Hard Brexit: what consequences?

[TheFrighter]

As probably you already know the premier Boris Johnson is determinate to take UK out of the European Community not later than October 31, ready or not.

This "hard brexit" will certainly have political and economic effects, perhaps positive or maybe not.

And as regards what interests us most: what consequences for the videogame industry?

_

[ManicMatt]

As much as I love video games, I haven't given a single thought as to it being affected by brexit, there's far more important issues to be concerned about.

[LimpingFish]

...there's far more important issues to be concerned about.

Tell that to someone who works in the industry. Or someone whose business relies on free movement of goods across Europe. No one facet of Brexit is more important than another.

Brexit will effect everything, and not just for the UK. For instance, the latest Tory government doesn't give two brass fuckwads about the Northern Ireland situation, about the havoc Brexit will cause in our agricultural industries, about the reintroduction of bullshit borders and travel limitations. In fact, I don't think they give a toss about anything (including there own country), except sticking it to the "frogs" and the "krauts".

The British people are in for quite a shock, when they realize that, in their desire to rid themselves of the "fuzzy wuzzies" and the "muslim menace" (and let's be honest here, that is the number one reason Brexit passed in the first place), they've inadvertently flushed there own future down the toilet. Which is why opposition parties (and certain Tories) are so adamant in stopping a hard Brexit (or any Brexit, for that matter) from happening. They can see the huge, screaming mess on the horizon. Boris and his chums can see it it too, but they don't give a fuck.

For countries with close ties to Britain, if a hard Brexit does come to pass, their best option is to cut all ties, circle the wagons, and hope the current from Britain sinking into it's own shite doesn't drag them down too.

tldr: You are doomed.

[Jack]

Why does it have to be a hard brexit? It seems to me that those politicians who wanted no brexit have done their best to make the exit as difficult as possible, hoping that the people will decide to stay in the EU after all.

Is there a "nice brexit" option? Or is it just hard brexit or no brexit?

[Stupot]

I just can't get my tiny little head around the fact that the referendum was held in the first place, or at the very least it should have been made plainly clear in massive text on the polling card itself and on signs in the polling station that “THIS REFERENDUM IS ADVISORY ONLY AND IF YOU EVER SAY “WE WON” AFTER THIS DAY YOU ARE A MASSIVE BELL-END”

To add something relevant to the first post, I'm actually not completely opposed to the idea of pulling away from the EU, if that's what enough people want. Personally, I wanted The UK to remain in Europe, but if a good deal can be reached where we keep some trading ties and an element of free movement and it's all done amicably by grown-ups, without shitting all over the Good Friday Agreement, then I'm open to seeing how it might go.

But pulling out without a deal seems like nothing anyone would want. I can't fathom why so many people do actually seem to want a no deal Brexit. I mean what are their arguments?

[Cassiebsg]

Just to assure you Stupot... The UK will remain in Europe, unless some evil villain comes along and drags the island to the other side of the planet.   

[Ben X]

Just to assure you Stupot... The UK will remain in Europe, unless some evil villain comes along and drags the island to the other side of the planet.   

To quote Wikipedia, "although the term 'continent' implies physical geography, the land border is somewhat arbitrary and has been redefined several times since its first conception in classical antiquity."

Apparently, Malta was considered an island of North Africa for centuries.

So it wouldn't require any donkey-wheel turning for our island to leave Europe, just some redefinition. I assume Stupot did in fact mean leaving the EU, not Europe, but honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if the next thing our idiot prime minister pushes for is to be declared our own continent.

[milkanannan]

I just can't get my tiny little head around the fact that the referendum was held in the first place

Yeah the whole thing came on so quick. Was a referendum really the way to handle it? I mean, aren't governments elected into office to make decisions like this for the country so that it doesn't become an emotion-driven thing? I know there's no way a re-vote could happen, but you got to wonder whether the public would go the same way.

[Mandle]

I think the referendum was held by a confident government to make the point that everyone should just shut up about leaving the EU because obviously that's not gonna hap...

"OHHHH CRAP!!!"

[milkanannan]

 

[ManicMatt]

Ironically despite Limping disagreeing with me, nobody has mentioned the games industry for brexit that was the point of the thread.

And if things get really bad to the point of certain food shortages, then everything affected by brexit isn't going to be equally bad.

[milkanannan]

This thread will be helpful in the coming weeks to hash out what's going on.

[Stupot]

Just in case anyone thinks I'm an idiot for calling the EU Europe, well I am an idiot but not for that reason. “Europe” is often used to mean “The European Union”.

[Crimson Wizard]

“Europe” is often used to mean “The European Union”.

guess as "America" is used to mean "USA"

[Ali]

Why does it have to be a hard brexit? It seems to me that those politicians who wanted no brexit have done their best to make the exit as difficult as possible, hoping that the people will decide to stay in the EU after all.

Is there a "nice brexit" option? Or is it just hard brexit or no brexit?

Amazingly, and without precedent, Jack is utterly wrong and misinformed. Several deals were proposed and rejected. They were rejected not because a deal was impossible, but because both Leavers and Remainers in parliament were unprepared to accept the compromise the deals represented.

[LimpingFish]

Ironically despite Limping disagreeing with me, nobody has mentioned the games industry for brexit that was the point of the thread.

Well, to be more on topic, there are a number of ways the games industry can be effected. Europeans who work in UK-based studios, for instance, would suddenly find themselves outside the EU. Their ability to freely travel to, live in, and work in the UK would be gone. Video game retailers, who rely on the free movement of goods across Europe would have to find new avenues of import. Not to mention the possibility of newly introduced taxes on video games and consoles, impacting both consumers and retailers. Hell, selling a game on Steam will get more complicated, as blanket rules covering the EU will no longer apply to the UK.

But my point about no one aspect being worse than any other was in relation to this argument being applicable to any industry*, be it vital ones such as food or medical supplies, or peripheral ones such as fashion or technology. People will lose jobs, consumers will suffer, and nobody will gain anything.

They were rejected not because a deal was impossible, but because both Leavers and Remainers in parliament were unprepared to accept the compromise the deals represented.

This is true. A deal was worked out months ago, and put before parliament by former PM Theresa May (who, I'd also like to point out, took a lot of shit - unfairly, in my opinion - from within her own party), but it failed to pass on multiple occasions.

And this is where my anger over Brexit stems. I scream it at the TV every time Boris and his chums talk about reopening negotiations or the possibility of a "better" deal. The is no better deal! There will be no more negotiations! You are not going to get a better deal upon leaving the EU then you had when you were in it. It's madness to think otherwise. You are not going to come out on top in this, deal or no deal. If leaving the EU resulted in things getting better (or even staying comparably the same), every country would be doing it! Get. Fucking. Real.

To put in in plain language: You're in a union. You like the benefits this brings, but you don't like paying your dues. So you stop paying your dues. Your benefits go away. You are confused. "Can't I keep my benefits, despite not paying my dues?" you ask. "No", says the Union. "But..." "No." "But..." Repeat, ad nauseam.

You can argue the "pros" of leaving the EU, until the cows come home, but if the Tories, and, by extension, the people who put them in office, are willing to sacrifice, among other things, the Good Friday Agreement, because Europe might take away their right to boil a kettle, then...to hell with them. Let them march headlong into the depths of recession, into sweeping unemployment, and other "freedoms".

But, hey, at least that black guy who lives next door will be gone.

...

Oh, wait...


*For instance, my local comic shop can no longer process stock through Diamond UK (supplier of most, if not all, comic shops in the UK), and instead has to go through Diamond US, which brings a 20% hike in costs. Which means less incoming stock, which leads to less profits for publishers, which mean less jobs, etc.

[ManicMatt]

Boy are we screwed.

I can only apologise for voting to leave. I was on the fence the entire time. I had to make a choice, but despite trying to research it, I still didn't fully grasp everything. I also feel misled. I didn't know they wouldn't have a clue how to deal with this. They seemed so confident.

[Ben X]

My mum is a smart person, and she was duped into voting Leave too. She feels awful about it now. They tricked a lot of people. They lied, cheated, broke laws, and they still only managed a 52% result in a non-binding referendum, yet here we are.

But yeah, LimpingFish sums it up well. The UK games industry will be affected in the ways that the entirety of UK industry will be. Furthermore, there may be grants and funds for the arts coming from Europe that are lost - I know some people whose place of work have had to shut down certain projects because of this already.

[ManicMatt]

Yeah I agree with you both.

Thanks Ben, it's nice to hear that other people regret it too and feel duped. I do wonder just how many people wish they had voted to remain.

Another awful thing is when I hear people calling all brexit voters racist, and doubtless there would likely have been a number of racist people who voted to leave, but they are wrong to assume everyone is.

[Ali]

I think it would be wrong and unconstructive to say that all Brexit voters are racist*, but I think some people would prefer our analysis of Brexit to leave out the question of race altogether. Which would be a bigger mistake, because it's obvious that Islamophobia and other forms of racism were significant factors.

I think it's fair to acknowledge that the people who voted to leave did so in the knowledge that they were voting with racist right-wing nationalists? Or were people so misinformed that they just didn't know?

(*Or indeed, that Remainers aren't racist.)

[ManicMatt]

Obviously I can only speak for myself, but yes, I was aware of that being the case, but after seeing how many racists suddenly came out of the woodwork after brexit voting, I didn't realise just how many there were.

My vote was almost a throw of the dice, I still hadn't decided when I was standing there with the pencil in my hand. I could see potential benefits to both options, from the bulls**t I'd been fed.

[milkanannan]

Manic, what were the benefits you saw at the time to leave?

[ManicMatt]

I can't remember. It was so long ago..

Politics is something that generally goes over my head anyways, I just saw lists saying benefits to both and its all blah blah blah to me! I shouldn't even be involved in this thread but I thought I'd confess my sin, lol.

[Ali]

To be fair to Matt, people were promised all sorts of things - many of them contradictory.  Essentially, we were told that we could retain the benefits of the EU without any of the obligations. So we were told we'd stay in the single market and have freedom of movement, and EU nationals living in the UK were repeatedly promised they'd be secure. Meanwhile, we were told, we would be able to limit immigration from Europe and spend the money that goes to the EU on (e.g.) the National Health Service.

Conservatives Leavers were told we'd withdraw from the hated European Convention on Human Rights, and stop accepting EU law. Tabloid newspapers have been running largely fabricated stories about absurd EU laws for decades - most famously that the EU wanted to regulate the shape of bananas. Left-wing Leavers - for they are many - were told we'd escape from a neoliberal free-trade bloc (which effectively overruled Greece's socialist government) and be able to renationalise power stations etc.

The one problem with all of this, is that it was bollocks.

[Blondbraid]

Personally, I think the only fun thing that's come out of this whole mess is that Hugh Grant posted a tweet calling Boris Johnson
"an over-promoted rubber bath toy". If that's not the most insane insult I've heard this week I don't know what is. 

[selmiak]

Is this a one way action? I mean, turkey applies to come into the EU long enough, after maybe a year of brexit and seeing things go downhill britain could apply to come into the union again. Or maybe it is great and the EU wants to join the united kingdom union...

[Scavenger]

You'd think the racist motive of the Leave campaign would be blatantly obvious, considering one of their propaganda pieces was literally mirroring nazi propaganda about immigrants being teeming vermin.

Honestly even with the perfect reasons to leave, why would anyone trust the Tories to do so? They already declare people Fit For Workâ,,¢ and leave them to die, think of what they could do to disabled people once we no longer have the Human Rights charter. I have to fight for my means to live hard enough without the added stress of not having human rights, access to medication (without which I will stop functioning properly), or the NHS. If the tories can't even organise their own party without resorting to heavy handed threats and telling the Queen to shut down parliament, I doubt they'll be capable of supplying the UK with anything at all post-brexit.

You wanna know the effect of brexit on UK games? It'll suck. Hard. And vulnerable people will die.

[ManicMatt]

I voted for Labour/Corbin, and I've never voted for the Tories.

It's funny how something like Asthma is seen as nothing these days, but if one day, I couldn't get access to it, I could die, so it's not exactly nothing.

And that seems about right, Alistair.

[Jack]

And this is where my anger over Brexit stems. I scream it at the TV every time Boris and his chums talk about reopening negotiations or the possibility of a "better" deal. The is no better deal! There will be no more negotiations! You are not going to get a better deal upon leaving the EU then you had when you were in it. It's madness to think otherwise. You are not going to come out on top in this, deal or no deal. If leaving the EU resulted in things getting better (or even staying comparably the same), every country would be doing it! Get. Fucking. Real.

Don't they mean a better exit deal than "hard brexit", as in they're hoping for an exit deal with some concessions rather than no concessions?

[Cassiebsg]

The deal has been negotiated to "death", it went to vote and been voted No every single time. EU has said several times that it's that deal or no deal. They're convinced they can get a better deal and thus continue to vote the deal down, hoping for a better deal. But that won't happen. So yeah. hard Brexit is currently the most like outcome.

In the end we all lose, directly or indirectly. But that's just my opinion...

[LimpingFish]

Another awful thing is when I hear people calling all brexit voters racist, and doubtless there would likely have been a number of racist people who voted to leave, but they are wrong to assume everyone is.

I think it would be wrong and unconstructive to say that all Brexit voters are racist*...

(*Or indeed, that Remainers aren't racist.)

Well, "Racist" is a strong word; one that conjures images of burning crosses and lynchings. So when you opine that not everybody who voted to leave is a racist, undoubtedly you'd have those very people agreeing with you, because, as I said, a "Racist" is envisioned as a hideous monster, and not Jim from down the end of the road, who just want's to see political control of Britain back in British hands, and maybe a cap on immigration numbers. And you'd be right, he's probably not a racist.

And I'm sure there where a significant number of people, like Matt, who just voted on what they thought seemed best for their country. I don't blame them, nor do I resent them. They shouldn't feel bad for doing it. No, I place the blame squarely with Westminister. I blame the Tories for being, well, Tories. But I also blame those in opposition for being complacent and ineffectual, and for letting down their own constituents in so spectacularly a way as to not even deserve their vote in the future.

But, and it's a big one, I feel that the issue of race, of Nationalism, of the fallacy of a return to a "traditional" Britain (much like an America of white picket fences...and whiter neighborhoods), played a major part in both the campaign to leave (covertly and overtly) and the passing of the leave vote. And this is something that future Britain is going to have to deal with, Brexit or no Brexit.

I'd also like to add that that voting "Remain", as Ali pointed out, is no guarantee of purely humanitarian reasoning. There are many cold, hard, financial factors for staying in the EU, that don't necessarily include the love of your fellow man.

Don't they mean a better exit deal than "hard brexit", as in they're hoping for an exit deal with some concessions rather than no concessions?

A Hard Brexit simply means that no deal will be agreed upon when the deadline comes to pass, and as such, no safeguards will be in place.

As Cassie said, a deal was hashed out months ago, one which contained concessions on both sides. Ireland made concessions, mainland Europe made concessions, and the UK made concessions. All of these concessions were weighed and balanced, and, at the end of that process, former British PM Theresa May signed off on it. This deal then went before Parliament, to be voted upon. Hard-line "Brexiteers", among others, largely from within Mrs. May's own party, voted it down. So an extension was given, to allow the PM time to persuade her party that this was the best deal for Britain (and for everybody involved) and another vote was scheduled. It again failed to pass. There may have been a third vote, but I lost count.

None of this really matters now, since it's become clear that it was all just part of a power-play by Boris Johnson to seize control of the Tories. May is out, BJ is in, and here we are.

Is this a one way action?

In theory, any country that want's back in would essentially find itself back to square one, and in the same position as a country seeking entry for the first time. I say in theory, because it's never been attempted as nobody has ever withdrawn.

[ManicMatt]

I knew there was a reason I always liked Limpy Fish! And yet I still don't know him (?) outside AGS or er, Steam apparently.

All well said, and I appreciate the understanding.

[Galen]

I think it would be wrong and unconstructive to say that all Brexit voters are racist*, but I think some people would prefer our analysis of Brexit to leave out the question of race altogether. Which would be a bigger mistake, because it's obvious that Islamophobia and other forms of racism were significant factors.

Which is particularly frustrating as:

A. 'Muslamics' and syrian refugees both will be pretty much completely unaffected by it.

B. The country's leadership has routinely refused to exercise EU provisions for immigration control as well as fairly sensible measures like exit checks that even other EU member states use. Which in the end means one has to question how much control over immigration will any future leadership even attempt to impose post-brexit?

Meanwhile crying over 'sovereignty' while both refusing to take any action to make sure we're fairly represented in the EU including electing MEPs who literally spend their (paid!) time standing with their backs turned on the rest of the commitee and continuing to drag along Ireland and Scotland into the debacle under the ironic guise of stronger together. While of course those countries were against Brexit, and ignored. Whereas the UK as a whole votes in favour for 98% of EU laws and pretty much never use deigns to use a veto. So we're ignoring the votes of *our* member states, in order to escape a greater union who we both almost never disagree with and whom we've purposefully chosen not to be represented with. In order to escape immigration that we never attempted to control, from countries not in the EU. Or to escape 'EU red tape regulations' that we'll still have to abide with if we want to be able to export to nations that are still under those regulations. *sigh*

You'd think the racist motive of the Leave campaign would be blatantly obvious, considering one of their propaganda pieces was literally mirroring nazi propaganda about immigrants being teeming vermin.

You have no idea how much propaganda is out there on it. https://twitter.com/brexit_sham/status/1146029421578641408 A bunch of blonde white schoolgirls forced to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Europe, cue a montage of EU flags lining the streets of the UK. Basically playing up the EU as Nazis, while also invoking Nazi-esque fears of any threat to their aryan spawn. Sickening stuff.

[WHAM]

The UK won't be leaving the EU.
The nation lacks a proper democracy, and what sliver of democracy it has, has succumbed to a limited two-party system where smaller parties exist as unimportant outliers.

Thus the UK won't be abiding by the referendum and all the time and effort wasted on Brexit will be for naught. Nothing gained, plenty lost. A pitiable situation in all aspects, and along with many other policy decisions taken by the UK Government over the past 5 years or so, it has led to myself scrapping past plans of migrating to the UK one day. It's not a place I'd want to live in anymore.


As for how the theoretic Brexit might impact the videogame industry: that particular industry enjoys some lovely protections from such impacts. Global distribution platforms that enjoy prominence don't really care if you are in the EU or not, and so the only widespread impact (if any) is what comes from the UK's own internal legal changes. As for labour being free to move in and out of the UK, this is another area where the videogame industry enjoys some freedoms, in that most work done as part of this industry doesn't rely on being physically present. Outsourcing work and tasks abroad should not be widely impacted, even if Brexit takes place. Even payment methods shouldn't be much impacted, since the UK never adopted the Euro as its currency.

There may well be other aspects I am not seeing, but all in all it would seem to me like any impact on the games industry would be limited and temporary in nature.

[Jack]

The UK won't be leaving the EU.

This has been my opinion too, but based on the terror language that was used in the media to describe what would happen if brexit should succeed.

[LimpingFish]

All well said, and I appreciate the understanding.

No worries.

An Irish news program had a reporter outside Westminster today, talking to (amongst others) some people who regretted voting for Brexit. One man was so broken up about it, he was looking directly into the camera and apologizing to all of Ireland. I felt so bad for him, considering all he was guilty of was trusting in the people he had voted for.

The nation lacks a proper democracy, and what sliver of democracy it has, has succumbed to a limited two-party system where smaller parties exist as unimportant outliers.

Well, the last two Conservative governments may not even have existed if not for the support of the DUP, and the DUP have been a major thorn in the side of those wishing to see a border-less resolution to the Northern Ireland situation. In fact, one could argue that the DUP, in it's unwavering stance against the inclusion of the Irish "backstop" contained in Theresa May's proposed Brexit deal, was a key factor in the failure of that deal to pass. Smaller parties are unimportant only until they're not, and while those at the extreme ends of the political spectrum might never have a chance, those that can find common ground with the larger parties can find themselves in a key position. Depending on you point of view, though, that might be part of the problem.

Meanwhile crying over 'sovereignty' while both refusing to take any action to make sure we're fairly represented in the EU including electing MEPs who literally spend their (paid!) time standing with their backs turned on the rest of the commitee and continuing to drag along Ireland and Scotland into the debacle under the ironic guise of stronger together. While of course those countries were against Brexit, and ignored.

Considering how much effort Britain put into stopping Scottish independence a few years back, it's funny how little the seem to care now, as they rush headlong into a situation that all but guarantees a strengthened argument for Scottish independence in the (very) near future.

Watching the news today (something I keep telling myself to stop doing, as the visual and aural assault of live politicians plays havoc with my IBS), the lies are still in full swing. Boris Johnson says the chances of a new deal are greater than ever (lie), Jacob Rees-Mogg insists they are fulfilling the will of the people (lie), and the irritating drone that emanates from the gaping hole beneath Michael Gove's nose is most certainly a lie.

The "Leave" campaign, regardless of any "valid" arguments that may have existed at its inception, has shown itself to be a con job, one that (dangerously) exploited the basest fears of modern society. In fact, the whole referendum on EU membership was nothing more than a short-sighted re-election tactic by David Cameron, which was then latched onto by virulent anti-EU parties such as UKIP, and self-promoters like Boris Johnson. Much like Trump becoming president, I don't think these people really expected (or cared, for that matter) to win, and were more interested in using the referendum for personal political gains. And that just makes the whole situation even more unforgivable.

[Khris]

Here's something I came across a few weeks ago:
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/06/21/the-transatlantic-triumph-of-trumpism-boris-johnson-a-plan-years-in-the-making/

Enjoy!

[Ali]

It infuriates me to see Jack and WHAM insisting there's a nebulous, undemocratic conspiracy to prevent Brexit.

The government (which had a tiny majority until today) has made every effort to push through an unpopular form of Brexit, and they've failed because Parliament has held them to account.

We have a Prime Minister who is a liar, who's responsible for spreading many of the myths about the EU which fuelled the Leave campaign. It was revealed today that he had been planning to prorogue Parliament (i.e. suspend it to make it harder for the opposition to block a no deal Brexit) since August, even though he said a few days ago he had no intention of doing that. He said he had no intention of calling election - now he's saying he will call a snap election. He said he didn't want to be Prime Minister.

He's a fucking liar, but it seems there's nothing he can do that would be more suspicious than whatever the ENTIRELY FICTIONAL shadowy elites are up to. And it's not just right-wing internet cretins who share in these conspiracies. Jacob Rees-Mogg today called his opponents 'Illuminati who are taking the powers to themselves'.

Men of enormous wealth and extraordinary privileged are telling us that the "elites" are out to destroy democracy, while they position themselves to make unprecedented changes to this country, with absolutely no mandate and a non-existent parliamentary majority. Bloody hell.

[WHAM]

It infuriates me to see Jack and WHAM insisting there's a nebulous, undemocratic conspiracy to prevent Brexit.

No, not a conspiracy, and whether it is undemocratic depends on your interpretation of that word. I value direct democracy over parliamentary democracy, which is why I view referendums and direct votes by the people as being more valuable than the parliaments decisions, as it allows people to directly voice an opinion on a singular topic. The exact same method which is used to elect the parliament, which wields power on a more wider scale. (A fine system, and Finland has a very similar one, where an elected parliament holds the power, our president has a right to veto the parliament, and rare important issues are put to vote among the populace.)

To see the parliament reject the people's vote, to me, is wholly undemocratic and paints the entire political system in a bad light. For indeed, if the parliament can legally ignore the people's vote on one topic, what stops them from doing the same for another topic? What stops them, at that point, from rejecting the next general election result? Or the next referendum on some critically important and timely topic?


As for my point of "lacking a proper democracy": the UK system is archaic, outdated and confusing at best. It relies on tons of ancient rulings and precedents that are not properly codified, and seems like it could do with a proper overhaul to standardize the process of election, parliament, and who can do what within that system. (For a fresh example: see the outrage over the manner in which the prime minister is elected. The very people of the UK don't seem to know these things themselves.) Hell, the UK parliament figured out a standardized term limit for the parliament itself in 2011 if I am not mistaken! And has subsequently failed to produce a parliament stable enough to function within that framework.

[TheFrighter]

As for how the theoretic Brexit might impact the videogame industry: that particular industry enjoys some lovely protections from such impacts. Global distribution platforms that enjoy prominence don't really care if you are in the EU or not, and so the only widespread impact (if any) is what comes from the UK's own internal legal changes. As for labour being free to move in and out of the UK, this is another area where the videogame industry enjoys some freedoms, in that most work done as part of this industry doesn't rely on being physically present. Outsourcing work and tasks abroad should not be widely impacted, even if Brexit takes place. Even payment methods shouldn't be much impacted, since the UK never adopted the Euro as its currency.

There may well be other aspects I am not seeing, but all in all it would seem to me like any impact on the games industry would be limited and temporary in nature.

Maybe you're right, Wham. Still, this thing sure will have some effects. Maybe even a cut of the prices, who knows.

_

[Ali]

No, not a conspiracy, and whether it is undemocratic depends on your interpretation of that word. I value direct democracy over parliamentary democracy, which is why I view referendums and direct votes by the people as being more valuable than the parliaments decisions, as it allows people to directly voice an opinion on a singular topic.

This all sounds eminently reasonable, and of course the UK's democracy is archaic and full of absurdities. But your direct democracy sounds to me like the tyranny of the mob. It's interesting to note that almost all of the European direct democracy parties I can find are right-wing libertarians or far-right. Many seem to be populist anti-immigration parties, like the far-right AfD.

Your direct democracy would be a nightmare for minority rights. How can (for instance) gay people, trans people or immigrant communities defend their rights, when they could never hope to hold a majority in a referendum? You're calling for more democracy, but what you're proposing is a world in which the majority can trample over marginalised people. And this is why your posts make me angrier than Jack's incoherent conspiracies, because you present far-right authoritarian positions as if they were moderate.

[Laura Hunt]

No, not a conspiracy, and whether it is undemocratic depends on your interpretation of that word. I value direct democracy over parliamentary democracy, which is why I view referendums and direct votes by the people as being more valuable than the parliaments decisions, as it allows people to directly voice an opinion on a singular topic.

This all sounds eminently reasonable, and of course the UK's democracy is archaic and full of absurdities. But your direct democracy sounds to me like the tyranny of the mob. It's interesting to note that almost all of the European direct democracy parties I can find are right-wing libertarians or far-right. Many seem to be populist anti-immigration parties, like the far-right AfD.

Your direct democracy would be a nightmare for minority rights. How can (for instance) gay people, trans people or immigrant communities defend their rights, when they could never hope to hold a majority in a referendum? You're calling for more democracy, but what you're proposing is a world in which the majority can trample over marginalised people. And this is why your posts make me angrier than Jack's incoherent conspiracies, because you present far-right authoritarian positions as if they were moderate.

Exactly this. This romanticization of "the will of the people" against "the corrupt elites" is literal Populism, and results in situations like Matt's in which people end up voting for stuff whose consequences they don't understand because they've been manipulated, lied to, not given enough information or given contradictory "facts". The rule of the mob indeed.

(I can't understand how Ireland decided that the best way to decide whether to legalize same-sex marriage was through a referendum, like wtf seriously... having people vote whether their fellow citizens should have the same rights as them? Boggles the mind and it's scary to see that it was a 60-40 split, i.e., almost half the population decided that nah, you can't have the same rights as us because fuck you, that's why.)

[Khris]

Agreed, this kind of mob rule is absurd, especially when it comes to policies that should be based on scientific facts. Imagine the regulation of homeopathy or policies regarding climate change are decided by referendum. No thank you.

And given how targeted and successful the influencing of people on social media is, why would anybody trust the "wisdom of the masses"?

[Blondbraid]

Exactly this. This romanticization of "the will of the people" against "the corrupt elites" is literal Populism, and results in situations like Matt's in which people end up voting for stuff whose consequences they don't understand because they've been manipulated, lied to, not given enough information or given contradictory "facts". The rule of the mob indeed.

I agree. Speaking as a Swede, my homeland used to drive on the left-hand side of the road, but seeing as all neighboring countries drove on the right-hand side, the government naturally wanted to change this to avoid unnecessary complications with people crossing the borders.

Unfortunately, most Swedes at the time didn't care for all the long term gains and only thought that having to spend a month re-adjusting their driving was too tiresome for them and therefor the proposition to switch the driving lost the popular vote. However, the government then decided to switch anyway, because there would me such massive complications later down the road otherwise, and it was switched against the people's vote in 1967. Source

And guess what? Today, no one regrets making the switch and if you ask any Swede they'll tell you switching was the right decision.

[WHAM]

It's weird to me for "populism" to be seen as a negative, when it literally means trying to appease as many people as possible. Which is kind of the point of democracy, isn't it?
Sure, the majority doesn't always make the smartest decisions, or the best decisions, but that's also part of being human. As stated, in a parliamentary democracy we elect an elite to govern, and accept whatever governance they produce under the laws and regulations in place. Only sometimes a decision is such that a more direct manner of decision making is required, and if a matter is suitably important I feel the best way to gauge what people think of a topic, and how they would decide within a democratic system, is to ask them directly. A vote or referendum.

It is easy to say "we don't want to ask the masses, we just want a chosen elite to make decisions" as long as that elite aligns with your worldviews. Will you say the same thing if that ever changes, I wonder? If you find yourself opposed to the views of the elite?

Considering past statements made by certain individuals, the eagerness and willingness to inflict violence and destruction on those some of you disagree with, I highly doubt it.

[Ali]

You're making assumptions about what "certain people" think. The parties I've voted for have never won a majority in my lifetime. The UK's government has never shared my views, and I still think representative democracy is preferable, because this anti-elite populism is fascist bullshit.

(Incidentally, the reason "populism" is seen as negative, is because of the mass murders.)

(Also, the Lib Dems did (incompetently) make an effort to reform the UK's broken first-past-the-post system. What happened? It went to referendum, and we voted to keep things the way they are!)

[Laura Hunt]

It is easy to say "we don't want to ask the masses, we just want a chosen elite to make decisions" as long as that elite aligns with your worldviews. Will you say the same thing if that ever changes, I wonder? If you find yourself opposed to the views of the elite?

This... happens literally constantly? It's called "elections" and sometimes the party that doesn't align with my worldviews... wins? And despite this, I'm still capable of believing that a parliamentary democracy is the best political system humans have come up with so far, even if it sometimes does not work like I personally would want it to?

Considering past statements made by certain individuals, the eagerness and willingness to inflict violence and destruction on those some of you disagree with, I highly doubt it.

Ah right, you're THAT guy. Gotcha. Bye.

[Khris]

Considering past statements made by certain individuals, the eagerness and willingness to inflict violence and destruction on those some of you disagree with, I highly doubt it.

I was talking about Nazis, not people I disagree with. Stop pretending otherwise. Why do you need to lie to make a point? Oh right, because you're entrenched in right-wing BS.

[TheFrighter]

Please stay in topic, my virtual friends. We were talking about brexit effects, not make heat. 

_

[WHAM]

(Incidentally, the reason "populism" is seen as negative, is because of the mass murders.)

Ah, so that's why "communism" is also a bad word today, and people who walk around with hammer-and-sickle shirts and flags are called out and not elected into the British parliament to...
Wait. Corbyn did what now? And with who?

Oh. Oh dear.

(It's almost as if the UK never suffered Soviet oppression or something, and struggles to comprehend the wider European narrative.)

Please stay in topic, my virtual friends. We were talking about brexit effects, not make heat. 

Aye, it's quite easy to veer off topic since the very nature of Brexit is so hotly debated.
As it stands, however, it seems unlikely that we'll ever get to see what Brexit looks like after all.

Ah right, you're THAT guy. Gotcha. Bye.

\o   Fare thee well!

[Ali]

I'm not sure how we can talk about Brexit without addressing the resurgence of anti-intellectual, xenophobic, right-wing nationalism in Europe. On that subject:

Ah, so that's why "communism" is also a bad word today

For what it's worth, yes communist mass murders are exactly the reason I think the left should wholeheartedly reject the hammer and sickle, and the concept of single-party centrally-planned economies. I can't think what's led you to imagine that I think Jeremy Corbyn or communism are beyond criticism. Especially since I've been very critical of Brexit and the British far-left is rather keen on Brexit.

[WHAM]

I can't think what's led you to imagine that I think Jeremy Corbyn or communism are beyond criticism. Especially since I've been very critical of Brexit and the British far-left is rather keen on Brexit.

I never said anything about you or your opinions of Comrade Corbyn or the labour party. My comment on this topic, on the general level of acceptance toward far-left ideologies, was a generalization of how much more accepted such ideals seem to be in the UK compared to the more easterly parts of Europe. As much as I like your games, Ali, not everything I say is about you particularly.

Far-right, far-left, extremist anything is always bad news and should be condemned in all of its forms. I would certainly hope we can agree on this particular point at least, if not on many other topics.

[Ali]

I can't see, then, what relevance your comment about Corbyn has.

Unless you're presenting Europe's "far left" as a counterpoint to Europe's increasingly significant, racist, right-wing nationalists? This is wrong for two reasons. The Labour party, even under Corbyn's leadership, is a centre-left democratic socialist party with a moderate left-wing agenda. It's not an extremist party. More importantly, I exhort anyone considering WHAM's apparently reasonable opposition to both far-left and far-right extremism to read this very interesting article by David Katz: https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory/

It's very common to see right-wingers conflate Nazi and Soviet atrocities (which is ahistorical and stupid). But more alarming is those who seemingly weigh one atrocity against another. This is coming from Eastern Europe in particular, where lauded national heroes who defeated Soviets were sometimes also Nazi collaborators. And communist partisans were often Jewish, because they were fighting the Nazis.

The effect (perhaps the goal) of this argument, is not to draw attention to Soviet horrors - but to diminish the significance and uniqueness of the Nazi holocaust. To make excuses for Nazi collaborators and sympathisers.

[Jack]

What it is, is that people that prefer one form of government should have that form of government. The trouble starts when everyone is expected to fit into one system. You are all correct to be angry at being made to live with a form of government you don't agree with.

Of course some feel that everyone should be forced to live under their form of government, these are the trouble makers.

They do this often because their governments don't really work unless they can expand infinitely, or simply because they are afraid of everything.

[Ali]

That is gibberish.

[Jack]

Interesting.

[Scavenger]

No, really, it's gibberish.

People should be... living under the government they want? What, do we all seperate out into different nation states that have different government types? Apartheid for party lines? And people who want to change the current government for a country that isn't 100% unanimous are troublemakers?

It makes absolutely no sense.

[Jack]

And people who want to change the current government for a country that isn't 100% unanimous are troublemakers?

If I can employ the same exaggeration, would you prefer a single system that everyone is forced to live by?

I'm talking about populist voting for those that want it, indirect democracy for those that want that, etc. You don't have to agree with every decision but you could at least say that you agree with the way that it was reached, which is how societies are supposed to function.

[Blondbraid]

Are we seriously having the same argument on why communism isn't equal to nazism again?
I already wrote a lengthy post on that just last week.

It's weird to me for "populism" to be seen as a negative, when it literally means trying to appease as many people as possible. Which is kind of the point of democracy, isn't it?
Sure, the majority doesn't always make the smartest decisions, or the best decisions, but that's also part of being human.

Once again I'll bring up an example from the history of my homeland. Axel von Fersen didn't wan't to be lynched, the big lynch mob wanted to lynch him (because they wrongly thought he'd killed a Danish prince),
and if they'd held a vote about it back in 1810 it'd be roughly 800 votes for and one against lynching Axel von Fersen. By that logic, was turning an innocent man into pulped meat* a justified and logical decision?

*Seriously, the Swedish word for minced meat still used to this day is pronounced exactly the same as Fersen's last name!

[Ali]

Are we seriously having the same argument on why communism isn't equal to nazism again?
I already wrote a lengthy post on that just last week.

Somehow we are! Because between them WHAM and Jack are determined to defend - not Nazism! never Nazism! No, they would never defend Nazism. But they will defend all the key characteristics of fascist regimes, separately and presumably as part of a series of innocent mistakes on their parts.

A reasonable conversation is impossible. You either try and fail to engage with Jack's moronic conspiracy theories, or you leave him to spout bigoted toss unchallenged.

WHAM will always be polite and courteous, and conversation with him always lead us to the same point: the Nazis did some bad things, but they also did good things. (To be clear, I'm not exaggerating. WHAM actually said that in this thread: https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=44166.msg592683#msg592683)

Seriously, how can we have a welcoming community if this continues?

[Jack]

Equal? Who ever said that? That's right, no one.

What I want to know is at what number of deaths, inflicted over how many years does an ideology become bad enough that you can assault someone you suspect of believing in it, several decades later? Because apparently that's the major difference here.

Anyway, this has gone way off topic. I think the EU is a shit idea as a government and that it probably cannot stay afloat financially without the UK, that's why they will stay at all costs.

[Ali]

Again, gibberish.

[LimpingFish]

Yeah, we've gone off the deep end.

Jack, you obviously have a problem with people punching Nazis, and that's fair enough. But we're not here to debate it, and nobody wants to be drawn into a ghoulish argument over body-counts. Also, I don't feel you have enough understanding of the Brexit situation to make a fair assessment. There's plenty of reading material, ideas and opinions from both sides, freely available to you, and, should you feel the need to further contribute to this thread, you might consider reading some of it.

To everybody else, the topic is...Brexit. Not Nazism. Brexit.

...

Brexit.

[TheFrighter]

People should be... living under the government they want? What, do we all seperate out into different nation states that have different government types? Apartheid for party lines? And people who want to change the current government for a country that isn't 100% unanimous are troublemakers?

Hey, it's a great idea for a strategic game! 

_

[Blondbraid]

Equal? Who ever said that? That's right, no one.

What I want to know is at what number of deaths, inflicted over how many years does an ideology become bad enough that you can assault someone you suspect of believing in it, several decades later? Because apparently that's the major difference here.

Anyway, this has gone way off topic. I think the EU is a shit idea as a government and that it probably cannot stay afloat financially without the UK, that's why they will stay at all costs.

For crying out loud, the entire point I've been trying to make is that it's not about numbers or body count, it's about ideology.

Nazism is an ideology that specifically demands killing ethnic groups and undesirables as a core part of their ideology.
No other ideology in history have demanded that handicapped people should be executed just for being handicapped.

I don't oppose nazism because of some mathematical calculation, I oppose nazism because they advocate for murdering entire groups of people based on something they were born with.
And last time I checked, not a single baby on record has been born wearing a swastika armband.

And if you think this thread has gone off topic, stop contributing to it by defending nazis.

[Khris]

assault someone you suspect of believing in it

There it is again. You just cannot get it right. I'm fine with punching Nazis, not "someone you suspect of believing in it", whatever that's supposed to mean. It's really not hard.
I'm talking about people wearing swastikas, chanting "the jews will not replace us", about people who hold a speech, then look pleased as the audience erupts into shouting "hail victory".
How do you keep fucking this up? I mean I'm certainly not going to "suspect you of believing in it", but it seems weird that you keep getting it wrong.


But since this thread is about brexit, remember when Johnson was asked whether he had any hobbies and started talking really weirdly about crafting toy buses from wine crates? Some people suspect he did this to influence the search results when people google "johnson bus".
Anyway, it's a pretty good video.

[WHAM]

I mean I'm certainly not going to "suspect you of believing in it", but it seems weird that you keep getting it wrong.

Well it's good to see you set this record straight, despite all the past accusations thrown about on these very forums.
I can now walk in peace again, not having to fear Khris ambushing me out of some misguided belief that I were a nazi.

But since this thread is about brexit, remember when Johnson was asked whether he had any hobbies and started talking really weirdly about crafting toy buses from wine crates? Some people suspect he did this to influence the search results when people google "johnson bus".
Anyway, it's a pretty good video.

It's damn sight clever, though. As an idea, that is, obviously it didn't work in the slightest, and if that was the plan then Boris or his team must have deeply misunderstood how online search engines work.
It's a similar kind of misdirected smarts as the whole "behave like a bumbling fool, pretending not to know you're about to give a speech when you are" -shtick he's been using over and over.
He may look like the village idiot, but there is some cunning to the man.

[Babar]

No other ideology in history have demanded that handicapped people should be executed just for being handicapped.

Completely unrelated to the topic at hand, and they weren't exactly beacons of morality either, but I think the Spartans did that too.

Also kind of unrelated to the topic at hand (at this point I don't think that can be helped), but that article Ali linked was quite eye-opening for me. I've heard that sort of stuff often enough before, but aside from feeling on a subconscious level that there was something off with responding to a statement on Nazi atrocities with "But Communism!", I usually just shrugged it off as "Well, that's a person who thinks about stuff differently from me. Maybe it is just left-leaning vs right-leaning".

It is interesting how such memes spread. I'm pretty sure I've heard it from people who aren't the least bit Eastern European. Also odd to me how such things get attached to politics. such that people are fighting left vs right on topics completely unrelated to whether the state should own the means of production or it should be in the hands of private owners.

[Khris]

Well it's good to see you set this record straight

Not sure what you mean; I didn't have to set anything straight. I made a very simple and straightforward comment, and for some reason certain people felt the desperate need to jump in out of the blue to defend actual Nazis.
They kept misrepresenting my statement and I kept reiterating it. Weird how you always have to do that.

And btw, fuck nazis.

[WHAM]

And btw, fuck nazis.

It's really common to see people getting called nazis these days, which probably explains that kind of reaction.
But yes, indeed: fuck nazis.

[Jack]

Jack, you obviously have a problem with people punching Nazis, and that's fair enough.

It's more accurate to say I have a problem with not punching communists. This board has opened my eyes to the possibilities of assaulting people based on their suspected beliefs.

For crying out loud, the entire point I've been trying to make is that it's not about numbers or body count, it's about ideology.

Right, and the one I made is that the dead end up just as dead and almost as numerous either way. It's funny, when we started discussing this, you said I couldn't compare all the deaths from communism globally to the nazis, because you know how many they have killed, everywhere that communism was the law.

There it is again. You just cannot get it right. I'm fine with punching Nazis, not "someone you suspect of believing in it", whatever that's supposed to mean. It's really not hard.

But what do you consider a nazi? Do you believe someone deserves to be punched for refusing to say that someone with a five-o'clock-shadow and penis is a woman? I'd like a yes or no answer on this from the loud lefties here, but I am asking you specifically because I think you're that kind of extremist.

This got stupid in the previous thread so I will just say this and be done with it. I remember the internet that went along happily with the first Dronebama campaign, because he promised to get out of the middle east (the same thing Trump promised). The culture fight was the left's to lose, and instead of building on what was given to you, you let extremists hijack it. And you don't want to admit it, either. Those cowards with the communist flags throwing piss bombs at people, assaulting them with bicycle locks, nah, we won't talk about them, comrade. Let's pretend instead that everyone who dares mention an atrocity that is not the holocaust, is a nazi themselves. This with-us-or-against-us strategy will make you nothing but enemies, and you either don't care, or you are too stupid to see what you are doing.

[Ali]

Fuck off with your transphobic bullshit, Jack. Someone ban this guy.

[Jack]

Yeah, I'm not allowed to talk about it.

Transphobia doesn't exist. No one is afraid of them.

What I am is a trans denier. I don't believe in it. Am I allowed to not believe in it?

[Ali]

You can believe whatever shit you want. I don't think you're entitled to make the AGS forums an intolerable place by smearing your shit all over every thread.

[Jack]

Have you noticed that you only show up any more for these shit threads, because I have. You want to pretend people will die if I don't agree with them. If I say something about that, then I'm a nazi.

[Khris]

Do you believe someone deserves to be punched for refusing to say that someone with a five-o'clock-shadow and penis is a woman?

No, of course a transphobic moron shouldn't be punched. I do not condone violence against people who are primarily moronic, that would be absurd. They should absolutely be banned from online communities or uninvited from public events though. Throwing milkshakes and silly string at them is also fine.

It's called transphobia because people who deny the existence of trans people are simply afraid of having to talk to them or even look at them. They get insecure and embarrassed so they pretend it's just confused people dressing up or whatever, because that allows their perfectly smooth brains to better deal with the uncomfortable situation.

[ManicMatt]

(Typed before several other posts appeared)

Do yourself a favour Jack, and look up the definition of transphobia. It means more than just a fear of. Of course, if you don't believe trans people exist, then to you the word itself shouldn't exist, yet there it is, and you're using it yourself just now confirming the word does exist, even if you don't fully understand the meaning.

There's a difference between thinking something, and spewing hatred towards people online. You disgust me, Jack.

[Ali]

Have you noticed that you only show up any more for these shit threads, because I have.

I still visit the forums most days, just to lurk. I don't post very much, in part because of people like you. I don't want to play the Movie Quote Game with a bigoted dickhead.

[Jack]

Thank you for answering the question, Khris.

They get insecure and embarrassed so they pretend it's just confused people dressing up or whatever, because that allows their perfectly smooth brains to better deal with the uncomfortable situation.

[citation needed]

And now from somewhere hatred against trans persons has materialised. Where is the hatred? I don't believe in it, and worse yet I said it out loud. That is all. THIS is what I have a problem with. I used this example because it makes an excellent example of the left's intolerance and love of censorship.

I really didn't intend to derail the stupid discussion about nazis vs commies with one about transpenii, but it sure has done that. I won't post again in this thread unless it's about the brexit that totally will not happen.

[Khris]

Hatred is just one form of it, denying how other people feel about themselves altogether is another. And denial is also the key concept here, since this isn't about opinions. You are making a claim about reality. This claim implies that all trans people are deluded, and that implication is what people are and should be intolerant of.

But fine, let's pretend that transsexuality isn't real. People labeling themselves trans or presenting as trans are still beaten up and murdered all the time. People like you are fostering this toxic environment, while trans activists are trying to end it. So why should I care that you regard them or their allies as intolerant? That lame tactic will only work on dumbass centrists.


Also, since this is a thread about Brexit: https://twitter.com/dionfanning/status/1169309541902770182

[LimpingFish]

Also, since this is a thread about Brexit: https://twitter.com/dionfanning/status/1169309541902770182

Very interesting film, Khris, thanks for posting it.

To everybody else, I will say it again. Stay. On. Target.

As a side note, this thread has been brought to the moderators attention, and hopefully we'll have something to say about it soon.

[Ali]

Fair enough, I haven't actually addressed the original question in this thread.

I think it's very hard to make predictions - we don't know if, or in what form Brexit will happen. But if it happens without a deal under a Conservative government in thrall to it's hard-right flank, then I think we're likely to see significant changes. The economy will falter, and the Tory response will be to turn the UK ever more into Tax Haven Britain - a low-tax, low-welfare state. Tax breaks and deregulation will aim to prevent businesses from fleeing. Britain will avoid any financial transactions taxes brought in by the EU, making the City of London more attractive to traders. The economy will become even more focused on financial services and the South East.

There will, needless to say, be less government funding for the creative arts and training. Non-STEM higher education will increasingly be stigmatised and derided by politicians. An increasingly hostile environment for immigrants will make Britain a less attractive option for students and talented young people. Game development, like everything else, will be negatively impacted.

[Stupot]

But since this thread is about brexit, remember when Johnson was asked whether he had any hobbies and started talking really weirdly about crafting toy buses from wine crates? Some people suspect he did this to influence the search results when people google "johnson bus".
Anyway, it's a pretty good video.

It's damn sight clever, though. As an idea, that is, obviously it didn't work in the slightest, and if that was the plan then Boris or his team must have deeply misunderstood how online search engines work.
It's a similar kind of misdirected smarts as the whole "behave like a bumbling fool, pretending not to know you're about to give a speech when you are" -shtick he's been using over and over.
He may look like the village idiot, but there is some cunning to the man.

I hadn't heard about this but it makes absolute sense.
At the end of July, a bus for the Brexit Party was spotted having apparently broken down and been ditched.

While everyone was joking and mocking Nigel Farage I made the following observation.

It was, to me anyway, a clear attempt to manipulate the Google search results for the words 'brexit' and 'bus'. Well done, it worked for about a day.

What Khris posted above proves I wasn't being paranoid.

[Gurok]

I'm actually glad that discussions with Jack make people like Ali feel uncomfortable. I can't stand people being complacent in their belief that these threads should be cheer squads for whatever politics they side with. I also think people should consider carefully the outcome when they make threads like these. You all know it has no bearing on AGS. It was just an ill-fated attempt to contrive a circlejerk.

I hope every Brit who's posted here fearing Brexit gets the hardest possible Brexit.

[Khris]

Every single sentence in that post is bad. Every single one.

[Laura Hunt]

I'm actually glad that discussions with Jack make people like Ali feel uncomfortable.

If someone comes into an elevator and rips a massive fart, it will also make everybody uncomfortable. It doesn't mean it's valuable, productive, interesting, or relevant.

I'm 45 years old. I've been running into men like Jack and others in this thread my whole life. Online, in bars, in workplace conversations, in the bus, or shouting at me while I'm walking down the street holding my girlfriend's hand, edgelords who think that everybody else has been brainwashed out of seeing THE truth, unlike them, the chosen ones, the rebels, the ones who heroically resist against the "political correctness gone maaaaaad!". It's boring. It's trite. It's yawn-inducing. And there are always going to be dudes like him spouting the same literal copy-pasted bullshit. Which is why I never engage anymore with stuff like this. It's a waste of time and only encourages them because they thrive in the attention they get. They think "wow, this is really getting everybody riled up! Let's keep at it trololol".

At least one good thing has come out of this thread: knowing which people here have nothing to contribute to the world but farts.

[Ali]

I think it was Orwell who said, "if you want a vision of the AGS Forums' future,  imagine a fart, farting on a human face - forever."

I'm always ready to have a reasonable conversation with pro-Brexit folk, especially left-wing Lexit people. But there are limits to what is reasonable.

[Matti]

I'm actually glad that discussions with Jack make people like Ali feel uncomfortable.

Me too, because if that bullshit wouldn't make people uncomfortable, all hope would be lost.

[Stupot]

I hope every Brit who's posted here fearing Brexit gets the hardest possible Brexit.

Why though?

What I fear about Brexit, as a Brit living overseas, is the sheer uncertainty. Nobody knows exactly how things are going to go down. That's why making a deal seems so important from where I'm sitting. I have no idea how Britain's leaving with no deal would affect my family back home, who are already all on low incomes.

Maybe nothing bad will come of it in the end and we'll all look back wondering what we were so scared of. Maybe all the doom and gloom is just ‘project fear', But we just don't know that until it happens. And I'd just rather it didn't happen.

[Ali]

It's especially alarming since we know how easily uncertainty can bring down a bank. If the markets were to panic, if factory owners like Nissan were to relocate, it could have real consequences for people's livelihoods.

Of course, someone always makes money when there's blood in the street, so Rees-Mogg and his fellow disaster capitalists are right to look forward to opportunities galore.

I hope every Brit who's posted here fearing Brexit gets the hardest possible Brexit.

"I hope the people who predicted a bad thing are punished by experiencing that bad thing and being proven correct," is not quite the rhetorical masterstroke it seems.

[Blondbraid]

It's more accurate to say I have a problem with not punching communists. This board has opened my eyes to the possibilities of assaulting people based on their suspected beliefs.

And hopefully you've opened a great deal of other people's eyes to what a massive hypocrite you are. I posted one joke image about Indiana Jones punching a nazi soldier wearing a nazi uniform and was fully armed and had a bunch of other nazi henchmen in the background, and you'd have to be both blind and deaf and raised under a rock to miss that the image depicts a fictional hero punching a guy who is 100% undoubtedly a nazi. You're talking about you going out and beating up random people because you suspect they are communists.

For crying out loud, the entire point I've been trying to make is that it's not about numbers or body count, it's about ideology.

Right, and the one I made is that the dead end up just as dead and almost as numerous either way. It's funny, when we started discussing this, you said I couldn't compare all the deaths from communism globally to the nazis, because you know how many they have killed, everywhere that communism was the law.

I've already made a post about why your counting is disingenuous nazi apologia, and I got real sources linked to back it up.

Do you think Jack the Ripper was a better man than Winston Chuchill because millions of Indians starved under Churchill but Jack the Ripper only gutted five people alive?

But you've already proven that you don't care one iota about history, or logic, or human morality, or even anyone of those who died under communist regimes. You just desperately want Communism to be seen as worse than nazism so that you can feel better about punching people calling you out on your hypocrisy and spreading transphobia.

I'm actually glad that discussions with Jack make people like Ali feel uncomfortable.

Me too, because if that bullshit wouldn't make people uncomfortable, all hope would be lost.

True words!

The more I read up on the Weimar Republic, the more I feel like Cassandra.

[TheFrighter]

I've already made a post about why your counting is disingenuous nazi apologia, and I got real sources linked to back it up.

[/quote]

Thank you Blondbraid, but please don't feed the heat. Jack has spoken his arguments, all of you replied with yours. Make fuzz about this was not my intention.

_

[Blondbraid]

Thank you Blondbraid, but please don't feed the heat. Jack has spoken his arguments, all of you replied with yours. Make fuzz about this was not my intention.

_

I'm sad to see the thread get off topic myself, but at the same time I and several others have a hard time standing by and letting nazi apologia and transphobia stand unopposed... 

[Snarky]

Mod hat:

The moderators are trying to decide on how to deal with the conflict situation on the forums (seen in this thread and others), which a number of forum members have said they find intolerable. If you wish to weigh in, you may PM any one of us, and we'll share it with the rest of the moderation team.

As moderator of this board, I'll say that I deem a number of the posts and patterns of behavior seen in this thread to be unacceptable. Specifically, some of the comments about transgender people arguably cross the line into hate speech, or at least trolling. Jack will not be contributing to this thread for a while.

Without drawing any equivalence otherwise, I will say that both sides are guilty of derailing the thread from its stated topic.
This will not be tolerated any further: any future posts in this thread that are not about Brexit, or that serve to derail it from that topic, will be deleted.

[Atelier]

It's nice to see the community is still a friendly and welcoming place.

Re Brexit:

But since this thread is about brexit, remember when Johnson was asked whether he had any hobbies and started talking really weirdly about crafting toy buses from wine crates? Some people suspect he did this to influence the search results when people google "johnson bus".
Anyway, it's a pretty good video.

That interview is actually surreal (people have pointed out the similarities with this )

Stupot, I'm not convinced it was a deliberate ploy to change Google trends though, even if it did actually have that effect. He was quite clearly making it up as he went along, in an attempt to make him seem like he has an 'ordinary' hobby. He mentions his time as Mayor, so he's alluding to the Boris bus. That it was a haphazard attempt at answering a personal question makes more sense to me than him trying to keep the Brexit bus out the news.

From what I see, the Conservatives are pretty much spent. With Clarke, Hammond, nineteen others, and now Rudd gone, there seems to be no moderate, centralising cooling rod. I'm sure others will follow Rudd now.

It's lies that there are negotiations going on with the EU, we know that from multiple sources on both sides. Johnson is delaying because he wants a no deal, that's obvious. However, I genuinely believe he wants to get a deal on paper, and then blame any shortcomings on the EU, delays on Labour, etc, pushing towards severing all ties on Halloween.

Also, I realise that the OP was per se asking about the games industry. I honestly don't know enough about it but I cannot imagine that the entertainment industries will be nearly as affected as, say, farming or manufacturing.

[Ali]

I can't tell whether we give Johnson too much or too little credit. Johnson sometimes pretends to be stupid, bumbling, chaotic. It's certainly a persona, and a very entertaining put-on. But does that mean that there's a cunning plan underpinning the lies and hot air?

I don't know. This long, but amusing account of two encounters with Johnson is quite interesting:

https://www.facebook.com/thejeremyvine/posts/since-he-is-probably-our-next-prime-minister-i-thought-id-share-this-boris-johns/2449074521979085/

[LimpingFish]

I can't tell whether we give Johnson too much or too little credit. Johnson sometimes pretends to be stupid, bumbling, chaotic. It's certainly a persona, and a very entertaining put-on. But does that mean that there's a cunning plan underpinning the lies and hot air?

Apparently, a lot of people (including critics of his) regard him as having a brilliant political mind, and that his outward persona is cultivated, and intentionally disarming. I'd say, behind closed doors, he probably presents a somewhat different demeanor. I think we got a glimpse of it last week, as he watched his majority disappear live on TV.

To be honest, I'm starting to lose my grip on the situation, with so much happening over the last week or so. And Boris was in Dublin, meeting our Prime Minister, just yesterday! Maybe he's a  Kylie fan too...

It's lies that there are negotiations going on with the EU, we know that from multiple sources on both sides. Johnson is delaying because he wants a no deal, that's obvious. However, I genuinely believe he wants to get a deal on paper, and then blame any shortcomings on the EU, delays on Labour, etc, pushing towards severing all ties on Halloween.

If I can get my head around it, I think that his continued insistence that further negotiations are possible, coupled with his desire to hold an election before the deadline, are really just part of his bigger, continuing power-play. He wants the election before the deadline, so he can build his re-election on the running lie that he's just the man to get a new, "better" deal. One would hope that, yes, he would prefer some form of safeguards in place of a hard Brexit. But I honestly think that all of it, Brexit, hard, soft, whatever, plays second-fiddle to his primary goal; staying Prime Minister.

[fernewelten]

I can't see that the situation has changed in the slightest in TWO YEARS by now. The outer trappings change, the fundamentals do not:

The sorry fact is that there are three incompatible options each of which has well below 50 %, but each two of which combined exceed the 50 % by a comfortable margin:

• Hard Brexit,
• Soft Brexit,
• Remain.

So whenever some proposal gets more than 50 %, that means that it joins at least two incompatible options that have been confounded and can't be implemented. Whenever on the other hand there is some proposal that could actually be implemented, it has a resounding majority against.

This stupid stalemate started right at the get-go when Cameron asked whether the British wanted to remain. Fundamentally, that question divided the options into Remain, on the one side, and Soft Brexit + Hard Brexit confounded, on the other side. Remain, the implementable option, had a majority against.

Then May followed that fundamentally championed a Soft Brexit (in a slightly underhand way) -- so the other two options, the Remainers confounded with the Hard Brexiters, coughed up a majority against.

Now it's Johnson championing a Hard Brexit (in a slightly underhanded way) -- and calling up a majority against, recruited by the Remainers confounded with the Soft Brexiters.

The external trappings change, but inside, it's the exact same stupid deadlock all the time.

Johnson's move to “disempower” the parliament has nothing to do with it. They've already demonstrated repeatedly that they're incapable of deciding on anything implementable -- even without the whip. And elections won't change anything since the parliament is a fair representation of the nation which is also incapable of deciding on anything implementable.

So the nation needs to remain squatting on the fence, cleaving their b*m ever deeper for all eternity. And that's indeed what the parliament's newest sorry attempt of decision making has turned to, again.

So now it's to be January, is it? Of which century? 

[Stupot]

@fernewelten - I like that analysis. None of those 3 options can get a 50%+ majority, so no matter what they do, a significant majority will be upset.

Except, I don't think that's the case any more. I really think if we had another binary leave-remain referendum, the remain camp would come out on top this time, providing a 50%+ majority over leavers (hard and soft).

I do wonder though, if we had a three-way hard-soft-remain referendum, what the result would be? Remain would probably not win such a vote, certainly not by 50%+.  It would be a perfect illustration of the stalemate you describe above.

As I said in my first reply, the whole referendum should never have gone ahead. It is the single most ill-thought-out political decision in my lifetime (domestically anyway).

[Blondbraid]

Just found this on imgur:

And this:

[fernewelten]

Erm, remember that famous Guardian cover page? Whatever “democratic oversight” people suddenly seem to attribute the House with, they've proven in two years that they aren't up to it.

[Ali]

Except, I don't think that's the case any more. I really think if we had another binary leave-remain referendum, the remain camp would come out on top this time, providing a 50%+ majority over leavers (hard and soft).

I do wonder though, if we had a three-way hard-soft-remain referendum, what the result would be? Remain would probably not win such a vote, certainly not by 50%+.  It would be a perfect illustration of the stalemate you describe above.

I think Remain would certainly win over two Brexit options (without needing to get 50%+), because the Leave vote would be split. However, brexiteers would obviously see that coming and oppose a 3-way referendum even more vehemently than another leave/remain referendum. I know a few people who are convinced that remain would walk it if we had a 2nd ref, now that the facts are on the table. But I'm very sceptical of that. The facts didn't bother us much last time, what's changed?

[Stupot]

Yeah. To be honest, I'd still be up for a 2nd referendum even if it did mean risking another leave win. At least this time we'd know that enough people still want it even after everything that's gone on in the past few years and perhaps it'd be time to accept Brexit. But until that day I would like to see the whole matter dropped and everything reverted back to pre-ref times.

[LimpingFish]

/looks at clock

Annnnnddd...you're out!

...

*cough*

...

[Stupot]

We’ve taken back control of our bananas.

[fernewelten]

Well, the Conservatives led by that microwave guy did get the majority, so I suppose the Brexiters had the approval of the British people after all.

And I really can't bring myself to believe that this very persistent separation will has just been founded on the Brexiters not knowing the (correct) "facts". Everyone that really wanted to learn these facts had great opportunities to do so, and more than two year's time for it, too. So I can only conclude that those facts weren't that relevant for the Brexiters' decision. There must have been other reasons, other circumstances, other facts that were more relevant to them than those facts that the Remainers always touted. I don't know. I don't think that the German media have done a good job of objectively understanding and explaining the core concerns of both sides -- I don't think they even tried --, so I can't claim to have an impartial and comprehensive view on the matter.

The EU's strategy or hope that the British separationist tendencies would somehow just  ... go away ... if they just keep staunchly talking them down and ignoring them has failed. That much is certain.

I don't think that the negotiations between the United Kingdom and the rest of the EU have even begun yet. The real negotiations will only start now, now that it is certain that the Brexit happens indeed. A lot of "red lines in the sand" will probably turn out to be a bit less immovable than they've been made out to be. The surprised public might even learn that there have been actual precedents for maxims that must never be put up for disposal under any circumstances.

[Ali]

Well, let's hope the Leavers were right, and it'll all be long summer evenings with warm beer and boules from here on in.

My prediction is, if the Tories win the next General Election, they'll try to position the UK as a convenient tax haven off the coast of the EU, slashing taxes and workers rights to attract industry in the regions and financial transactions to the City. In 10 years time the economy will be growing and Brexit will be declared a success. But most of us won't see that growth, as wages continue to stagnate and the cost of living continues to rise. Bugger all will be done to tackle climate change, never mind the mindboggling intersection of climate change and global migration. On the upside, some of the people who voted for Brexit will have died.

[Snarky]

Well, the Conservatives led by that microwave guy did get the majority, so I suppose the Brexiters had the approval of the British people after all.

Just as a point of fact, parties that opposed Brexit or promised a new referendum (Labour, Lib-Dems, SNP, Greens; not even counting the Northern Irish votes for Sinn Féin, SDLP or Alliance) were supported by a majority of the voters, just over 50%. It's just that it doesn't help as long as those voters were split across four+ parties and inefficiently distributed across constitutencies: the Tories ended up with 56.2% of the seats based on support from 43.6% of voters. That's first-past-the-post for you.

[TheFrighter]

At least it's a good thing that this brexit is not so hard as Johnson planned! 

_

[milkanannan]

Like fernewelten said, I guess the federal election at the very least gave people the reassurance and peace of mind that the referendum results did indeed reflect the will of the public. Wishing you guys the best with your new venture!

[ManicMatt]

After being on the fence right until entering the voting station, and voting leave in an eeny meeny moe fashion, some time afterwards i realised it was a terrible mistake to have done so. It seems as a left wing person, I should have voted remain. But nothing was clear or particularly helpful when I tried to research it. I'm not very good at politics but this whole thing has shaken my belief in always voting, if I don't know what I'm doing.


I did vote for Labour in the recent election.

[Ali]

Like fernewelten said, I guess the federal election at the very least gave people the reassurance and peace of mind that the referendum results did indeed reflect the will of the public. Wishing you guys the best with your new venture!

As Snarky said, unfortunately not. The remain / 2nd referendum vote was split between the Lib Dems and Labour. Meanwhile, the Brexit party stood down in constituencies where they might have pulled votes away from the Tories. So the victory reflects a Labour collapse (losing remainers to the Lib Dems and brexiters to the Brexit Party) rather than a Tory surge.

To put that another way, we're definitely leaving. But the UK is still 50/50 on Brexit, and it's highly acrimonious.

[fernewelten]

As I read it, there have always been three options on the table. They only were confounded into two options in various ways.

To be specific, there is

• Hard Brexit (clean break)
• Soft Brexit (e.g., Norwegian model)
• Remain.

Take any two and you'll find that they are mutually incompatible -- but added mathematically, they cover a tight majority. Take any single one and you'll find that it could be implemented in principle -- but it's a minority position that has a resounding majority against it.

An that's the background in which the sorry saga played out thusly:

I. Corbyn: “Come on, people, we're still staying in, aren't we?” -- UK: “NAAAAAAY!”
The way that this question was worded confounds a Hard Brexit with a Soft Brexit -- and this is the explanation for that (in)famous result. But unfortunately, you can only have the one OR the other. So ...

II. May:“Fine, let's befuddle brexiting to specifically mean just soft brexiting. You're all for backstops and adhering to all EU regulations, aren't you?" -- UK: "NAAAAAAY!" -- May: “But that's the only thing I'm willing to champion! Let's retry EXACTLY the same!” -- UK: “BOOOOO!” -- May: “I covered my ears and didn't hear you! Let's retry!” -- UK: “BOOOOO!” -- May:“Retr....!” -- UK: “BOOOOO”  --  ... ad perpetuam.
By championing the Soft Brexit, May had forced the Hard Brexiters and the Remainers into a voting coalition that had a sound majority. But no actionable alternative.

III. Johnson (old tune): “So May was daft. Let's befuddle brexiting to mean hard brexiting instead. Everyone behind me?” --  UK: “NAAAAAAY!”  -- Johnson: “Bummer.”

Elections. The people: “We're SOOOO tired of that eternal darned confounded deadlock. This has become SOOOO old!”

IV. Johnson (suddenly changing the tune): “Right! I've got you covered! I've got such an exquisite three-star delicious gourmet microwave Brexit dish for you folks. The specific recipe details are my trade secret, but it'll only take five minutes, so help me Jupiter.”

-- and he came through and that's where we're standing now.

Most probably you'd still find the same three factions in the populace if you asked specifically enough, and in nearly unchanged quantities ever since Corbyn's time. But it seems that the people were so tired of that hard brexit, soft brexit conundrum that they were willing to let it be broken up any old how.

[Danvzare]

After being on the fence right until entering the voting station, and voting leave in an eeny meeny moe fashion, some time afterwards i realised it was a terrible mistake to have done so. It seems as a left wing person, I should have voted remain. But nothing was clear or particularly helpful when I tried to research it. I'm not very good at politics but this whole thing has shaken my belief in always voting, if I don't know what I'm doing.


I did vote for Labour in the recent election.

I know exactly what you mean.
I also voted leave in that initial vote. Not because of the obvious lies regarding the NHS, or even the clearly racist immigration thing. My reasoning was because of how taxes work for small businesses here in Britain vs how the EU was enforcing them in order to prevent big businesses from cheating the system (in short, they clashed hard). This along with the selling of certain animals which would be bad for some countries in Europe, but completely harmless in other countries (including Britain). Not great reasons, I know, but better than most people who chose leave I think.

All other votes though, I chose to abstain, because of how much information came out about how nuanced the situation was. 
I understood that I didn't know enough to make an informed decision.
And I'm sure there are people here who can tell me how even choosing to make no decision, was a bad decision. But that's a damned if you do and damned if you don't, kind of thing.

I do wonder how things will play out though. 

[ManicMatt]

That makes me feel better. Yeah it seemed like there was good points on both sides at the time.

It's very wounding when people online tar people who voted leave with the same brush, as racist assholes. Not everyone is/was.

[Ali]

To be specific, there is

• Hard Brexit (clean break)
• Soft Brexit (e.g., Norwegian model)
• Remain.

I'm afraid I think that's a simplification. "Clean break" implies a degree of simplicity and, well, cleanliness, and a hard Brexit would have been chaotic. More importantly, there are lots of soft Brexits, and almost all of them are very unpopular. Before the referendum, many Leave advocates were insisting we'd remain within the single market, EU citizens would be allowed to stay etc.

The reason May couldn't get her deal through (or win a majority) is that she was offering a pragmatic compromise. And that was just as unacceptable to the disaster capitalists who wanted a hard Brexit as it was to the remainers who wanted no Brexit at all. Johnson's marketing genius was to talk a load of old bollocks and offer people the wonderful, sunlit Brexit they were promised in the first place. On closer examination, it's going to look a lot like May's deal.

[Snarky]

Most probably you'd still find the same three factions in the populace if you asked specifically enough, and in nearly unchanged quantities ever since Corbyn's time. But it seems that the people were so tired of that hard brexit, soft brexit conundrum that they were willing to let it be broken up any old how.

And I'd still argue that a closer look at the general election results doesn't support the second part. Given the choice between the Johnson Tories' "Brexit: anyway, anyhow" and the other parties' "Definitely not Hard Brexit and not any Brexit deal that has yet been negotiated and even if there's a new deal for Soft Brexit there should be another referendum" (or simply "Let's cancel Brexit") most voters opted for No Brexit/new referendum. Which doesn't argue that people were resigned to Brexit and just wanted it over with. (Of course, this was not the only issue in the election, but still.)

The UK election system being what it is, the pro-Brexit side won (which is fair enough), but that doesn't actually reflect the preference of the electorate.

[Khris]

People are starting to acclimatize: https://twitter.com/ColinBrowning14/status/1227906931450425344

[Laura Hunt]

People are starting to acclimatize: https://twitter.com/ColinBrowning14/status/1227906931450425344

LMAO, I was going to say "nope, this is exactly the Brexit you voted for", but the comments are already taking care of that. Fucking gold.

[fernewelten]

By the way, by the symptoms I wouldn't be at all surprised when the microwave oven is opened ceremonially at the end of the year and no cupcake turns out to be in it after all. That is, no treaties whatsoever turn out to have been concluded anywhere, everyone everywhere has just been twiddling their thumbs, and the whole year has been wasted just like the three years preceding it.

So far, all the parties have been playing a wrong-headed game of “chicken” about a dealless Brexit since day one, so this could then plausibly continue straight on: Britain asking for a postponement at the very last minute to continue the status quo on an interim basis, all the 26 countries of the EU convening at the very very last minute and granting that as a very very very last chance, statements being made, sentiments being expressed, and Britain continuing to sit straddled on the fence for all eternity, cleaving her bum ever deeper and refusing to climb down on either side.

That is, of course, unless that cursed “chicken” game will suddenly go wrong in earnest sometime and there'll be a big traffic accident …

[LimpingFish]

It's all downhill from here.

And the brakes are made of wafer.