can have higher unemployment together with a greater shortage of migrant workers.
    2
  32.  @Martyntd5  having asked us to make a decision But they didn't ask you to make a decision, they asked the people's advice and in the end the people are litterally split down the middle when it comes to this advice. Therefor (especially after recent years) the parliament is entirely it its right to take notice of the advice, but do something else/go against the advice. It's like a boss asking his employees for advice, but in the end he makes the decision. and it's the Union Flag, it's only a jack when it's on the bow of a ship No that is just a popular belief of recent times. In fact the flag is refered to as the union jack even when it isn't hanging on a ship for a long time. Even before 1902 the admiralty said they used the term for the flag no matter the context. But yes the origin of the name can be traced back to its use on ships. But now using it in whatever context is legal and correct.
    2
  33.  @Korschtal  Really? Most constitutions will be much more than a sheet of vellum. Even the US constitution is by now more than just a sheet of vellum due to constant additions/amendements to it.
    2
  34. Nah, even at this moment the leave side would get in a referendum into the high 40's, higher than in any other EU country.
    2
  35.  @johnhobbes2268  I don't know where you get your conclusion from that the UK has the biggest pro-EU group from if it is not from leaver vs remain. Yes, many want to remain, but I doubt many of those want further integration. Most will want a status quo. Do you have a poll that found the percentage of pro-EU supporters in the UK?
    2
  36.  @alttiakujarvi  I don't think Spain will make a problem IF brexit happens. Afterall the situation would be completely different. You would have a nation that split of from a non-EU member, this while Spain is clearly going to remain an EU member.
    2
  37.  123 456  And? How does this influences Spains decision to a veto scottisch membership or not?
    2
  38.  @bujin1977  The UK refused to annex Malta even when Malta asked for it. So I don't know if Malta is a good example.
    2
  39.  Sorin Predator  I think you're a few centuries behind.
    2
  40. That would basically be England "leaving" the UK and EU. But honestly this isn't a real option. Most likely NI would join Ireland if they leave England behind and Wales is unlikely to leave England behind due to geography, etc.
    2
  41.  @thepenguin305  the 2% was a guideline. Obama pushed for pledges that the other NATO members would try their best to reach the 2% by 2024 at the latest or something similar in 2014. However it unfortunately wasn't a written down agreement, but something another government could quitely ignore. Trump definitely hasn't been the first president trying to push NATO members to spend at least the 2% set in the guidelines. Anyway, the US didn't pay for the defence of NATO members, their expenses would be the same regardless because of their own choice. Even when no one saw any need the US upped its defence spending in the past few years and only a minority of Americans think the budget should be lowered. It is also ridiculous that Germany's armed forces have been so shoddily equipped that under VDL's time as defence minister they had to use broomsticks instead of machine guns. This is more likely then to do with bad (budget) management, considering Germany still spends (slightly) more on defence than France and still France has a (more) capable military. And it isn't like the German military is larger and thus needs more spending to be as efficient, the opposite, France's military is a bit bigger. So these stories of 'x% of whatever is badly maintained and not usable' or the 'broomsticks instead of machineguns' you mentioned shouldn't be due to a lack of funding, rather just mismanagement of the funds. Ofcourse Germany's military should logically be larger than France's which is what the increase propsed now will likely lead to, but the current funding for the current size of Germany's military should have been adequate.
    2
  42.  @thepenguin305  are we then to presume that lying is acceptable? Who says they were lying. You can mean something one day and then another day change your mind due to a change of circumstance, whatever the change is. For example the 2008 crisis would be more than enough of a thing to change a government stance on planned defence spending.
    2
  43. The right way to poll in the UK is by district and then translate these results to the national level by both a national proportional representation, but moreover showing how seats are likely to be assigned and from which you can really determine a possible new composition.
    2
  44. In my eyes this doesn't change much in terms of brexit. In the end an extension is only possible if there is an appropriate majority in parliament for a genuine option, which there still isn't and is unlikely to be reached in the next 5-6 days.
    1
  45.  @AnexoRialto  Twitter has permanently banned Trump's personal account and has deleted tweets from the POTUS account when Trump started using that after. Honestly I dislike this step, especially since this decision came after last 2 tweets that don't inspire violence except with people who already will do violence anyway. (Not to say Trumps tweet all are acceptable ofcourse). I don't like any platform holding this kind of power, this is essentially limiting free speech. People should be held to account for what they say and pointed out when they make up shit/spread misinformation (which Twitter already was doing), but they should still be able to speak. If Trump's supporters now say that Trumps freedom of speech is infringed on, they would imo be absolutely correct and that is dangerous, because this in effect only strengthens their resolve and validates their idea that something is going on, that there is this conspiracy happening that tries to shut up and remove Trump.
    1
  46.  @jimbob-robob  The fact that trump has other avenues to express his free speech doesn't take away from the fact that twitter and other platforms took it away/limited it. Not everyone has access to Fox news or the white house press room to express their freedom of speech. This isn't just about Trump, but rather about the power allowed to these social media companies to essentially shutdown anyone they want.
    1
  47.  @jimbob-robob  Then I guess your point wasn't clear, because this wasn't a knee-jerk response. Even after rereading your comment, I still stand behind my reaction.
    1
  48. You don't understand, this message is part of a treasure hunt around Biden's election. The "hidden" text contains clues for the next hint. :p
    1
  49. She can't offer a people's vote without parliament and she won't offer a general election, because this will not be in the best interest of the conservatives either.
    1
  50.  @youtubefightsback535  That's just like saying "I don't trust the government to be fair about who wins in a two option referendum". With that mindset you can't trust the government for ANY kind of referendum. In the end the rules need to be clearly and publicly defined before the vote and afterwards, the end results (both first and second choice) need to be made public, it is impossible for the government to then not follow the set rules, because everyone would know they cheated.
    1