• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • poVoq@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.