Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Gups]

I doubt most people play computer games that involve trade deals.

Obviously.
But I think enough people have played a strategy game or two to make up a decent percentage of the population.
And knowledge disseminates

What's funny?
The Civ series has sold 33 million copies. Not unreasonable to assume a million  in the UK no?

If you assume that nobody ever buys more than one Civ game.

[Josquius]

Even assuming the same people have bought all 6 that's still a lot of people. And these are conservative numbers.

[Grey Fox]

Video games are ruining almost everything else so yeah, ruining trade deals too.

[garbon]

I doubt most people play computer games that involve trade deals.

Obviously.
But I think enough people have played a strategy game or two to make up a decent percentage of the population.
And knowledge disseminates

What's funny?
The Civ series has sold 33 million copies. Not unreasonable to assume a million  in the UK no?

Trade is hardly even a primary focus in Civ as a series. I mean you are free to posit this as no one can ever prove you wrong but it seems trivially easy to highlight how this is a bizarre line of thought and probably not at all tethered to people's thoughts on how trade works.

[The Brain]

People's concept of international trade is probably more influenced by EU2.

[garbon]

People's concept of international trade is probably more influenced by EU2.

World of Warcraft, perhaps?

[Gups]

Even assuming the same people have bought all 6 that's still a lot of people. And these are conservative numbers.

That would be less than 200,000 people or less than 0.3% of the population, which is perhaps a central banker's idea of a "decent percentage" but not anybody else's.

[Josquius]

In the north east of India lies the small state of Tagin Pradesh.

Tagin Pradesh is a very demographically split state.

40% of the population are Hindus. In this small and isolated corner of India they tend to be more devout that the norm. The vast majority of them are vegetarian.
30% of the population are Muslims. They largely live in the urban areas of the province from which they control much of its economy. Due to their religion they of course abhor pork, they do however like beef.
The remaining 30% of the population are from local tribes who due to their location have developed a culture which is a fusion of Chinese and Indian influences. They follow the Hindu probation on beef, however pork lies at the centre of their culture.

The governor of this region has a problem. Though he himself is a very modern, secular Hindu, nationalist forces within his party are demanding that he outlaw all meat consumption. They have visions of Tagin Pradesh leading the world as the first true vegetarian state.
The governor offers a compromise; there will be a referendum. Only one source of protein will be admissible in the state. Will it be meat, or tofu?

Surprisingly, the stand out figure of the referendum campaign proves to be Vijay Matthew; a Christian. Christians make up only a nominal proportion of the local population and his involvement seems to have some ulterior motive behind it.
In the cities Matthew campaigns with a conciliatory tone; "Beef should be the choice, it's not like vegetarians will be forced eat it if you don't want to, you can live without protein!
And to my Muslim brothers? Well, you wouldn't want beef banned, would you? That's the first step on the path to a Hindu Theocracy! You must vote to stop ethnic cleansing! And let us also ban the unclean pork!"

In the countryside meanwhile, Vijay took a different approach. He blasted the foreigners who have invaded Tagin land; Hindu and Muslim both!
The people were whipped into a frenzy, this was about more than whether they would be allowed to eat pork or not, it was an attack on their culture!
The day arrives and the results of the referendum come in.

Given the demographics of the state and the two choices on the ballot of meat or no meat It was clear which would win. The 60% of meat eaters dominate the 40% of vegetarians.
Vijay Matthew's work is done. He moves to Delhi to become a journalist.
Now however the governor has a problem. Meat has won a resounding referendum victory!
But it did this off the back of mutually incompatible promises.
He is expected to ban both beef and pork and, via some extra promises made by other campaigners, implement free beef and pork for school children.
The state is screwed.

[Gups]

In the north east of India lies the small state of Tagin Pradesh.

Tagin Pradesh is a very demographically split state.

40% of the population are Hindus. In this small and isolated corner of India they tend to be more devout that the norm. The vast majority of them are vegetarian.
30% of the population are Muslims. They largely live in the urban areas of the province from which they control much of its economy. Due to their religion they of course abhor pork, they do however like beef.
The remaining 30% of the population are from local tribes who due to their location have developed a culture which is a fusion of Chinese and Indian influences. They follow the Hindu probation on beef, however pork lies at the centre of their culture.

The governor of this region has a problem. Though he himself is a very modern, secular Hindu, nationalist forces within his party are demanding that he outlaw all meat consumption. They have visions of Tagin Pradesh leading the world as the first true vegetarian state.
As a compromise the governor offers a compromise; there will be a referendum. Only one source of protein will be admissible in the state. Will it be meat, or tofu?

Surprisingly, the stand out figure of the referendum campaign proves to be Vijay Matthew; a Christian. Christians make up only a nominal proportion of the local population and his involvement seems to have some ulterior motive behind it.
In the cities Matthew campaigns with a conciliatory tone; "Beef should be the choice, it's not like vegetarians will be forced eat it if you don't want to, you can live without protein!
And to my Muslim brothers? Well, you wouldn't want beef banned, would you? That's the first step on the path to a Hindu Theocracy! You must vote to stop ethnic cleansing! And let us also ban the unclean pork!"

In the countryside meanwhile, Vijay took a different approach. He blasted the foreigners who have invaded Tagin land; Hindu and Muslim both!
The people were whipped into a frenzy, this was about more than whether they would be allowed to eat pork or not, it was an attack on their culture!
The day arrives and the results of the referendum come in.

Given the demographics of the state and the two choices on the ballot of meat or no meat It was clear which would win. The 60% of meat eaters dominate the 40% of vegetarians.
Vijay Matthew's work is done. He moves to Delhi to become a journalist.
Now however the governor has a problem. Meat has won a resounding election victory!
But it did this off the back of mutually incompatible promises.

You've been playing Civ too much

[Valmy]

What does that story have to do with Brexit?

[Josquius]

What does that story have to do with Brexit?

Veggies= remainers
Pork eaters= soft brexiters
Beef eaters= hard brexiters

[Zanza]

https://www.ft.com/content/a613ac10-1701-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640

Britain is on a collision course with the EU over fundamental elements of the Brexit transition, as London seeks to potentially extend the period while giving itself the power to reject new EU laws.

A UK position paper, shared with Brussels this week, contains no end date for the transition although British officials maintain it is their intention to set one.

The paper contradicts some key EU negotiating principles and raises the risk of failing to reach a transition deal before a March summit of EU leaders.

The most problematic UK request relates to vetting EU laws it is obliged to follow during the transition, even though it has lost its voice in the EU policymaking process.

[...]

Senior EU negotiators have warned the UK that its suggested revisions create "fundamental" problems that may hold up a transition deal, particularly in areas where the UK wants a voice in the shaping and implementation of new EU laws.

"We cannot give them a veto right that EU member states do not have," said a senior EU official who has seen the UK paper.

The UK proposes a "good faith" clause in the transition deal, to protect it against future decisions intended to undermine UK interests, and a "joint committee" that would decide whether "new acts are necessary".

According to senior diplomats, the EU side views the requests as politically and legally unacceptable and expects London to "back down" if Mrs May is to secure a transition deal by March.

That's just silly. Now Britain wants a de facto veto right over EU legislation or a unilateral opt-out from single market rules that member states don't have...

[The Brain]

https://www.ft.com/content/a613ac10-1701-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640

Britain is on a collision course with the EU over fundamental elements of the Brexit transition, as London seeks to potentially extend the period while giving itself the power to reject new EU laws.

A UK position paper, shared with Brussels this week, contains no end date for the transition although British officials maintain it is their intention to set one.

The paper contradicts some key EU negotiating principles and raises the risk of failing to reach a transition deal before a March summit of EU leaders.

The most problematic UK request relates to vetting EU laws it is obliged to follow during the transition, even though it has lost its voice in the EU policymaking process.

[...]

Senior EU negotiators have warned the UK that its suggested revisions create "fundamental" problems that may hold up a transition deal, particularly in areas where the UK wants a voice in the shaping and implementation of new EU laws.

"We cannot give them a veto right that EU member states do not have," said a senior EU official who has seen the UK paper.

The UK proposes a "good faith" clause in the transition deal, to protect it against future decisions intended to undermine UK interests, and a "joint committee" that would decide whether "new acts are necessary".

According to senior diplomats, the EU side views the requests as politically and legally unacceptable and expects London to "back down" if Mrs May is to secure a transition deal by March.

That's just silly. Now Britain wants a de facto veto right over EU legislation or a unilateral opt-out from single market rules that member states don't have...

Is Britain even getting ready for the no deal solution? Only a year left.

[grumbler]

What does that story have to do with Brexit?

Veggies= remainers = Hufflepuff
Pork eaters= soft brexiters = Ravenclaw
Beef eaters= hard brexiters = Gryffindor

FTFY

[The Brain]

Are beefeaters maesters btw?