[Discussion] European Politics Discussion

European Politics discussion

Seriously though....

...if someone hasn't modded this into Crusader Kings 3 yet, what are we even doing anymore?

Modding Crusader Kings 3 into this, clearly.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmHCy1kX0AALNJI?format=jpg&name=medium)

Prederick wrote:

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmHCy1kX0AALNJI?format=jpg&name=medium)

My first thought was, that can't be real. Followed by, I thought it couldn't possibly be real so therefore it must be real.

Sorbicol wrote:
Prederick wrote:

I have no idea how oppressive and tiresome it must feel in the UK, because I'm in the U.S. and I am tiiiiiiii-yurred of hearing about Harry.

It's moderately amusing to some extent. As I have said previously ,while I'm no staunch Royalist, as an institution (one badly in need of reform) I prefer it to the alternative.

What alternative is that? A representative democracy?

Personally, I abhor the aristocracy in all its forms. I can bring no sympathy for any of the Windsors. My family is in America because their family starved mine out of Ireland. f*ck them all.

I can't speak for Sorbical, but I think for a lot of Brits it comes down to a general lack of enthusiasm for having an elected figurehead President who is 'just another politician'. It's not a lingering love of aristocracy so much as the fact that we've already moved almost all real political power to parliament, and so we have this weird expensive vestige of our past that we haven't chopped off—and we don't have a commonly-agreed notion of what we'd replace it with anyway.

Most of the time, the monarchy just ticks along in the background, safely ignored until someone points it out and we sort of shrug and say "oh yeah, that's a bit weird, isn't it?". Heck, even with all the Prince Harry nonsense and an impending coronation in the middle of a recession, it's just window dressing to the so many problems we have in the UK right now.

Fair, but for a lot of us over here - fleeing the aristocracy is why our families are in America. Not as quaint for us:)

I say this with deep affection towards the citizens of the UK, just deep disdain for the royals.

Ravanon wrote:

it's just window dressing to the so many problems we have in the UK right now.

Yeah, this.

The monarchy is an irrelevance to most British people. It could disappear tomorrow and I wouldn't give two f*cks. The corollary to that is that it could NOT disappear tomorrow and I wouldn't give two f*cks.

It's not like there'd be fewer rich arseholes if the monarchy poofed into non-existence, by any meaningful measure.

SallyNasty wrote:

What alternative is that? A representative democracy?

Personally, I abhor the aristocracy in all its forms. I can bring no sympathy for any of the Windsors. My family is in America because their family starved mine out of Ireland. f*ck them all.

In an ideal universe we’d be able to establish a democratic system with a largely ceremonial presidency and a true representative democratic government of elected individuals.

What we’d get is the American system where all power rests with one individual. That would be infinitely worse than what we have now.

The UK has a very long way to go before we reach that level of political maturity. Quite simply, the royal family is - right now - the lesser of two evils.

Sorbicol wrote:

What we’d get is the American system where all power rests with one individual.

This is not the American system, in intent or in practice (current or historical). In fact, most of our current problems stem from having 3 branches of government and only two political parties. Not much work gets done if one of them decides it hates government and "just say no" is aspirational for politics as well as drugs...

Robear wrote:
Sorbicol wrote:

What we’d get is the American system where all power rests with one individual.

This is not the American system, in intent or in practice (current or historical). In fact, most of our current problems stem from having 3 branches of government and only two political parties. Not much work gets done if one of them decides it hates government and "just say no" is aspirational for politics as well as drugs...

Whatever the intent or intended practice is, it's not what happens. I appreciate that it's considerably more nuanced than that, but in practice, political power in your system is consolidated in one individual.

But hey - I don't think our system is that much better at the moment either. The British Monarchy is a very odd thing, but as a largely ceremonial Head of State apparatus, it sort of works. That they are a bunch of complete knobheads is neither here nor there really.

And who is that individual?

Robear wrote:

And who is that individual?

George Soros and the Pentaverate

It could appear to be consolidated into one individual if the circumstances are right (President's party has control of House & Senate), but that's not actually being consolidated into one individual, it's just multiple powers working towards the same end with one person serving as the public face of it. If it were otherwise, Obama's terms would have gone very differently (as would Biden's current one), and Trump's never would have ended.

Paleocon wrote:
Robear wrote:

And who is that individual?

George Soros and the Pentaverate

The swing vote on the Supreme Court, or the chair of the Fed.

To be fair, all political power concentrated into one person sounds more like Johnson having purged the Conservative Party of opponents and then having an 80 MP majority in Parliament rather then the American system. Literally nothing could stop him except his own laziness and hubris. Any constitutional guard rails that the monarch is supposed to provide have turned out to be imaginary.

The more interesting thing to me is that QEII had a lot of personal goodwill which hasn’t transferred to Charles. The Harry stuff won’t take things down, it’s been going for so long, but another scandal might.

I don't think it was ever going to transfer to Charles, the goodwill. Elizabeth II had skin in the national game ever since she trained as a mechanic and driver, and she was known for service. Charles seems to simply wanted to be something else most of his life. In my American opinion, I think he's a decent example of a person who is performing a role that is expected of them, whereas Elizabeth *lived* the role.

To be fair to Chuck, it's not exactly apples to oranges, comparing the public's feelings about Year 1 of his reign with their feelings about Year 70 of his mum's.

Jonman wrote:

To be fair to Chuck, it's not exactly apples to oranges, comparing the public's feelings about Year 1 of his reign with their feelings about Year 70 of his mum's.

Also, y'know, the whole Diana thing.

Top, top work by the Met Police.

A Metropolitan Police armed officer who used his role to put fear into his victims has admitted dozens of rape and sexual offences against 12 women.

David Carrick, 48, who met some victims through dating websites, pleaded guilty to 49 offences across two decades.

The Met has apologised after it emerged he had come to the attention of police over nine incidents, including rape allegations, between 2000 and 2021.

A senior officer said his offending was "unprecedented in policing".

Assistant Commissioner Barbara Gray, the Met's lead for professionalism, said: "We should have spotted his pattern of abusive behaviour and because we didn't, we missed opportunities to remove him from the organisation.

"We are truly sorry that being able to continue to use his role as a police officer may have prolonged the suffering of his victims.

"We know they felt unable to come forward sooner because he told them they would not be believed."

This is very near the plots of some Scottish/British Noir police procedurals of the last few decades...

Donelan confirms stiffer online safety measures after backbench pressure

Tech executives who “connive” in ignoring regulatory warnings to protect children from online harms face up to two years in jail under changes to landmark legislation announced by the government.

The culture secretary, Michelle Donelan, confirmed that the online safety bill would be amended after pressure from Conservative backbenchers.

The new provision will target senior managers at tech platforms who ignore enforcement notices from Ofcom, the communications watchdog, about breaches of the legislation’s child safety duties.

Under the bill, tech companies including social media firms and search engines have a duty to protect children from harmful content such as material promoting self-harm and eating disorders.

Donelan said the change would capture cases where senior managers had “consented or connived in ignoring enforceable requirements, risking serious harm to children”.

She said it would not affect executives who “acted in good faith” to protect children, amid warnings from tech firms that threatening executives with jail could damage investment in the UK.

“While this amendment will not affect those who have acted in good faith to comply in a proportionate way, it gives the act additional teeth to deliver change and ensure that people are held to account if they fail to properly protect children,” she said.

Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content that all tech platforms must proactively prevent from reaching users.

Donelan said posting positive videos of crossings could be aiding and abetting immigration offences. Natalie Elphicke, the Conservative MP for Dover, had originally tabled an amendment proposing the change.

What fantasy world is this where executives go to jail?

I'm focused more on those last two paragraphs, personally.

Prederick wrote:

I'm focused more on those last two paragraphs, personally.

Regatas are one of the most dangerous sports! If these sailing street races are portrayed in a positive light who knows how many of our youths we could lose in the dangerous waters of the channel!

I'm just amused that those who have already crossed the channel and are in the UK will no longer be allowed to view successful channel crossings, but those who have yet to undertake them can view positive crossing videos at will.

Prederick wrote:

I'm focused more on those last two paragraphs, personally.

Exactly. Now they can jail executives for companies that serve as a platform for anything the government doesn't like. Ripe for abuse.

They want us to work longer, but you already have a third of workers who reach retirement age already out of work, either because of health or because people don't want to employ more expensive, senior eployees. Make it make sense.
Macron keeps deluding himself, absolutely certain that people voted for him specifically so that he could pass this reform, but most of us who did vote for him in the second round actually voted against the far right, not for him. I mean, this is the president who has employed a bunch of ("alleged", rolls eyes ) rapists. During this big strike, the asshat was traveling in Barcelona (super brave of him), and when he gave a speech at a school, his secret service dragged out a guy who was simply wearing a t-shirt in support of the strike. Wasn't being disruptive, and yet... That's some dictatorship level crap right there... Sigh.

Next strike is on the 31st.

Next door in Germany, it's being increased from 65 to 67 (which the video mentions), and some are talking about the need to go to 69 to stabilize pensions.
I've already accepted 67 for myself, but that's gotta be the upper limit for sure, unless they start to reverse biological and mental aging (which they apparently can in mice now).