https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/desperation-us-scours-countries-willing-house-afghan-refugees-2021-08-13/
I refuse to stand in solidarity with people who don't believe that I deserve the same basic rights that they do. The second they get thrown a bone, they will leave transgender people, communists, liberals, leftists, atheists, Muslims, immigrants, and everyone else who isn't like them to twist in the wind.
I don't compromise on basic decency because of someone's identity. I can't find common ground with people who think that my identity isn't valid. I can't find common ground with people who don't believe in science and who refuse to learn when they are instructed. I cannot find common ground with people who are antivax conspiracy theorists.
I'm sorry, but I will never be part of any movement that makes concessions to the ideologies that are directly responsible for the problem. Call me crazy, but I'd rather just sit and do nothing because the end result for me will be exactly the same - no significant improvement.
Edit: I genuinely appreciate all the engagement here. I've read every direct comment. I'm sympathetic to the accusations that this is fighting a culture war instead of a class war. I would just personally rather fight the culture that creates and sustains the class division in the first place. It's something I've been fighting my whole life, and I won't stop doing that just so people can feel better about the numbers. And yes, I'm very clearly working for the billionaires, you can tell by my posts on r/Futurama and r/howyoudoin. Dead giveaway.
I don't understand parliamentary procedure (because I'm not a massive nerd), but doesn't this seem like an opportunity for Labour to get some solid social-democratic policy added to the bill?
Something like guaranteed full pay from day one when off due to illness (rather than the appalling current statutory sick pay system) would probably do more to help stop the spread of Covid than some of the other mitigations. And it's intrinsically sound pro-worker politics. I'm not sure why the Labour front bench aren't doing more on this.
Mike Nickel's concession speech has the same energy as that guy you're about to unmatch on Tinder because you won't send nudes and you're an ugly whore and he wasn't interested anyways.
And god help us, there's nothing to do about it except either normalize mass death or organize.
I see a lot of misunderstanding on what the EU is offering ("80% reduction of checks). Here is some background:
Art 5.1 of the NIP states that no checks are required "for a good brought into Northern Ireland from another part of the United Kingdom by direct transport, .., unless that good is at risk of subsequently being moved into the Union"
The question is then "which goods are at risk of going into the Union?"
Art 5.2 clarifies that those criteria are to be determined by the Joint Committee.
A typical example would be a system of Trusted Transporters. If Tesco says that this truck of deliveries is for NI Tesco's, then there is no need to check that (there go 80% of your checks). But you still do spot checks, even on the Tesco truck (there is your 20% remaining checks). So EU is proposing a 1/5 random check.
So the irony here is that this could have been done from day1. But UK fails to commit to a decision, as it wants "no checks", even on goods that are clearly intended for Ireland. As long as there are no BCP/Border Control Posts, it is not possible to determine which goods are clearly intended for NI.
Right now, since there are no rules, the EU assumes that everything that comes across the wet border, risks ending up in the Single Market.
TL;DR: the EU isn't giving concessions, it is merely explaining that if the UK were to help implement the existing rules, 80% of checks on goods for NI could be avoided.
)