World Brexit: "Technical terms" agreed - Chequers minus, as feared, or Brexit in name only.

The Final Troondown

We're All Suberogatory Down Here
kiwifarms.net
Brexit has finally broken Jonathan Crace

I usually find his columns quite funny but now he just keeps trotting out this 'calssic dom' line which he has decided it simply GENIUS

 

The Final Troondown

We're All Suberogatory Down Here
kiwifarms.net
I was in Malta recently for a holiday. They have adverts on public busses linking to the UK government website to prepare Brits for the 31st October. I checked it out and it's pretty based. If the UK leaves without a deal, according to their site, all UK residents can reapply within 2 years for a 10 year permit. This is based because an EU residence permit (based on work) is only valid for 5, so Brit residents get preferential treatment over EU residents. If they have adverts running in other countries, it is looking pretty legit.

Edit- IIRC, after 10 years, you can apply for citizenship. They are literally guiding British Expats to dual nationality should they so wish.
Malta has deep ties with the british tbf
One branch if my family is from there and there's a very deep cultural tie going back to pre war times

Your mileage may vary
 

Skyclaw

British Wanker
kiwifarms.net
Funny, last time I checked, the Brexit referendum didn't go through with a 100% Leaver vote and I can't seem to recall that there was a 100% approval rate for No-Deal Brexit at all.
Brexit had the faintest of margins over Remain, calling that a "vast majority" is pretty bold. The people who support your view are most likely a minority, since even the ones in favor of Brexit don't necessarily agree with you on everything (and that is assuming, Pro-Brexit is still a majority, which I find doubtful at best).
Saying that the politicians do not "represent the people" is equally bold. They just represent a different -large- part of the people. No need for magniloquent quotes about the inevitability of violent revolution.

The point is, you might wanna chill out.


:story: what are you, a Taliban?
Fine. "You" told them what to do for three years. Just like a whole other bunch of voters.

I mean, sure, Brexit is a shitshow cause your politicians can't pull their shit together and decide on what they want and how they want to achieve that goal. I'd be frustrated, too, honestly. But going on tirades justifying death threats is a bit much.
I'd like you to try that argument on the 13 colonies; "c'mon guys there's no need to be rude to teh crown..i'm sure if we keep asking politely for representation that eventually they'll give it to us, it may take a few years maybe even decades but if we are rude to them we are no better than a bunch of ragheads in a wasteland on the otherside of the planet"

to the bolded part, i have absolutely no issue with remain mp's representing their constituencies if they also voted remain, my issue if leave areas being represented by a remain mp because that goes against what the people in that area want.
 

The Final Troondown

We're All Suberogatory Down Here
kiwifarms.net
Best way to get a good deal is to ramp up trident
All values are subjective and nothing makes a subjective bad into a subjective good like making 'not dying in a nuclear inferno' as a ride along
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Unog

RomanesEuntDomus

May contain nuts.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Absolutely rich! You claim that because Brexit vote wasn't 100% we should just tolerate the ignoring of a referendum?
Never said that.

Want to move the goalposts and say now there must be an OVERWELMING majority in favor of this or that instead of, you know, just having enough votes to win elections or referendums? Okay, that's cool.
You are the one who claims to speak with the authority of a "vast majority". You don't.
My point is that you say the will of the people is betrayed, as if you were the one who decides that. You don't.
And just to add some irony, your point is literally "I don't get my way politically, therefore democracy is ruined and we need to threaten them with terrorism and overthrow the government".
That's my whole point.

How you'd ever get the idea that I actually defend (let alone support) the UK government is beyond me, especially when I've already said that your goverment is incompetent and called the current proceedings a shitshow.
See you during the revolution.
Turbo Story.png


And oh by the by, why is it okay for the SNP to be openly seditious and the Irish to low key threaten Troubles 2.0 if Ireland is not kept whole; yet HOW DARE brexiteers threaten violence against politicians subverting the democratic process and trying to undo brexit?
Since I've never even remotely said such a thing, I have no clue why you'd ask me this.

Not to mention the Labour party's flirtations with revolutionary communism AND radical Islam. It's almost like one side has to sit down and shut up when they lose, but the other side can overthrow the government if they feel big daddy Marx's plans aren't being advanced quick enough. Hmmmmm big think there.
It's obvious you came into this debate with a lot of baggage.
None of that is my problem, tbh.

Hasn't the EU said Brexit happens in the 31st with or without a deal?
Some politicians mused that they might only grant an extension if it's tied to something to guarantee some progress in the Brexit ordeal.
However, the thing floating around was maybe doing another referendum, which I am absolutely opposed to.

Just handing out an extension in hopes that the UK parliament might finally get their shit together is pointless. They had 3 years and couldn't make it. Then they had 6 more months and couldn't make it. If they want a new extension, they need to deliver something (hell if I know what that might be) that would justify such an extension.
If it's just something to waste even more time, having meandering talks that go nowhere, they should not be given more time.

I'd like you to try that argument on the 13 colonies; "c'mon guys there's no need to be rude to teh crown..i'm sure if we keep asking politely for representation that eventually they'll give it to us, it may take a few years maybe even decades but if we are rude to them we are no better than a bunch of ragheads in a wasteland on the otherside of the planet"
While that is an interesting parallel, I think it's a bit off the mark.
The political situation seems less comparable outside the vaguest "People demand something, but not outright getting it" oversimplification.
A tiny majority voted in favor of Brexit, the government is working towards a Brexit, but they are not doing a very good job at it - mainly cause the goverment simply can't decide on what they want.
The biggest problem doesn't seem to be on whether the UK will leave or not, but rather on which terms they will leave (doubt as to the goverment starting a new referendum to stop Brexit aside, that is). Some want No-Deal and WTO rules, some want "just a little Brexit" (ie: Brexit in name only), I guess the current deal has some supporters, too.
Sure, a lot of people do not get the deal they wanted (and frankly, some Leavers learned the hard way that their 2016 ideas about a possible Brexit deal might have been a tad megalomanic), but the government is still doing their job of cobbling together a Brexit deal.
The point is: there's a lot of different demands floating around, ranging from Hard Brexit to Stop Brexit. The majority of people will not get what they want, no matter what deal is made, since they all demand different deals. There's possibility A, B, C and D, if it's A, then B, C and D will be unhappy. If it's B, then A, C and D will be unhappy.

The majority is going to get fucked over in the deal, no matter what, but the problem is: There is no single alternative that a majority supports (at least to my knowledge).
That is why I don't think there is something to be demanded with the authority of the majority. It's not like 75% (or even 50.1%) of the population demand "A" and the goverment is doing "B". There was a tiny fraction of people more in favor of Brexit, but the exact situation after a Brexit, the deal with the EU and so on, that simply wasn't on the table and people had their wildest dreams of what awesome concessions they'd get from the EU. Turns out: Not a whole lot. People now in part feel betrayed and think (for instance) that May intentionally made a shitty deal to punish the UK - a notion you'll see in this thread, too.

This is a lot of words to say:
I simply don't think that we've reached a point where threats of assassination or outright revolution is justified.

to the bolded part, i have absolutely no issue with remain mp's representing their constituencies if they also voted remain, my issue if leave areas being represented by a remain mp because that goes against what the people in that area want.
I guess this applies to constituencies where there was no election since the Brexit referendum?
Be that as it may, the politicians in question have been elected, so they are democratically legitimized - that one question of Brexit isn't that much of a deciding factor I would argue. It's important, yes, but it's not like that's the only political issue on their table. Or, to put it differently: What does it matter if some local politician from Lutton, Lincolnshire, supports Brexit or not. I doubt that he has much sway in parliament (then again, I have to admit I don't know how this is handled politically, so if they do have power to make decisions regarding Brexit, I do understand the issue).
And if the people of that constituency see that differently, they still can protest against the politician and demand him stepping down in favor of a new election... or at least to hold a referendum on how the guy should decide, in case he his vote matters in some proceeding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alba gu brath

iRON-mAn

kiwifarms.net
A tiny majority voted in favor of Brexit, the government is working towards a Brexit, but they are not doing a very good job at it - mainly cause the goverment simply can't decide on what they want.
If by government you mean the party in power then yes, they're working towards it, but if you mean parliament as a whole, then no. The SNP want to remain, Libdems want another referendum, Labour are pretty wishy washy but the last concrete plan I heard from them was that they want to make a deal that keeps close ties with the EU, and will then campaign to revoke article 50 entirely. That's why the government isn't doing a very good job of it, because no one is debating the best way to leave, irregardless of the concessions or how much leaving we actually do, they're still debating the very act of leaving in the first place.


The majority is going to get fucked over in the deal, no matter what, but the problem is: There is no single alternative that a majority supports (at least to my knowledge).
The other side is equally fractured though, it just comes up less because everyone is arguing about leaving. There are pro-euro MPs that want everything to go back the way it was exactly, there are MPs who want even closer ties with Europe, there are those who think it's better if we're in the EU but still want to pay less money or adopt less of their laws (like the opposite of brexit in name only), etc etc.

Even though leave won, regardless of the margins, it seems like parliament is more interested in debating which of those groups we need to make concessions too, rather than which deal provides the best post-brexit world for the UK.

There was a tiny fraction of people more in favor of Brexit, but the exact situation after a Brexit, the deal with the EU and so on, that simply wasn't on the table and people had their wildest dreams of what awesome concessions they'd get from the EU. Turns out: Not a whole lot. People now in part feel betrayed and think (for instance) that May intentionally made a shitty deal to punish the UK - a notion you'll see in this thread, too.
It's not the lack of concessions from the EU that's got people mad, though maybe it would if they had time to get angry about it. No, they're too busy being upset because their own government is infighting so badly that they're not even dedicated to seeing out the result of the referendum. Ok, leave won by the faintest of margins, but it still won. Even if they want to argue for a deal that maintains close ties, okay fine, do that, but they're not even doing that, they still disputing whether we should leave at all.

I mean, I don't actually disagree with your overall point. Threats and terrorism isn't helping, but I can also understand the anger of a lot of people who feel like they're being ignored in favor of this continued tug of war over leave and remain.
 

Alba gu brath

kiwifarms.net
Hasn't the EU said Brexit happens in the 31st with or without a deal?
Not really, technically, it'll go ahead on the thirty first due to the extension and deadline having run out by then, but they haven't said no to any further extensions beyond that point. The commons passed a law, or bill, stating that government must do anything it can to avoid a no deal, and another bill telling Boris to ask for another extension. It's pretty much just a waiting game right about now.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Botchy Galoop

CWCissey

Charming Man
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Not really, technically, it'll go ahead on the thirty first due to the extension and deadline having run out by then, but they haven't said no to any further extensions beyond that point. The commons passed a law, or bill, stating that government must do anything it can to avoid a no deal, and another bill telling Boris to ask for another extension. It's pretty much just a waiting game right about now.
The EU members would have to vote unanimously to approve an extension too. Ireland's expressed that they're fed up, France too and there are rumours that Boris has been courting the Hungarians to veto an extension.

If this happens Boris gets to say 'Lol I did my best, this is Europe's fault, how about your precious EU now?' and I get to laugh at REEEEEmainers losing their minds.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Exterminatus

Alba gu brath

kiwifarms.net
The EU members would have to vote unanimously to approve an extension too. Ireland's expressed that they're fed up, France too and there are rumours that Boris has been courting the Hungarians to veto an extension.

If this happens Boris gets to say 'Lol I did my best, this is Europe's fault, how about your precious EU now?' and I get to laugh at REEEEEmainers losing their minds.
The republic being fed up is one thing, but a hard border needing to be drastically implemented along the north would be more irksome than haggling over exactly how they're going to manage it for the future.

The guy can barely court his own party, if you're expecting actual diplomatic skills from a bumbling cuif, well, you get what you pay for I suppose. The Hungarians might be one of the few people he hasn't called donkey fuckers at this point, heh.
 

Ma Wang

kiwifarms.net
I'd like you to try that argument on the 13 colonies; "c'mon guys there's no need to be rude to teh crown..i'm sure if we keep asking politely for representation that eventually they'll give it to us, it may take a few years maybe even decades but if we are rude to them we are no better than a bunch of ragheads in a wasteland on the otherside of the planet"
There were people like that. They ended up in Canada.
 

Alba gu brath

kiwifarms.net
The EU members would have to vote unanimously to approve an extension too. Ireland's expressed that they're fed up, France too and there are rumours that Boris has been courting the Hungarians to veto an extension.

If this happens Boris gets to say 'Lol I did my best, this is Europe's fault, how about your precious EU now?' and I get to laugh at REEEEEmainers losing their minds.

Not to bombard ya with replies, CWC, just dropping this this in:

Could be that's out of date and something else has come out about them going for the block, but if he was trying to get them to do so, doesn't seem to have worked. At least from what that says.
 

Krokodil Overdose

[|][||][||][|_]
kiwifarms.net
A tiny majority voted in favor of Brexit, the government is working towards a Brexit, but they are not doing a very good job at it - mainly cause the goverment simply can't decide on what they want.
52-48 is not "a tiny majority," especially in a country that typically uses a first-past-the-post system (look at the 2015 election results w/r/t UKIP if you don't believe me.) Sure, it's not a supermajority, but it's enough to carry an up-or-down vote with no questions about margin of error anything like that.

That said, though, the bolded part is where you're wrong. The government, in it's current state, is not working towards a Brexit, considering that they just passed a law requiring themselves to throw away their own leverage. What we're seeing is the Britbong version of what American Republicans are entirely familiar with: failure theater. The people in charge don't want Brexit, so they're putting on a show of attempting it so as not to alienate the voters while doing their damnedest to make sure it never actually happens. They want to be able to say "oh, well, we tired to give you what you want, but it was just too gosh-darn hard, here, take this spiked dildo up the ass from the EU because it's the best deal you're going to get" and proceed with business as usual. That's why all this bellyaching about "muh deeeeeellll!" came out of the woodwork when May (who was blatantly trying to spike the ball on leaving) got replaced by Johnson (who looked like he might actually do it.) The complaint isn't the issue, the complaint is the pretext for jamming up the gears to prevent any kind of disentangling from the EU from actually happening.

Think about the double-bind they're trying to put Johnson in: they won't accept No Deal, nor will they accept any deal that he offers. What is this other than a blatant sabotage attempt?
 

RomanesEuntDomus

May contain nuts.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I like your post and generally agree with your point, however referring to the slightly larger margin in a binary choice election as "a tiny majority" is disingenuous and minimizing, I think.
I apologize if I made the decision seem illegitimate or anything. Of course, the referendum went through with a certain, all-to-well-known result. It was not my intention to make it look insignificant, I just wanted to highlight that even though it was a clear decision, the margin between Leave and Remain was pretty slim and thus you inevitably have a lot of people on both sides demanding different things in significant numbers. That's part of my argument, that the government, while doing a shoddy job, are pretty much bound to disappoint a lot of people, if only cause there is no "This is the exact thing everybody wants" situation. You'll always have a few people that are happy with the result and a whole lot of people who are unhappy with it, no matter what result your have.

If by government you mean the party in power then yes, they're working towards it, but if you mean parliament as a whole, then no. The SNP want to remain, Libdems want another referendum, Labour are pretty wishy washy but the last concrete plan I heard from them was that they want to make a deal that keeps close ties with the EU, and will then campaign to revoke article 50 entirely. That's why the government isn't doing a very good job of it, because no one is debating the best way to leave, irregardless of the concessions or how much leaving we actually do, they're still debating the very act of leaving in the first place.
Well, I didn't make that distinction, even though it's important.
Everyone thinks they have the be-all-end-all solution on their hands and this has send them into a stall for years now.
Do they really mainly argue over whether the UK should leave or not? I mean, I would not approve of a second referendum, but that would at least set the record straight as to what the people want.

The other side is equally fractured though, it just comes up less because everyone is arguing about leaving. There are pro-euro MPs that want everything to go back the way it was exactly, there are MPs who want even closer ties with Europe, there are those who think it's better if we're in the EU but still want to pay less money or adopt less of their laws (like the opposite of brexit in name only), etc etc.

Even though leave won, regardless of the margins, it seems like parliament is more interested in debating which of those groups we need to make concessions too, rather than which deal provides the best post-brexit world for the UK.
It seems their focus is completely wrong, but to a certain degree, I think a major part of that problem is, that everyone has a subjective opinion of what is best. It's not like some politician chooses some bad deal knowingly out of spite. They think that their deal is in the best interest of the UK and everyone else disagrees, cause they, too, think their deal is better. I'd even argue, there is no objectively superior deal, since it really depends on what the end goal is for the individual.
To some, the independence of the Hard Brexit is better, to some, close ties to the EU are better. That makes it very hard to come to terms and no one wants to back down.

I mean, I don't actually disagree with your overall point. Threats and terrorism isn't helping, but I can also understand the anger of a lot of people who feel like they're being ignored in favor of this continued tug of war over leave and remain.
I can understand this anger, too, it's absolutely ridiculous that the politicians can't get their job done. It seems all politicians are busy engaging in schemes upon schemes to gain or retain power instead of doing their best to solve the problem.

A problem of today seems to be that political debate has become pretty much useless, no matter how much politicians debate, there is no outcome, it's just an exchange of namecalling and opinions without doing anything... and Brexit is something massive, where you'd need people to work their ass off, to get it done. Instead, they argue in futile arguments...

52-48 is not "a tiny majority," especially in a country that typically uses a first-past-the-post system (look at the 2015 election results w/r/t UKIP if you don't believe me.) Sure, it's not a supermajority, but it's enough to carry an up-or-down vote with no questions about margin of error anything like that.
As stated above, my intention was not to insinuate that there was only a small difference between the two sides and therefore the result is invalid. I simply never said that.
The point is that there's two almost equally large camps in the UK who meddle with the outcome. If it had been a 75% leave vote, this shit would be a lot easier.

Think about the double-bind they're trying to put Johnson in: they won't accept No Deal, nor will they accept any deal that he offers.
Wasn't the decision that Johnson was not to leave without a deal? Where does the "They will not accept any deal that he offers" part?
Genuine question.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Unog

Unog

You're a nog.
kiwifarms.net
I apologize if I made the decision seem illegitimate or anything. Of course, the referendum went through with a certain, all-to-well-known result. It was not my intention to make it look insignificant, I just wanted to highlight that even though it was a clear decision, the margin between Leave and Remain was pretty slim and thus you inevitably have a lot of people on both sides demanding different things in significant numbers. That's part of my argument, that the government, while doing a shoddy job, are pretty much bound to disappoint a lot of people, if only cause there is no "This is the exact thing everybody wants" situation. You'll always have a few people that are happy with the result and a whole lot of people who are unhappy with it, no matter what result your have.
You're still cutting across the point. This was a rather binary choice, and the government has made it clear that they are what the limeys call "waffling" on it on purpose, to the dissatisfaction of those who voted for them.

In the case of a binary election, the choice is do it or don't. It can't be overstated that the people chose "don't", and while I can agree that direct democracy is foolhardy at best, this isn't something that a government should treat as "half voted for and half voted against" in such a particular vote.

This is like asking the populace "would you like pepperoni or sausage on your pizza", getting the answer "pepperoni", then debating if it still counts if you use salami or go with sausage as long as it's pork-based as long as possible because you hate pepperoni at all costs, and some third-party will conveniently make the decision for you if you just keep deliberating long enough to not have to eat the pepperoni.
 

RomanesEuntDomus

May contain nuts.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
You're still cutting across the point. This was a rather binary choice, and the government has made it clear that they are what the limeys call "waffling" on it on purpose, to the dissatisfaction of those who voted for them.

In the case of a binary election, the choice is do it or don't. It can't be overstated that the people chose "don't", and while I can agree that direct democracy is foolhardy at best, this isn't something that a government should treat as "half voted for and half voted against" in such a particular vote.

This is like asking the populace "would you like pepperoni or sausage on your pizza", getting the answer "pepperoni", then debating if it still counts if you use salami or go with sausage as long as it's pork-based as long as possible because you hate pepperoni at all costs, and some third-party will conveniently make the decision for you if you just keep deliberating long enough to not have to eat the pepperoni.
I never said the government should treat it as something where half voted in favor and half voted against, so they can just merrily flip-flop on the issue and do whatever they feel like it, quite the opposite.

What I am saying is, that there is no clear cut way to do a Brexit that will satisfy those who voted for Brexit - let alone remainers. No matter the result, people will always feel betrayed. Specifically, the part where I wrote "there is no "This is the exact thing everybody wants" situation", that wasn't about whether Brexit should happen or not, it was about the Brexit Deal itself.
There simply is no deal that a majority of leavers will support. At least that's my impression, are there polls that cover this topic?
I wonder how many leavers would be in favor of the current deal or hard Brexit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unog

Unog

You're a nog.
kiwifarms.net
I never said the government should treat it as something where half voted in favor and half voted against, so they can just merrily flip-flop on the issue and do whatever they feel like it, quite the opposite.

What I am saying is, that there is no clear cut way to do a Brexit that will satisfy those who voted for Brexit - let alone remainers. No matter the result, people will always feel betrayed.
See, you make these as two separate points, and I agree when they're separate. But to say "they aren't defying the will of the people" when what they are doing, by the literal and legal definitions of the vote is defying the will of the people, I disagree.

There's more than one way to obstruct a duly elected decision of the populace as much as there is more than one way to lie or deceive others.

What I am saying is, to put it bluntly and forego all of the rhetorical foreplay, is that it doesn't matter if there's a clear-cut way to do it. The fact that they're making it so god-damned blatantly obvious that they intend to ignore what was to be considered a concrete end to the matter is unacceptable in any democratic society. This is literally the government trying their damnedest to avoid the outcome of what they sold the people as a binary, fair, and absolute decision that only the voting populace had control over.

To get angry - or even violent - over such a display isn't beyond reason.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JohnDoe

Irrelevant

kiwifarms.net
A common misconception about the American revolutionaries is they were pissed at the king. They were pissed at parliament first.

Parliament kept passing taxes without representation so the colonists asked the king to block assent but even back then the monarch hadn't blocked a bill for 70 years and so wasn't going to act.



Congress organized a boycott of British goods and petitioned the king for repeal of the acts. These measures were unsuccessful because King George and the ministry of Prime Minister Lord North were determined to enforce parliamentary supremacy in America.
"Supremacy of parliament" is the same reason they use for all the court actions against Brexit (though in the revolution it was parliament over the king and with Brexit it's parliament over the government).

Many colonists no longer believed that Parliament had any sovereignty over them, yet they still professed loyalty to King George, who they hoped would intercede on their behalf. They were disappointed in late 1775 when the king rejected Congress's second petition, issued a Proclamation of Rebellion, and announced before Parliament on October 26 that he was considering "friendly offers of foreign assistance" to suppress the rebellion.[22] A pro-American minority in Parliament warned that the government was driving the colonists toward independence.
Their overestimating the power of the monarch is probably the reason why the US president ended up so powerful.


Indeed, better-informed Americans fully understood this. "We elect a king for four years", Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of State once observed, "and give him absolute power within certain limits, which after all he can interpret for himself". Some commentators went even further, insisting that although America claimed to be a republic, because it had no hereditary sovereign, it was in reality a disguised monarchy - whereas Britain might claim to be a monarchy, because it had a royal head of state, but it was in fact a concealed republic, because the politicians rather than the sovereign were actually in charge. In the words of one late 19th Century American newspaper: "Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king." That may not have been the whole truth of things then, and it is not the whole truth of things now, but it should certainly give both President Obama, and also his Republican critics, some food for thought - to say nothing of the occupants of 10 Downing Street and of Buckingham Palace.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino