I very clearly was not talking about UK in my comment, but rather explaining to you what national sovereignty is and how EU undermines it. Hope that helps clear things up for you.
Yes, but your original post shows a picture about the UK. I still think you are missing a lot of context (as usual for your “/c/europe” posts) and thus didn’t understand what this is about at all. The original picture is literally about how you can’t eat (post-Brexit) sovereignty and is a pro EU comment.
As the title of the post very clearly indicates, my point is regarding the framing used by the publication. I get the impression that you are intentionally failing to understand what I said in my post, and the follow up explanation. There were plenty of other framings that could have been used to describe post-Brexist problems that UK is having, but The New European chose to mock the concept of sovereignty. Again, hope this helps clear things up for you further. Please let me know if there is any other confusion on your end.
Ah, so I was assuming the best that you simply did not understand it, but actually you are just a right wing nationalist. Thanks for the clarification.
I love how you end every single discussion using ad hominem. What I actually wrote in black and white was this:
Any current member of the EU that wishes to pursue an economic policy that’s contrary to neoliberal capitalism that EU champions will find it impossible to do so because it lacks economic sovereignty required to do so.
This is obviously the case for actual socialist policies such as mass nationalization which would not be allowed under EU policies. This is precisely what Corbyn wanted to do if UK gained economic sovereignty. Thanks for once again clarifying that there is no difference between anarchists and liberals.
This is however not what the OP cover image is about, nor what the “sovernty” discussion in the UK is about. So basically you have no idea what you were talking about and now try to change the topic to make it less obvious that you were just parroting right-wing nonsense.
I have explained in detail what my point is, and that it relates to the wording used by the publication. Feel free to continue arguing in bad faith though since that’s all you seem to do here.
The UK is not part of the EU any more. Under what rock have you been living?
I very clearly was not talking about UK in my comment, but rather explaining to you what national sovereignty is and how EU undermines it. Hope that helps clear things up for you.
Yes, but your original post shows a picture about the UK. I still think you are missing a lot of context (as usual for your “/c/europe” posts) and thus didn’t understand what this is about at all. The original picture is literally about how you can’t eat (post-Brexit) sovereignty and is a pro EU comment.
As the title of the post very clearly indicates, my point is regarding the framing used by the publication. I get the impression that you are intentionally failing to understand what I said in my post, and the follow up explanation. There were plenty of other framings that could have been used to describe post-Brexist problems that UK is having, but The New European chose to mock the concept of sovereignty. Again, hope this helps clear things up for you further. Please let me know if there is any other confusion on your end.
Ah, so I was assuming the best that you simply did not understand it, but actually you are just a right wing nationalist. Thanks for the clarification.
I love how you end every single discussion using ad hominem. What I actually wrote in black and white was this:
This is obviously the case for actual socialist policies such as mass nationalization which would not be allowed under EU policies. This is precisely what Corbyn wanted to do if UK gained economic sovereignty. Thanks for once again clarifying that there is no difference between anarchists and liberals.
This is however not what the OP cover image is about, nor what the “sovernty” discussion in the UK is about. So basically you have no idea what you were talking about and now try to change the topic to make it less obvious that you were just parroting right-wing nonsense.
I have explained in detail what my point is, and that it relates to the wording used by the publication. Feel free to continue arguing in bad faith though since that’s all you seem to do here.
@poVoq @yogthos get a room you two! 😂
They actually did few days ago, remember the thread that had like 80 comment long chain XD
🤣