No, because
a) people would confuse us for the sheep-shaggers
and
b) there's no way I'll be able to paint that on my face for the Euros without it looking like a scabby dog.

>>444243
You could always take the Vorderman approach and have it emblazoned across your chest.

Why bother with half-measures? Kick out the Anglo-Saxons first, then lets talk.

>>444247

A sixty year old woman having such a magnificent arse is a crime against god and nature. I love it.

I don't think there was such a thing as "flags" before the Normans. Would we have to change the Union Flag too? It'll look a bit odd with the cross of St Andrew behind, but then we'll only have to look at it for a couple of months so it won't matter much.

>>444261
>I don't think there was such a thing as "flags" before the Normans

IIRC, one of the key reasons the Normans made St. George the patron Saint of England is because of the symbolism of him slaying the dragon representing how they were overwriting Anglo-Saxon culture with their own.

If you're gonna do summat do it reyt.

I can see it if you have Scotland and Northern Ireland leave. Then the EW-flag can be both dragons standing back to back as pals.

Or just have them hanging out. Every flag can be a different adventure for the dragon-lads - pubs can have dragons having a pint, hotels have them visiting a local landmark, sex-shops have them uncomfortably looking away from each other after a night only one of them would rather forget. Foreigners might complain that the lack of uniformity can get confusing but they haven't leg to stand on with their generic barcode flags.

>>444264
There's already a sex shop dragon logo.

>>444263
I think I have a better idea to an anti-democratic system of government devised by people with a chip on their shoulder about the English.

>>444263
If you want to have a serious discussion about a federal Britain don't presume people are going to go back to calling the North 'Danelaw' and the Midlands 'Mercia'.

>>444262
Nah, it came about around 500 years ago ue to widespread adoption of St George symbolism during the Hundred Years War mostly, following on from the Crusades.

>>444277

What's anti-democratic about it?

>>444278

Let's have a serious discussion then. I pulled that image off the first page of Google images, what would it look like to you?

>>444283
>What's anti-democratic about it?

By its nature a federation goes against the concept of majority rule. In Britain this is even worse as it implicitly means a constitutional arrangement above the will of democratically elected officials.

>>444286

>By its nature a federation goes against the concept of majority rule

How so? There are a good number of Western democratic countries that have federal structures, and they don't seem to struggle with majority rule.

>>444286
That is not, even remotely, how any of that works.

>>444278

I'd love to consider the idea of Federalism, but successive Governments have been absoultely determined to ignore any positive examples of it, and, by consequence, scuppered any foundation for it due the the fear of skilled people becoming knowledgeable and empowered, if not the dilution of their control. Until this fear is assuaged, The UK will never again have a reputation as a High-Tech, Low-Carbon, innovator, even if we do have the burgeoning capability. Small-minded thinking will forever ensure that we cannot follow the G*rm*ny Example.

>>444289
The federal structure of the United States was literally designed to avoid the most populous states dominating the country. Degressive proportionality is a system that by design robs power from areas with high-population and rewards those with low.

>>444291
>hurr durr I'm a huge retard

Come back with an argument.

>>444302
You know, >444291 was very polite and you're acting like a bit of a fuckwit, so don't do that, yeah?

>>444303
Doesn't really seem that offensive, he's only >implying

>>444303
He wasn't that polite, to be fair. I often feel offended when I get a "Nope!" reply. But he was still far more polite than
>>444302 this undesirable was.

Federalism means politics is more local, and therefore more representative at the immediate level. If your local MP represented your interests to 25 other MPs in the local parliament of Rudefuckfaceshire, I'm sure he'd have a lot more of a say in things than if he was competing for attention with 650 others in Westminster.

>>444311

>he's only >implying

Yes, exactly. We don't do that.

>>444311
As >>444313 says, we don't do >implying. You can get away with doing the same thing if you use quotation marks.

>>444312
The issue with making politics more local is that you usually wind up fragmenting power on the big issues. If it's about getting my bins sorted, sure, have him sit with 25 other people arguing about it locally - but if unemployment is skyrocketing I don't want a fancy local council like Holyrood talking about cutting education to fund some homeless shelters, I want a national government putting together a giant investment program. On similar lines it's quite possible to find yourself in a situation where a majority of the population want something but a majority of the states don't - especially in a country like ours with big regional disparities. Depending on the constitution and how you represent people on the national level, it might be an ungodly faff to do something like re-distributive taxation.

A unitary state with devolution seems like a much happier medium. You get your local talking shop, and sometimes you even get damn good things out of it, but when its national election time you can just carry on as normal.

>>444312
>Federalism means politics is more local, and therefore more representative at the immediate level. If your local MP represented your interests to 25 other MPs in the local parliament of Rudefuckfaceshire, I'm sure he'd have a lot more of a say in things than if he was competing for attention with 650 others in Westminster.

You're confusing devolved powers (to regional and local institutions) with federalism. With federalism the local authority has a defined right as an equal to the federal government that makes it not subject to national authority in certain areas, say the 1 person living in Gobacktorudgwicksteamshow.co.ukshire wanted to keep cruel stag hunting but the rest of The United States of Whatever voted to ban it.

The problem with federalism also comes in how power is shifted on a constitutional level to a consensus of states rather than a consensus of people (this is why Americans get presidents who lose the popular vote). A new power structure is created based on circumstantial divisions, gerrymandering and identity politics. In UK political thought a federalist argument is that that the Brexit referendum needed a consensus of regions rather than a simple democratic majority - a qualifier on democratic outcomes, something that would most certainly not be fair to English and Welsh voters. I don't see how you would call the system anything but less democratic by design.

>>444313
>>444314
We've used '>' as a quotation mark for years. This isn't the elite club you think it is, hurling abuse at people who can't string together an argument is much more the .gs way.

>>444317

Quotation mark yes, >implying, no. Even 4channers know the difference.

I don't know why we're arguing, the thing he was doing wasn't even >implying. >implying is it's own meme, like:

>implying I give enough of a shit about this to keep typing
>implying I'm not going to do it anyway
>implying etc

He was just misrepresenting by quotation, which is something we have always done.

t. been here long enough to remember simon and the chair

>>444317

>We've used '>' as a quotation mark for years.

">implying" is a very different thing to using > to quote.

>This isn't the elite club you think it is

It definitely is though.

>>444319

>I'm a carpet-bagger

>>444322

Yeah see? We have definitely had posts like that over the years. It's just low hanging fruit, so by now you should know to try harder.

Why have a flag at all? Let's return to proper Neolithic British Tradition like making goalposts out of big stones.

>>>444319
This him?

>He was just misrepresenting by quotation, which is something we have always done.
That's what my usage of >implying was implying, I hope that got across.

>>444325
But that would be change, and you know how I feel about that.

>>444318
>>444321
Implying is always stated on the otherplace. At least that's what I remember.

Although I will say that I'm inferring based on the evidence and using that to put words in his mouth, I'm directly saying he's mentally handicapped rather than indirectly suggesting.

>>444332
>Implying is always stated on the otherplace.
Not necessarily. There was a time when it was like that, but that's just because people enjoyed doing it and I doubt it was exclusive even then. Sometimes you can just let the context fill in the blanks, and if there's not enough context, you can add a Costanza image to subliminally add context.

>He thinks I don't have several Costanza images saved for this exact purpose

ITT a bunch of newlads. >implying died out about ten years ago.

Apparently there's a group called the White Pendragons who tried to perform a citizens arrest on Sadiq Khan a few years back, using the Magna Carta as justification.

It's the Venn diagram crossover we've all been hoping for Freemen on the Land and the far-right.

>>444343
Your conclusion appears to be the opposite of what your evidence supports.

>>444348
So what you're saying is that there is a relationship between what's being said and the facts?

>>444349
Insofar that it appears to be wrong.

>>444348
I was going to say something but I didn't want to. I recall >implying being a thing around the time where getting lpotn was still a notable event.

I was going to ask if there was an unlisted, 10 year+ board where we can just be exclusive cunts, but I only remember the one which played hell with your browser.

The manifesto seems to have aged a bit, still quite fun and you can imagine the impotent wrath of a youngish purple putting the world to rights from his shed.

I've been banned all the way into lower earth's orbit before for deliberately misquoting another poster here before so I feel like this is some sort of gas lighting. I am willing to believe the mod who banned me was the person I was quoting though and simply had no other retort for me looking onto their soul and delivering my biting criticism of them saying herps and drops and professing their retardation, so resorted to violence. So this might just be a 'when *I* do it it is okay' scenario right now.

>>444354
Frivolous bans are a fine tradition, as is hypocrisy and misquoting and evasion of said bans.

It's all a delicate balance.

>>444355

>Herp a derp I was that mod retard and it's no skin off my nose if my rage ban inconvenienced you

J'accuse!

>>444357
No, though I did teabag one of them once in 2009 (I'm sorry, I was a shit), so if it was the same mod then you can consider that pre-emptive vengeance. I think that was the same night I dropped a fresh pizza face down on the pavement and then picked it up and started to eat it.

>>444354
Have a whinge there, cuz.

>>444357
That sounds like chimpspeak to me.

>>444360

I've always assumed that phrase to mean "Iam a mod who was trolled to tears and deflecting". That seemed to be where it is most used, good impression otherwise.

>>444363

I put it to you that it is in fact you who is the teary bumder.

>>444365
I'll teary in your bumder

>>444363
Revenge lad is back! He's been analysing all our posts and basically we're fucking stupid.

Click here to find out how.

>>444367
I think you're giving revengelad too much credit.

>>444368

Few posters even consider the possibility of shit posters from other message boards.

And yet across the gulf of space minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded our website with envious eyes, and slowly and surely, they drew their plans against us.

Pendragon flag spotted at today's anti-vaxx March in York. Those hippies seem to love flying it.