[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 7 points 5 months ago

Also, in my view the EU is quite undemocratic. The separate Council, Commission and Parliament are an affront. Especially the fact that the Parliament, which represents the electorate, does not have the power to introduce legislation.

You do realise that the entire structure of the EU was primarily dreamt up by British legal experts? It's quite literally one of the best, most robust and most competent systems of governance in the world.

Yes, Parliament can't introduce legislation by themselves, but that's because we don't want populists like Farage, Boris or Trump to do that. They're charismatic, but not actually competent. That's why talented legal experts in the European Commission (who are each appointed by elected governments of member states, the UK had 6 iirc), people who actually know how law works, write the laws. The elected MEP's vote on the laws.

However even here we're missing the fact that the European Parliament (EP) do have a say in the legislation. The EC writes an "Impact Assessment" with rough draft of the law they're thinking of writing (which anyone can comment on), then this is presented before Parliament who propose and discuss amendments. So it's completely disingenuous to imply that the elected EP is somehow beholden to the "unelected" (but chosen for competency by elected member governments) EC bureaucrats.

And all that skips around what starts the EC's initial proposal. Aside from occassionally writing laws off their own backs, the EC responds to requests from:

  • The European Council (heads of state or government of each EU country)
  • The Council of the European Union (government ministers from each EU country)
  • The European Parliament (directly elected by EU citizens)
  • Citizens themselves, following a successful European Citizens’ Initiative

That's right, not only can Parliament demand new legislation (they just have to get the big boy lawyers to write it for them), but individual citizens can directly!

Parliament has the final say in whether or not legislation is implemented. That's completely democratic. What you call "an affront" is actually competent people writing effective legislation. Rather than bullshit like the Rwanda deal which states the UK will accept vulnerable refugees from Rwanda in exchange for the small boat migrants to Rwanda (all paid for by the UK taxpayer), or the general ineptitude of no legislation at all and a Hard Brexit causing issues like sewage being dumped in our rivers since water companies now face restrictions on importing treatment chemicals from the EU.

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'm gonna go against the grain and no doubt be downvoted, but surely this is overblown compared to the level of actual harm it causes? They're not real images, almost everyone is aware they're not real images, they don't have a negative impact on the lives of the victim beyond them being creeped out that people are perving over them (but again, everyone knows it's not really them).

I can see it has the potential for leading to actual harm, eg a stalker developing worse behaviour, but I don't really see that it meets the threshold in and of itself. It's only slightly worse than doing something someone else doesn't like or saying something offensive.

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 7 points 8 months ago

That's what I was thinking lol didn't he basically say that Moffat was good at writing the odd episode but terrible at making an over-arching plot?

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 7 points 8 months ago

The UK still pays more fuel and road tax than the rest of Europe.

The issue isn't with how much tax is paid, the issue is with corrupt MP's wasting it with contracts for their mates/party donors.

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 6 points 8 months ago

There's a varying grade of obscenity in that category.

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 6 points 9 months ago

No he called them out because they remained seated. He asked them if they were Israeli, they said yes, then he told them to leave (which he can't do to paying customers) and set the crowd against them. Their views on genocide or Israel's actions weren't even determined, it was just the fact they were Israeli and didn't give him a standing ovation.

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 6 points 9 months ago

And all of that was by one company. The government wouldn't grant a license to anyone else. You can see why it hasn't been legalised, it's more profitable to them if they have a monopoly.

They've since granted 2 more licenses, one of which is out in Jersey, both are no doubt tied to politicians.

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 7 points 9 months ago

But there is technically nothing special about Blu-Ray’s which can’t be done by streaming (provided they’re willing to use that much bandwidth)

They aren't.

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 6 points 9 months ago

What it says most is that Suella Braverman wants to continue her father's business of running concentration camps in Africa.

Her dad, who for some reason has a Hispanic name, is of Goan Indian descent but born and raised in Kenya. In 1960, during the Mau Mau uprising under which Kenya gained independence from the UK, he somehow was granted a UK passport - while the rest of his family fled back to India. Upon arriving to the UK, he landed a job as head of a housing association. Now, his daughter is an MP.

I've struggled to find hard evidence to confirm anything beyond the last paragraph, but it seems like there is a massive evidence-shaped hole that points to Braverman's father running a British concentration camp in Kenya, one of many with horrible conditions that prompted Kenya's revolution for independence.


Lately, the Tory government have neglected in processing migrants from the UK, instead opting to house them in hotels (often owned by party donors, and at UK taxpayer's expense). Many of these people could have long been deported from our shores, but doing that would reduce the potential stockpile of people they could put into the proposed Rwanda concentration camps.

These are for profit businesses, run in a foreign country, which the UK taxpayer is paying to set up and accommodate. Furthermore, section 16.1 of the Rwanda deal says "the UK will accept 'vulnerable migrants' from Rwanda in return for those sent to Rwanda". When pressed on the House of Lords, the government has refused to comment on how many migrants the government will be taking in return. Is it 1 for 1? More? Less? That is not defined.

They're still fucking stealing from us. We're paying their court bills and their salaries while they set up their tax haven businesses that the UK society will see a significant net cost from, with very little benefit.

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 6 points 9 months ago

Pubs need to be somewhere

🎶where everybody knows your naaaame🎶

[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 7 points 10 months ago
[-] Tweak@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago

🎶 A fresh coat of paint, can hide the mould away 🎶

view more: ‹ prev next ›

Tweak

joined 1 year ago