Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The battle of Brexit!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by antimony View Post
    Well now your champion JRM or even Boris can claim the hot seat and get the amazing deal everyone has been clamoring for
    lol , everyone ! Noooooo. But it suits me .

    Comment


    • Isn't she a star



      What do you think of royal's role on trumping the second referendum? Queen has voted against, right? Holding weekly audiences with her star

      Almost three years.. British people apparently are keen on changing their minds, from time to time

      Comment


      • Referendums are useless when margins are just a few percent either way.

        Comment


        • Others would claim referenda are useless when there is clear indisputable majority. Or it is always that some argue referendums are useless at all. While the majorities are determined not only by the peoples' interests, but essentially from what they know

          Do you think Elizabeth has certain role in obstructing British people have the final say

          Comment


          • Why will a referendum be useless with a clear indisputable majority ?

            If anything that is what would make a referendum more legitimate than the nominal margin that was thrown up here.

            I argued in my country a two thirds majority was required in both houses to amend a constitution. Had this referendum showed a margin as large it would be harder to argue about.

            The referendum should ideally have been used to gauge sentiment and then it should have been put to vote in both houses. But i suspect there was some obstacle to doing that.

            There was no vote to join the EEC, or get into the ERM and then a month later to exit.

            Comment


            • On many issues, when the will of the people is clear with indisputable majority, politicians feel free to decide along without asking for confirmation. Monarchs, however, are known to decide even against the people, as far as it is harder for people and politicians not to allow

              Comment


              • I thought once article 50 was invoked that there was a hard deadline to be kept to.

                Now i'm learning, actually, that invocation can be revoked or even extended (!)

                So why is a no deal brexit such a problem then ?

                There's not going to be any shortages or blind panic come Apr 1

                Too much drama in this affair

                Leavers win over remainers. ITS THE END OF THE WORLD

                May's deal gets completely defeated. ITS THE END OF THE WORLD

                We will have a no deal brexit. ITS THE END OF THE WORLD

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  I thought once article 50 was invoked that there was a hard deadline to be kept to.

                  Now i'm learning, actually, that invocation can be revoked or even extended (!)
                  In order to extend the deadline all (other) EU member states have to unanimously vote in favour.

                  Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  There's not going to be any shortages or blind panic come Apr 1
                  There are already shortages in prescription drugs in the UK now.

                  Comment


                  • So after the mammoth House of Commons debate yesterday, during which lots of amendments were put forward to UK/EU Withdrawal Bill (for amendments and what was passed in full see; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47033979) Theresa May has been sent back to renegotiate the 'Northern Ireland Backstop' part of the Withdrawal Agreement that they have already spent two years trying to negotiate. One amendment that was defeated would have allowed for a delay in the withdrawal (on 29th March) was defeated giving very limited time for this renegotiation.

                    This is of course one of the classic contradictions in what the 'Brexiteers' want: In part alot of the Brexit crowd are what you might call "English execptionalists"; they believe in some former 'better time' when English (or British) influence permeated the globe but England was still like Tolkien's Shire where Frodo and Bilbo lived. They think there is something 'special' about their 'Englishness' and England "this sceptred isle" in particular. I met alot of these types in UKIP and they are convinced of a sort of fictional 'specialness' and historical 'golden time' which to me seemed pretty absurd first and beside the point secondly. So it is these sorts of delusional 'believers' that are most open to the appeal that "foreigners are taking all the jobs/houses/hospital beds/school places" though of course the English were themselves migrants in first place, that the majority of migration is from Commonwealth countries and these migrants are often seasonal (such as farm workers) or doing jobs that provide vital services (from doctors and nurses to Indian restaurants). These people therefore want the UK to be able to "manage migration" believing, contrary to all evidence, that this will raise their standard of living and make England again more like the imagined 'good time'; a new 'Shire'.

                    Meanwhile in Northern Ireland the peace agreement requires the border to remain open and our English dreamer, who sees themselves as a 'patriot' and a small n 'nationalist' in the lowest sense, is most loathe to give up any territory (Gibraltar included) which would diminish their neo imperial imagination. So at the channel and the airports there must be a 'hard border' but somehow in Northern Ireland the free coming and going across borders must be permitted to continue. Is this a contradiction? Obviously to most sane people it is but apparently not to the Honourable Brexiteers in the House.

                    Comment


                    • It's an emotional thing so making sense does not apply. This is why we see one senseless lurch to another.

                      I get where these people are coming from. They want to make Britain great again. They seem like the only euros that want a place on the global stage. In this sense they are part of the euro vanguard because the rest of Europe could not care less.

                      Foreigners here isn't migrant workers its more what is perceived as euro interference in sovereign space. Even if the intervention is justified, well advised it will be rejected.

                      Squaring a circle is proving to be really hard.

                      Brexiteers don't have enough on their side to leave at the same time remaining is just disaster for them, it means all the UK stood for is going down the tubes, literally.

                      What does British or English even mean at that point.

                      Comment


                      • One of the interesting things I have found concerning the EU from my own point of view, is that your position changes depending on where you are living. I am in favour of European unity as a general concept, the rule of law and the respect for the rights of others. That does not mean that I agree with how the current EU structure runs or some of the ludicrous ideas and policies they have had; the common fisheries policy, common agricultural policy and the total lunacy of trying to impose a single currency on the continent. Stealing from Cyrpriot banks was flat out ECB criminality. All these things (and others) made me critical of the EU when I was living and working in the UK. I never personally had a problem with other Europeans moving to, living and working in the UK; it was great to see a Polish delicatessen start up near where I lived and be able to buy Polish sausages and salami.

                        However from a Ukrainian perspective it looks very different. Sure I know the same problems exist but the Common Agricultural Policy - which was bad from a UK perspective - would immensely benefit Ukraine (if they ever lift the moratorium on the sale/purchase of private agricultural land). The 'development funds', which have been so much benefit to Poland, would be like a huge Marshall Plan for Ukraine and fast forward the whole country into this century, and the level of transparency required (though it is not optimal from a UK perspective) be a vast improvement on the current corruption ridden Ukrainian political class. Even from a Ukrainian perspective I would not advocate joining the euro.

                        So while I see it can depend on ones perspective and all the faults remain I cannot for the life of me see how the UK benefits from quitting the game; "Splendid isolation" is no longer possible. Britain has to be in the game to win it.

                        Comment


                        • dble post.
                          Last edited by snapper; 31 Jan 19,, 18:23.

                          Comment


                          • So, Elizabeth is preparing to evacuate from the mess. Hours before the referendum day she asked for reasons why to stay in Europe, as if had never heard of. This was spread around as final say of the campaign. Reportedly an Eurosceptic, she's been looking for appropriate time ever since John Major's government. In such a responsible manner for the British people
                            Last edited by m a x; 05 Feb 19,, 00:52.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by m a x View Post
                              Hours before the referendum day she asked for reasons why to stay in Europe, as if had never heard of. This was spread around as final say of the campaign.
                              Hours... yeah, that Sun-created fiction back in early March 2016 (!) was "hours before the referendum". You know, the one that both Buckingham Palace and former deputy prime minister Clegg who The Sun claimed as a source immediately debunked as nothing more than the right-wing populist crap that The Sun usually produces. The only ones - outside The Sun - who tries to frame the Queen as a euroskeptic is the Spectator btw, that quite traditional neoconservative atlanticist rag.

                              And yes, of course her crisis evacuation plan has been updated. Anyone would do that in the face of something that according to the British government is equivalent to preparing for a war.

                              Comment


                              • There was another issue in march, but who has addressed it? Nobody from Buckingham Palace has even denied the story that was published the day before the referendum, not only by 'The Sun' though. As for evacuation contingency, they are preparing to save the monarch from the people. War or cold war scenarios are apparently used for cover-up. In a situation where the people have been misled to fall, given no chance to vote informed on the alternatives, and by, not just undenied, but, from my perspective, the obvious purposeful help of the monarch
                                Last edited by m a x; 05 Feb 19,, 20:49.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X