What's the most important in a book:

Oh boy, what bait!

This kind of picture makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In Denmark, the most economically right wing party with mainstream popularity want a 40% tax. That'd be construed as extremist communism in the US.

Ideas, but ideas rely on the quality of the other two.

To a reader the ideas are the only important thing, but to a writer they are all very important. Sort of like how a hotel visitor only cares about the comfiness of their room, but the architect must care about the structural integrity as well.

>Britain
>Right-wing
Whoever made this chart is a clueless fucking retard.

We had this joke sniff in old Yugoslavia that the american right was right wing and that the american left sniff was also right wing.

You're right but Britain is very definitely right wing.

>tories
>not right wing

>left vs. right wing dichotomy
This is AUTISM.

notice how the dumbest are the left ones

>brexit
>not right wing

Labour is right wing. Even under Corbyn Labour is right wing.
>This basic simplification which works in most countries' realistic political situation is autism
No user, you are the autism.

Obviously it doesn't work when talking about he whole breadth of politics which would include, say, Egoism and Anarcho-Monarchism, but it's not meant to work there.
Yeah I'm pretty sure this was bait meant to associate shittiness with leftiness.

How is Brexit right-wing?
Is the EU somehow left-wing?

The majority of Brexit was driven by right-wing thinking. Some of it was driven by left-wing thinking, as exemplified by Corbyn.

>current government
>Labour

>Tories
>not right wing

This level of contrarianism.

I'm saying the entirety of UK politics is right wing you fucking mongoose.

>britain right-wing in chart
>Whoever made this chart is a clueless fucking retard.
>I'm saying the entirety of UK politics is right wing
really activates the almonds

Just because I think it's filled with retardation doesn't mean I think all of it is retarded, user.

>>Britain
>>Right-wing
>Whoever made this chart is a clueless fucking retard.
>pretending to be retarded to the very end

This is true.

But it's not really accurate to say that Brexit itself is a right-wing goal just because it was extremely popular with right-wing people.

>USA
>Left wing

That's absolutely retarded given the chart also puts Canada and Sweden as right wing.

>deregulation and curbing migration
>not a right-wing goal

>Free markets and anti-democratic government
>Not a right wing goal

>EEA is a free market
>EU is undemocratic

>Unrestricted trade of goods across international borders
>Not a free market

>Passes laws that no one voted for and no one voted for anyone who said they would vote for or against.
>Democratic.

>single market means free
>EEA is not heavily regulated
>not understanding indirect democracy

>Unrestricted international market isn't free
>The EEA is heavily regulated.
>Somehow passing laws that no one got a say in even when choosing their representatives is democracy

Liberalism, not even once.

Gesamtkunstwerk.

Although i pity the nutcase; i envy the lifestyle of Varg Vikernes

Cancer thread

>Unrestricted international market
wut
>EEA is not heavily regulated
the major point of Brexit is removing EEA labour regulations
>laws that no one got a say in
They're drafted by commissioners which are your elected ministers and approved by parliamentaries which are elected MEPs, you absolute retard.

>wut
What do you mean "wut", it's exactly what it says on the tin.
>the major point of Brexit is removing EEA labour regulations
Uhm, no it isn't. Barely anyone voted leave thinking "Oh boy, no more of those dastardly labour regulations". Most people voted leave thinking "Oh boy, no more of those Eastern European immigrants" or "Oh boy, more money to invest in NHS".
>They're drafted by commissioners which are your elected ministers and approved by parliamentaries which are elected MEPs, you absolute retard.
I do not think any MEP in the entire UK gave any indication as to their feelings about 10 decks of cigarettes when people were voting for them, you twit. And if you put such a retarded law to public vote there's no way it would pass.

>what it says on the tin
There is no 'unrestricted international market', you dunce, there's a multitude of local markets of varying calibres with different regulations and a fuckton of FTAs between them.
>Barely anyone voted thinking
We weren't discussing voting reasons, we were discussing EEA and it is indeed a heavily regulated market and not a free one. Brexit will remove all those regulations, thereby making UK's internal market more free, so Brexit is very much right wing in market freedom sense.
>I do not think any MEP in the entire UK gave any indication
What did you expect them to do? Call you up for advice? Does your MP do that? Do they consult with the whole constituency before doing anything? It's a representational fucking democracy - you vote for a person you trust will represent your views best and if they don't then you vote them out next round. The exact same thing happens on national level in the UK and in every democratic country out there. Your inability to understand this and calling for holding public votes on every issue tells me you're either a teenager with babby tier understanding of government or a retard. Either way you should fuck off.

>muh nationalism muh england we're so better than anyone else
>not right wing

>There is no 'unrestricted international market', you dunce
In the context of the point, that being "Unrestricted trade of goods across international borders" there absolutely is.
>We weren't discussing voting reasons
What you said was "the major point of Brexit is removing EEA labour regulations". If it's not what people voted leave for then it's not exactly the major point of Brexit is it?
>What did you expect them to do?
Well given that it's supposed to be a representative democracy I would expect them to represent their constituents. Not unreasonable, no?
>Your inability to understand this and calling for holding public votes on every issue
Ah, but that's not what I think they should do.I'm not suggesting we go full direct democracy for every government decision.

I'm suggesting that maybe representatives should actually represent the people they're supposed to rather than pass laws that are totally and far removed from anything anyone actually wants. And as you rightly point out this happens in the UK too, and that's also a problem and not at all democratic.

>muh nationalism muh england
>Wales majority voted leave and has been a labour stronghold since forever and isn't even in England.

Nationalism is usually just a method. A perspective on how globalism should be handled. There's nothing that makes nationalism fundamentally right or left, unless you are quite dumb and ignore history of the movement completely and only focus on Germany and what not.
For example:
The height of Finnish pan-nationalism was in the 1920's, while at the same time the government was actively passing land reforms that destroyed big land owners and increased the amount of landowners by 1000%.

>In the context of the point, that being Unrestricted trade of goods across international borders
Sure if you actually redefine the term 'free market', then you can call anything that. In actual terminology though free market means specifically a deregulated one, while EEA requires strong EU norms conformity for goods, local government impose standards on services and capital movement is still not completely free. Brexit makes the market smaller, but also removes external regulation.
>What you said was "the major point of Brexit is removing EEA labour regulations"
Yes, as in one of the major effects of Brexit will in fact be abolishing EEA restrictions. To illustrate one more right wing aspect of Brexit. People's own motivation is a topic I didn't touch at all.
>I would expect them to represent their constituents
They do to the best of their ability.
>I'm suggesting that maybe representatives should actually represent the people they're supposed to rather than pass laws that are totally and far removed from anything anyone actually wants
Well, that's a great suggestion, I'd also like to suggest that people stop murdering and thieving and generally be nice to each other, but humans are what they are. Indirect democracy with all its flaws is the best we have.

>Wales isn't in England

>that's why I said England and not Great Britain

>Sure if you actually redefine the term 'free market'
Well if you want to ignore the context of the conversation up until this point to pretend I was making a point that I wasn't I'm not going to defend the points you've projected onto me.

In any case I fail to see how a complete guarantee of free trade across international borders is anything other than a free market. Especially when since as the map shown earlier points out European Union markets are considered free.

>Yes, as in one of the major effects of Brexit will in fact be abolishing EEA restrictions.
Nice furious backpeddling. What you said was "the major point of Brexit", not "an important effect of Brexit". And given that you speak in terms of "points" meaning goals rather than unspoken outcomes as you're trying to make out now I think people's own motivation is exactly what you were touching on.

>They do to the best of their ability.
No they don't. If they did they might realize that the vast majority of people don't think it's a good idea to force people to buy more cigarettes and to ban facesitting porn. These are absolutely draconian laws that anyone honestly trying to represent their constituents would not allow.

>but humans are what they are. Indirect democracy with all its flaws is the best we have.
The fact that career politicians make shitty decisions far removed from what people really want isn't some inherent failing of humankind that may never overcome. It's a failing of our outdated system that could easily be solved by not allowing the government to pass laws no one wants sneakily while no one's watching.

And more to the point this would probably happen a lot less if we only had one useless, pseudo-democratic government to worry about rather than two.

>these walls of texts

...

Is this some kind of new meme?

...

...

...

stop masturbating

if the "centre-right" of france presented itself to the "centre-left" elections of the US they would without a doubt be called communists by every single political party
Bernie Sanders is nothing in comparison

...

faggot
But it makes sense to use it as an example of the UK being right-wing.
Both of those things can be socialist, although admittedly not liberal.

(liberal as in social liberal)

Is that history's first film?