Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Dec 18 09:07:06 PST 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / EU court case on a50
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 04 03:01:00
ECJ Advocate general gives opinion that UK can unilaterally retract A50 notification.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 04 03:01:46
Not a ruling yet, but with the vote on May's deal next week, this is interesting.

Shannon, feeling nervous yet?
Pillz
Member
Tue Dec 04 06:54:24
Seb is feeling nervous apparently
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 04 07:00:36
Hey, I said Northern Ireland border would be a sticking issue. I said no deal would never be acceptable. And I said any other leave would give the EU more power, leaving us with less say and having to follow EU rules.

Only thing I'mb worried about now is:

1. No deal brexit by accident
2. How we get out of Mays deal in the future without starting off the troubles again.
3. What the fuck the UK is going to do for a govt now the Tories have committed Hari Kari, and Labour has turned into swivel eyed Trots.

jergul
large member
Tue Dec 04 07:16:36
Seb
Are you trying to put a price on Freedom?

Labour believes in global communism as opposed to Stalin's communism in a single country approach?
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 04 07:32:17
Jergul:
Nothing so coherent
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 04 07:55:02
So not "Trots" then.

Does Labour need coherent policies before the next election cycle begins?

Seems to me it mostly needs popcorn as the Tories implode.

I think it would be a mistake to challenge ownership of that dog's breakfast.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 04 08:40:31
Jergul:

They self identify as such but I'm not sure how they square that very with anti imperialism.

Labour right now has many labour voters that don't really want to vote for Corbyn.
Because of anti sematism, because of God obvious brexit sympathies, because he's way too extreme.

There is a very real risk that next election turns into a low turnout race over who can get the highest core turnout.

Now if Labour were running under even someone like Ed Miliband or even Gordon Brown they'd absolutely slaughter the conservatives.

Watch to see if David M plays a big role in a second referendum.

jergul
large member
Tue Dec 04 11:22:09
Who exactly in Labour is a self-identified Marxist-Trotskyist?

Way too extreme in what? What Labour policies fronted by Corbuy in particular do many labour voters find way too extreme?

It seems fair that Labour anchor its policies to the left of center. Just as it is fair that the tories anchor theirs to the right of center. Assuming it can ever overcome its internal divide (the divide that brought us Brexit in the first place).

A conservative implosion does not entail that Labour ought to move to the center to pick up the slack.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 04 12:00:39
So, in more interesting news than quibbling about labour, a round up of today's news:

A50 can be unilaterally revoked.
The UK govt was found in contempt of parliament by parliament for the first time in history.
And sonic Grieves amendment was passed meaning that when TMs deal is voted down next week, parliament will decide what happens next.

So very likely now another referendum.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 04 12:01:52
It looks like the UKs sovereign parliament has taken back control.

Shannon will be having an aneurysm.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 04 12:02:47
Jergul, I seem to recall you had views on unilateral revocation.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 04 12:06:59
I was fine with it. Or am fine with it. I did have views on a 2nd referendum. Characterising it as unavoidable.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Dec 04 12:14:27
Either you have a new referendum or you go ahead and burn down the kitchen to maybe have a new kitchen in a few years, but in a different color. Sigh... Let them eat cake.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 04 13:51:06
I may be misremembering but I think you were pretty adamant that unilateral revocation would not be legal...
Rugian
Member
Tue Dec 04 14:09:04
And now we see the ugly beast for what it truly is, with all pretense of adhering to laws now stripped away. The elitists of Europe will do literally anything to prevent the will of the people from being realized. Forget Brexit - the entire thing needs to be dismantled and replaced with something less monstrous and corruptable.
Rugian
Member
Tue Dec 04 14:19:16
Jonathan Pie recently released a video in which he asserted that of course Brexit was going badly because no one in power ever really believed in it - the outlook from the start by the powers-that-be was that this was to be an exercise in damage limitation, not pursuit of an opportunity.

It's hard to argue with that. The referendum should have been a massive red flag that Westminster was dangerously out of touch with their constituents, but for all of the drama of the last two years, little has been done to address that. The elitists will still elite and ignore those pesky noises coming from the electorate.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 04 15:34:12
Seb
I would only have been adamant on it being something that required a ruling for clarity by the European court if the matter became a point of contention.

The treaty wording does not make the matter clear.

Ruggy
You should remind me again how the war of northern aggression ended. Which states became independent? I forget the doubtless lengthy list.
Rugian
Member
Tue Dec 04 16:09:42
Jergul,

Goodness, I sincerely hope you're not accusing me of being a pro-Unionist for that conflict.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 04 16:31:14
Ruggy
More a "right back at ya" regarding the "ugly beast".
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 04 16:33:06
Rugian:

The brexit campaign promised lots of things none of which are now on the table.

If brexit is the will of the people, it has nothing to fear from another referendum. It will win. If it loses, it is not the will of the people.

Here we go: the stabbed in the back myth.

Brexiteers controlled all the major posts running the negotiations. They failed. The whole idea the EU would roll over because their industries would demand it turned out to be wrong.

For all the carping, nobodies offered a viable outline of a deal that EU would accept, that would avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland nor a strategy to secure it.

So complain about the elites all you like. But the reality is it's all hot air.

Jergul:

I said it was ambiguous and could be either way - you said it was clear!
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 04 17:33:28
Seb
Your recollection is failing you. The wording is not ambiguous, it is undefined and without precedent.

A ruling is required if an intepretation is contested.

Seb
Member
Wed Dec 05 03:18:42
The issue is ambiguous. The failure to say anything about retraction of notice of intent to withdraw the treaty creates the ambiguity: does normal practice (which allows notice of intent to withdraw from a treaty to be retracted) or does it mean that the only route back is via a49?

I have pretty strong recollections we had a robust discussion in which you were adamant on the latter interpretation but I may be confusing it with a discussion somewhere else.

jergul
large member
Wed Dec 05 04:30:37
Seb
My recollection is that our disagreement rotated around jurisdiction. The EU court would need to make a ruling if the issue was ever disputed.

The wording is not ambigious like say my saying Ruggy is a Dick (I am expressing my belief that his given name is Richard).

The question of retracting is undefined and lacks precedent.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Dec 05 12:56:34
You say I said, wtf is this a rape prosecution? Have any of you heard about this thing GOOGLE?

YOUR SEARCH PHRASE< site:www.utopiaforums.com

It is my secret weapon when digging up things like did seb really say that the New testament doesn't have any homophobia? YES YES HE DID.


"All the homophobia on Christianity comes from the old testament. It's not at all present in the new testament.

It's not as simple as saying the old stuff is all non canon."
-seb

NOT AT ALL PRESENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Not. AT ALL. Clearly he meant that they are present.

Anyway, I would tell you to be men and settle your difference with google, but as the example above has shown, it doesn't matter what Jergul said.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Dec 05 13:05:42
If I wasn't clear, please don't ruing the conversation getting stuck with this I said, no you said shit. Carry on the road to 100 posts, I have a good feeling about this.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 05 14:01:04
Nimi
The whole point of the forum structure is to not have easy access to something a poster may or may not have said years ago.

Hence committing to memory *stuff*.

Its a trivial point. Lets say Seb was correct. All it means is my opinion back in the early days of brexit different from what I think today.

So the fuck what?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Dec 05 14:27:39
Don't look at me.
Seb
Member
Wed Dec 05 14:34:33
Nim:

Because we aren't getting gauche about it.

Also, you are rather taking that quote out of context. You were chuntering on about how the old testament doesn't count for "many Christians" including iirc in a later thread, seven day Adventists not believing in old testament.

Yes, "not at all" is too broad a statement if taken very literally and I meant new covenant rather than new testament.

There are a whopping three references which I shall come back to.

My point was that it's rubbish to say that Christians have dispensed with the old testament. Custom has evolved over time to interpret those things away. It is not as simple as a new covenant resetting all rules.

The new covenant says nothing specific about homosexuality.

It's just assumed by most early Christians that much of old testament law carries forward. Some of which has fallen out of practice gradually, and then theologians step in after a few centuries to explain e.g. why everyone's a good Christian despite eating pork.

You can even see this sort of nonsense in medieval Catholic Europe where ducks get defined as fish because you can't eat meat on Friday, but the aristos fancy something tasty. Until that's kind of a guideline. Then only a tradition.

Homophobia in the new testament doesn't arise because of Jesus. It's not explicitly in the new covenant. It's mentioned in three of Pauls letters where he lists people who won't go to heaven (and there is some doubt he's referring to homosexuals, though I think that is the post facto cultural change rationalised by reinterpretation effect going on) and fairly clear that Paul is assuming much of Jewish law still applies.

So yes, there's homophobia in the new testament, but the three mild references (in a long list of "people Paul thinks are immoral) appear to be there simply because Paul thinks much of Mosaic law applies - i.e. it's rooted in the old testament.

Note I used the word "come from" in the first sentence.

This is another great example of you focusing in on one word while ignoring the substantive point.


Pillz
Member
Wed Dec 05 15:30:36
The only true church is the Church of Constantinople.
Seb
Member
Wed Dec 05 18:16:02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsQrKZcYtqg
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Dec 06 02:37:13
Seb
Nope. The entire post, not one word. Twice you say it. It all comes from the OT and is not at all present in the NT. If you meant it was present not as bad, you would say so.

Sorry bro, words have meaning. You would expect precision in language from someone who ”designs solutions” and gets paid to ”think about regulation”. It is not any different here, if someone says something is ”not at all present in X” and ”it is all in Y” and then adds a third sentence....

This is a useless discussion, if you were half the man jergul is you would just admit it was a mistake, or at the very least admit that you did not communicate well what you were actually saying. I mean I once confused WW1 and WW2 and misplaced Germany inviting Mexico to attack the US. Boy was I demolished. But if one is trying to put on a facade, well.. anyway please carry on.
Seb
Member
Thu Dec 06 05:44:18
Nim:

Do you not see the distinction between comes from (gas its roots in).

"If you meant it was present not as bad, you would say so."

I think this nicely illustrates my point here.

This sentence is quite malformed and ambiguous. If you meant it not to be ambiguous, surely you would have made it such. The idea I'm putting as much effort into a post here as a professional output is hilarious. The very assumption raises worrying questions about what you do with your time. I mean I don't even proof read Nim.

In any case my point is not and was not that "homophobia is less bad in the new than the old", it is that Christian attitudes to homosexuality are rooted in old testament law which is not necessarily abrogated by the new testament. It's not a simple as "Christians disregard the old testament", much carries over, often implicitly - whether you think the new covenant supercedes Mosaic law or just complements it.

If your entire argument bends around refusing to accept your intelecutor misspoke - used the wrong word, Covenant Vs Testament,in one place - to arguing that would be unthinkable, and instead meant something that was fundamentally incompatible with the wider argument, I think you probably have a problem.


Seb
Member
Thu Dec 06 05:53:32
Allow me to demonstrate the utter hollowness and triviality of your argument.

With regard to your post

"Wed Dec 09 05:35:56
The old testament is without a doubt the most aweful of all religious texts. And amongst most denominations it is viewed as (his)stories and not laws to live after. That is the consensus amongst the majority of christian denominations. Further more even if you believe they are gods laws, there is very little in the way of support in Christianity to compel anyone to apply these laws and punish those that break it. Christianity relies on a messianic savior to come and make everything right, you have little in the way of support from scripture or faith to stone adulterers or behead infidels, because Jesus will see to it himself.

The fact that many christians don't recognize it, is partially a testament to how unimportant they are. They publish and hand out the New Testament as a book of it's own."

You are correct, and I am wrong. There is a small element of potential homosexuality (note the precise implications of the words Paul uses are debated).

Instead I submit the following argument in its place.

"Nim:

All the homophobia on Christianity comes from the old testament. It's not at all present in the new covenant.

It's not as simple as saying the old stuff is all non canon"

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Dec 06 06:24:32
This revised (and arbitrary definition to drag out the agony) definition of Christianity excludes the words of Paul who was laid the foundation for the Church, this can’t be excluded from Chrisitianty as it is central to the religion as a system. Now your definition would work for so called red letter Christians, but not for Catholics. Also Catholic countries are less accepting of gay than protestants in attitudes and laws. Red letter christians are a tiny minority, unsurprisingly they were very early accepting gays, because Jesus says nothing about gays. So there is very obviously support for it just weak.

But by, by the same logic all the homophobia on Islam also comes from the old testament, it is however more rigoursly cemented in the Quran, expanded by hadiths and further by Islamic jurisprudence. Things that do not exist in Christianity or where they they are weak (even by your own standard) or the new covenant. While western laws have been influenced by Christian values, there is nothing even remotely similair to Islamic legal tradition and the 1400 year long beureucratic apparatus that they form solely to interpret the Sharia from the scripture and Islamic judges to apply. There is a clear line from these things that explains the present moment. This is the difference between throwing them off roofs or having a national debate and vote no to gay marriage.
Seb
Member
Thu Dec 06 07:31:28
"This revised (and arbitrary definition to drag out the agony) definition of Christianity excludes the words of Paul who was laid the foundation for the Church, this can’t be excluded from Chrisitianty as it is central to the religion as a system."

Nim, this is exactly my point and I'm surprised you can't see it. I'm not saying Christianity excludes Paul at all.

But I don't think I know any Christian who, despite the importance of Paul, believes the terms of the New Covenant were set by him.

Jesus is silent on the matter of homosexuality. And Paul doesn't get to make rules up just because.

So if Paul lists things he thinks to be sinful, wheres he getting this from?

The only divine source for Paul's opinions on the sinfulness of homosexuality is the old testament.

He's importing a whole host of Old Testament thinking from Judaism into Christianity. The New Covenant isn't the be all end all: it's implied old Mosaic law (or some of it) still applies.

And not merely what Paul happens to list in three letters.

The fact paul is foundational to the church doesn't seem to undermine my point, rather it reveals the textual mechanism by which the Old Testament is incorporated into the new without the kind of clear cut distinction you imply.

So when you have modern Christians citing Leviticus as a reason to continue to form on homosexuality, whrther they know it or not, citing a millennia of Christian theological thought that's saying "Hey, these old testament laws stand, Paul certainly thought so, despite what Jesus says about love thy neighbor".

And yes, Catholics and protestants and everyone will argue and squabble over the exact interpretation, but you cannot simply exclude the old testament here.

If you do, then the only authority you have for homosexuality being a sin is Paul's opinion, which isn't the word of God. If Jesus meant it to be a sin, he'd be recorded as saying so in one of the gospels.

Do you follow now?

jergul
large member
Thu Dec 06 07:53:02
Nimi
Explain to me again how finding select quotes from the past finalizes discussions.

Seb
Sidetracked?
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 06 08:12:23
"And in another development, the European Court of Justice said it would deliver a ruling on Monday on whether the UK could unilaterally cancel Brexit by reversing Article 50 - the day before the MPs' crunch vote."

That surprises me. I thought it would only be relevant if a course was challenged. But to some extent it does make sense as UK parliament gains clarity on what options it has if it votes down the Conservative party proposal.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Dec 06 08:26:35
All that would be great if anyone was arguing that the old testament has no influence on Christianity since it clearly did. I said "Nobody takes it seriously today", while Muslims do, this difference is because Islam has proven to be more resilient to external idea. Because of previously listed things that Christianity lacks. It was a weaker ideology that could not resist enlightenment ideas.

That is the general argument, specifically the example is attitudes towards gays. Because of religious and historical reason in scripture and the building of the religious institutions it is made much easier to completely or largely ignore the OT for Christians but even much of the NT (as the extreme case of red letter christians), this isn't the case in Islam. If the OT says it, the Quran says it, and Muhammed says it in a Hadith, because of how Islam and Islamic institutions work, it is almost imporrisble to ignore it.

Do you understand how religious people work? If something is repeated many times, then normally it means more people will believe it is important. Yea I know, not Kings College material.
Rugian
Member
Thu Dec 06 08:29:41
I reenter this thread and it's now about the Bible? What the actual fuck?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Dec 06 08:41:41
>>Explain to me again how finding select quotes from the past finalizes discussions.<<

Who said anything about finalizing? seb denied he ever said such a thing. If you look at the thread, many people corrected him, and expected he would return, despite an assholish nr of thread tops he did not return. Me and sebs discussion about the topic, I consider it finalized long ago. He made a feeble attempt fighting some "Islamophobe", but he has no fucking idea what he is talking about. It was not so different from you Jergul, a lot of BS where facts were lacking, some handwaving ala "Abrahamic faith", nothing special.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Dec 06 08:42:20
Rugian
I swear I am totally innocent.
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 06 09:05:13
Nimi
Your point?

Ruggy
Just nimi on his crusade to make everything he dislikes a "religion".

Those ME nutters, eh? Its always religion to them.
Seb
Member
Thu Dec 06 10:04:09
Nim:

Yes, I did say I didn't think that sound right. You are correct in that I unthinkingly typed testament rather than covenant, which is what I meant at the time.

I'm happy to have the opportunity to correct the record.

Nim:

"I said "Nobody takes it seriously today""

Which is simply wrong. Paul hovels tells us in his letters we must still take Mosaic Law seriously.

Jesus tells us we must keep the ten commandments.

The Catholics take the deadly sins seriously.

I could go on.

This is simply not an accurate view.

My point here is that for a long time Christians did indeed keep centrally codified official interpretations, and still do. They fought and had schisms over it.

What has happened is that people have often reinterpreted these rules to fit culture. This has taken a long time (some of the diet laws still being serious enough to redefine ducks as a kind of fish in the 1500s, over a millennia after the council of nicaea).

Some of this very recent too (e.g. homosexually).

And there are still biblical literalist sects too.

You draw far too stark a line between Islam Vs Christianity in my view, and one that is actively disruptive and harmful to the liberalisation and reform of Islam.
Seb
Member
Thu Dec 06 10:14:08
Rugian:

More than happy to pivot back to Brexit. Nim is just being tedious again.
Seb
Member
Thu Dec 06 11:04:36
Nim:

I think you, werewolf and smart dude are the only ones to address me, and both tediously focusing on whether homophobic statements are made than the status of the old testament.

I simply didn't notice smart dude developed an obsession. It would have been easy enough to address his point as I just have now.

Wasn't this from 2016? I was in Costa Rica. I was probably at the beach.
Seb
Member
Thu Dec 06 17:56:33
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/12/06/mays-brexit-deal-leads-just-two-constituencies-it-?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=brexit_deal_model
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 06 19:16:58
That tells me that the outcome may be decided by how a referedum is worded and what options are given.
Seb
Member
Fri Dec 07 08:16:59
Yes - but this is also true in parliament. This is why there is a fight on to eliminate an option.

May's deal only wins (and then not gauranteed) as a second choice preference.
But sometimes a compromise is a bad strategic choice.

No deal ought to be eliminated, but if it is Brexiteers cry foul because "muh, the people have spoken", but actually because it splits the brexiteer vote into soft and hard flavours that only won the referendum nectar they could promise the upsides of both with the downsides of neither.

The argument for removing remain is that the people have spoken and desire to leave (presumed at any cost and under any circumstances) and so it's merely a question of how. This is disingenuous in my view: of course many hours were voting for specific outcomes beyond simply not being an EU member state.

And a three way referendum under stv is a bad idea (Cf. Arrows inequality)

The other interesting factoid is another polling co found 25% of voters think "no deal" means we stay in the EU.

Seb
Member
Fri Dec 07 08:19:55
It seems to me the only legitimate way forward is a second referendum between leave under may or remain.

Nobody can say then that the decision was taken blindly.

Remainers should we leave must accept that the public wanted to leave.

Leavers, would we remain, must accept the public don't want to leave under the best deal the govt could negotiate.

And I think it's the job of parliament to take something as catastrophically bad as no deal exit off the table.
Seb
Member
Fri Dec 07 08:19:55
It seems to me the only legitimate way forward is a second referendum between leave under may or remain.

Nobody can say then that the decision was taken blindly.

Remainers should we leave must accept that the public wanted to leave.

Leavers, would we remain, must accept the public don't want to leave under the best deal the govt could negotiate.

And I think it's the job of parliament to take something as catastrophically bad as no deal exit off the table.
Seb
Member
Fri Dec 07 08:22:00
What's interesting to me about the you gov is deal Vs remain is 50:50 overall, but near universally preferred on a constituency basis.

I skimmed so might have missed something there but struggle to understand how that can work mathematically.
Seb
Member
Fri Dec 07 08:40:56
Unless the constituency Map is based on stv and the deal Vs remain in concordet analysis is a binary.

But this shows why three way referenda are bad. Framing effects and maths mean you get different results between one round stv; multiple round run off, and binary choices.
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 07 09:05:31
You could frame it in two steps:

Leave or remain

IF leave, then Hard, or May, or Norway
IF Remain, then Remain

It would give an around 50% May.

Which is likely the correct outcome.

Moral of the story is to punish the conservatives forever for using a referendum to settle intra-party politics.

Seb
Member
Fri Dec 07 10:23:13
Remain voters will argue that doing leave/remain means that the leave campaign will hold out the possibility of renegotiation. "If we go for no deal, Europe will renegotiate".

Leave will argue "we did that already".

Not saying these arguments are unassailable, but it's difficult to create legitimacy here.
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 07 12:01:16
I know. Hence punishing the conservatives until hell freezes over.
Seb
Member
Fri Dec 07 20:34:04
Very few people will ever know the stress sacrifice and hardwork put in to make sure A day one no deal scenario will go as smoothly as possible.

Rugian
Member
Mon Dec 10 08:47:16
Tuesdays vote has been postponed.
jergul
large member
Mon Dec 10 11:04:01
Ruggy
Sometimes the passive form is just irritating. Postboned by whom? Let that person own it.

May postponed Tuesday's vote.
Rugian
Member
Mon Dec 10 11:16:13
Jergul,

The preference is noted.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Mon Dec 10 11:18:30
"May postponed Tuesday's vote."

we all know it was putin's call.
jergul
large member
Mon Dec 10 11:27:09
Ruggy
I do not find it irritating when you use the passive form when you are referring to yourself.

It suits!

ST
No doubt. Today we are all Skripal.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 11 10:48:46
And now Theresa May is locked in the back of a car while Merkel watches.

This isn't a metaphor.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Dec 11 11:39:46
putin stikes yet again.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 11 14:27:02
So it looks very much like May is trying to reverse filibuster Brexit through.

That'll totally work.

Fucktards.
Seb
Member
Tue Dec 11 14:28:17
Jergul, did you just call Rugian a catamite?
Rugian
Member
Tue Dec 11 14:33:12
A what? I'm more of a dog person myself.
Seb
Member
Wed Dec 12 05:28:29
Ah yes. A leadership election. That's what we need!
Seb
Member
Wed Dec 12 05:29:24
This will totally solve the problem of parliament not supporting the deal, no deal, or the EU not renegotiating.
Rugian
Member
Wed Dec 12 15:46:21
Looks like the no confidence vote has been won.
Seb
Member
Wed Dec 12 17:54:31
Not that surprising.

But in Theresa May's words: Nothing Has Changed.

In a way, it strengthens Brexiteers resolve to kill her deal (she might resign then) and remainers (It's safer - less Chavez of being bounced into a GE).
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share