There is no apolitical. You think tech is neutral when one of its titans buys elections? The only one ideologically complicit is you if you choose to close your eyes to that reality.
Nothing is purely apolitical, I agree. At the same time, we don't allow HN accounts to use the site primarily for political battle, regardless of which direction their politics take. This has been the standard for a long time: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
Since your account has been using HN not just primarily for this but, apparently, exclusively for this, I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. But please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
>separate, unique, district, and sovereign countries that can push back against horrible ideas and actions, you end up like us.
The separate, unique sovereign countries are the ones with the horrible ideas and actions. See Victor Orban's Hungary. The whole point is to not let some goulash mussolini control European affairs.
> The EU is right now talking about becoming a great military force to fight Russia. That’s the kind of movement you’re advocating for, my friend.
Would you rather... not be able to fight Russia? It's not like the EU is the one with the invasion plans and threats, they're just preparing for the changing world order.
You really don't see the inherent contradiction and disastrous concept inherent to your mentality? It's inherently authoritarian and supremacist, i.e., you or the ideological cluster you believe you are a member of; knows best and knows infallibly, perfectly so, what exactly needs to be done for any and all people, at all times everywhere equally? ... thus, there is no need for such a thorn in your eye as the elected leader of Hungary Victor Orban... you know better, as you repeat like a trained robot.
It is oddly concerning, scary, and amusing at the same time that you are totally unaware of your own "Mussolini" tendencies of imposing your will or those ideas you have been trained to repeat and parrot on others. Why does everyone, everywhere, in all countries need to bow to the will you have been trained to parrot? Why can't people of other countries decide and do other things?
You really don't see the problem in that?
Have you even ever visited Hungary? Do you speak Hungarian? Do you live there and are culturally invested through generations of ancestors there? Why do you care so much about what Hungarians do in Hungary? What happened to democracy?
Why then if none of those apply to you, would you have any right, let alone care or concern with what Hungarians want, do or who they elect outside of you simply being a useful idiot for the central power in Brussels that commands you to really really care about Hungary's elected leaders?
It's literally no different than the fools we have her in the USA who really really care about combatting and countering and bombing and invading Iran (and Iraq before) ... which has absolutely zero actual, direct national interest implications or effects on the USA in any way. You are quite literally just a "dumb American" now as you morph into the grotesque that is modern America.
> Have you even ever visited Hungary? Do you speak Hungarian? Do you live there and are culturally invested through generations of ancestors there? Why do you care so much about what Hungarians do in Hungary? What happened to democracy?
Yes. The part of Austria I live in used to be Hungary, it's still tightly linked to it culturally and through blood ties. My grandparents spoke Hungarian at home.
Difference is, it prospered, while Hungary proper is poor, run-down and has an antisemitic dictator. Hungarians are the cheap labor prevalent in Eastern Austria, similar to Mexicans close to the border in the US. They clean our toilets, because their government sucks.
I don't want that fate for my Hungarian brethren. Don't talk as if I didn't know, when it's clear it's you that doesn't.
It is you who is the useful idiot for fascists worldwide, out of some misguided sense of nationalism or whatever. The nation state is the obstacle to be overcome. It is what's keeping people back.
> ITV plc is a British media company that holds 13 of the 15 regional television licences that make up the ITV network (Channel 3), the oldest and largest commercial terrestrial television network in the United Kingdom
One could also say people get more conservative as their mental acuity decreases with age, but that too, would be an uncalled for judgement and projection of one's own political views.
Help me understand your thinking. I was very against Brexit (and still am). What is there to be gained, in your opinion?
In my view, you traded being one of the leading voices in what is increasingly shaping up to be one of the world's superpowers for being a somewhat isolated middle power, nostalgic for its former glory.
UK did not need the EU for trade agreements. Those can be set up separately. There were a number of examples where the UK kept losing control, and instead having the EU try to determine the direction.
This led to loss in sovereignty and freedom. Sadly though it doesn't seem like the UK politicians are taking advantage of this (regulatory, laws, borders, immigrations etc) just yet, but at least now it's possible.
My point is: How can you become a superpower again if your foot is chained to a sluggish red tape monster like the EU? Even Norway recently learned that the EEA is not fully respected by the EU (ferroalloy imports).
I think you - and seemingly most others, are focusing on the short term downsides and negative economic impact.
But that would have happened regardless. Now it's up to the UK to try to increase productivity again, and only then Brexit will make sense. As mentioned, this will take 15 years at minimum.
I dont disagree with you on the chain of thoughts, the only problem is your thesis assumes UK could go back to its glory and superpower. Remembered by many during and after the World War II. And innovate to stand on its own, without the support of EU.
All of that is theoretically possible. And a very admirable goal to have. The problem is modern Britain is no longer what it once was. From Strategy to execution it is increasingly rare to find a field where they lead, and more often then not talents that produces value are captured by the US.
The current climate, culture and geopolitical issues suggest it will take much longer than 15 years, likely a whole generation cycle roughly 30 years. And depending on how you count it we are at 6 - 10 years already.
> From Strategy to execution it is increasingly rare to find a field where they lead, and more often then not talents that produces value are captured by the US.
Of course you can now set up your own trade agreements, but so can Fiji, I suppose. The point is that you have a lot less negotiating power going it alone, instead of as part of an economic superbloc that you can influence as one of its biggest members.
The time of individual European "great powers" has long gone, but somehow, large fractions of the respective populations do not realize it. Band together, or be swept aside. That nationalistic reflex is not helping.
Never is a long time but doesn't look like it's happening in a hurry at any rate. The UKs rise was based on leading the industrial revolution but it's a bit lagging in the AI one. The few leading companies we produce like Deepmind and ARM get bought by the Americans.
The UK has less chance at becoming a superpower than Canada or Australia, neither of which are in the race. If the EU becomes more cohesive, it might, and then the UK will be the smaller country allying itself with a superpower for protection.
Institutions like the EU are hard to build. It's easy to leave or destroy an institution. Much harder to reform or improve it.
The idea that we should have free trade and movement within Europe is not bad. Even unified regulation, etc.
Otherwise, we'll never have to scale to be competitive in the world.
The regulation could be better, less red tape. But that's always the case, everywhere.
But at the end of the day there isn't going to be an alternative to the EU in Europe. So it's better to remain in, and try to improve (yes, this is hard and slow).
The alternative is nothing, maybe a few remote trading partners, but physical proximity matters if you want industrial integration/growth.
I think you need to expand on this into some kind of actual, tangible result, this is just feelings. And even for feelings, it's nonsense - before Brexit my kids could legally move and work anywhere in the EU, how are they more free now?
It's literally all downsides, which you (not you personally) agreed to because of ego, thinking you can go back to a time when 'the sun never sets', when in actuality you've hastened much longer nights.
Sgt did personally agree to it because of ego. They cite wanting the UK to be a superpower again as one of the benefits of Brexit. He doesn't seem to understand the position Britain is in now.
reply