Official Thimbleweed Park Forums

WARNING: dangerous topic (politics!)


While true, I don’t think this is any different in other jurisdictions. Though I guess one issue of the EU is that it is a vehicle for passing laws that would perhaps not go through in any of the individual member states. So I can totally understand that there is resentment.

This growing divide between the rich and the poor is perhaps the biggest danger to democracy. (The other is an ever-growing surveillance apparatus that might be implemented with the best of intentions (*cough*), but woe upon us when it is turned against the populace.)


This statement is really important, thanks for sharing with us.

Well, into the boundaries of single nations, some important acquired rights, some important protections could not be avoided. Into the new common home, practically some of those were bypassed. Own currency and customs duties are a way that make unaffordable for external to dismantle the status quo of a country (with its distribution of wealth). While now, under the menace of delocalization, globalization, a country could lose large parts of its productive structure if it doesn’t bend to the will of those who have financial power. Because, while we created a global market, a common currency, we didn’t work to extend global rights (unless we’re talking about civil rights, but they’re a different beast), we lose part of those we had before. You can’t go into a new house, hoping that the foundations will build up themselves.


It’s safe to say that globalization as we know it is good for large, multi-national corporations mostly. They’ll produce where it’s cheapest, and move on if things change. They pay taxes where it’s cheapest, and use their advantages to outdo local competition while raking in insanely high profits, which they can then invest into favourable laws and such. (See my comment about curbing lobbyism way up).

Not sure what you have in mind there, but for me that’s an area where national states might actually be getting in the way, so to speak. As long as they are in competition with each other, it’s much too easy for big finance to play one off against the other.


You could hold a referendum about whether to hold a second Brexit referendum. Then there would be no question about the legitimacy of a re-referendum.


Yeah, Sorry, I wanted to say “to globally extend rights”.


Meanwhile, in Australia:
a political party leader will attend polling booths at tomorrow’s byelection.

50 of them.

At the same time.

As cardboard cutouts.


[insert meme here]


Already seems like some sort of real life meme to me.


Why does she have a beard in one of them?
Must be a printing error?


Some of the black ink ended up in the wrong place, it seems :grin:


I also like the article quoting the staff chef that this cardboard is “as good as her”.
So they’re basically saying she’s just a cardboard figure?


The staff chef? As in the cook? Did he like taste both the cardboard AND her to be a judge of that?


That’s finally good news from Europe.


Matteo Renzi (ex italian prime minister), when he was younger and not in politics, had partecipated in the “Wheel of Fortune” quiz.

Matteo Salvini (actual italian vice-prime minister), when he was 14 and not in politics, had partecipated in a teen-quiz “Doppio Slalom” (Double Slalom), and when he was 21 (and not in politics), had partecipated in another popular quiz show: “Il pranzo è servito” (The launch is ready).

It seems that quizzes give fortune to our leaders…

Matteo Renzi (19-years-old)

Matteo Salvini (14-years-old)

Matteo Salvini (21-years-old)

Today’s news, he is on Time cover.


Since the media and politics in italy are more intertwined than in most other european countries, this actually doesn´t surprise me that much.


it’s the same, old thing, since nine-teen ninetytwo…
in our heads, in our heads, they are still fighting…

(raise your hand if you sang while reading those lines)



Jeremy Corbyn is thinking of proposing a new referendum to let UK stay in the EU: polls say that 75% of the labour party supporters ask for it. And that’s great, that would be such a great force to finally have a third way among those who want to defend uncritically EU with its distortions, and those who want to burn it down for nationalistic purposes. A third way, a truly reformist way, that would be great, and the only way to express genuinely the will to fight unfair distribution of wealth and tanking of social rights, and fight and detract consent from the sovereign far right. I don’t see other ways, in other countries too.


Please could you elaborate on this? Do you envision this third way as something kind of in between remaining and leaving? What kinds of things would be done to tackle the issues you mentioned?


No. If the Labour Party win the next elections, or the UK go to national elections due to no deal for Brexit between UK and EU, I like the idea the Labour Party can propose a new referendum to UK to let people decide to remain in EU. If majority of UK citizens will vote for remain, this could open an exceptional season of reforms for EU, trying to improve this institution and its regulations strongly having in mind social equality, labour rights, regulation of the financial activities acephalous by being nowhere by working on the internet… in a few words all the things EU didn’t do until now, making the overcoming of national laws a great opportunity for capitalists, speculators and so on to lucrate and prosper moving wealth from the middle class to the very fews. We need to build a better Europe of equality, at the same time removing the social matter from the hands of the new right, which in Italy, Hungary, France, Germany, basically everywhere is building a sovereign answer to those problems. Europe is felt as a financial Europe, a Europe of Bureaucracy, that sacrifices people to numbers, and until the social democratic parties don’t assume (like Corbyn shows) a reformist approach to Europe, they will lose the challenge to the new right parties. Then the third way is not a kind of in between remaining and leaving, it’s remaining, but with transnational agreements with parallel parties in Europe (like Zingaretti’s Democratic Party - if he becomes secretary as I hope) to reform Europe addressing the social matters.


I like your ideas and vision, but I think they may not be very likely to come to pass. If we were given a second referendum and we voted to remain, I think all our EU-bound legislation would have to stay the same, and the changes that we make to our country in the future would be limited to things outside of this legislation that all EU members have to follow.

After all the hassle that we’ve caused the EU by going through these negotiations with them, while I think they would agree to let us stay, I don’t think they would grant us any (more) authority when it comes to decision-making on the state of the EU. Whether under Theresa May or a new PM, I think the UK government would come across as unfit to be entrusted with the ability to influence such decisions, due to their inability to put forward a plan for a deal that the EU agrees with so far. Ours is the government of :cake: , and even Donald Tusk says so.