Brexit discussion thread II

murphthesmurf

flatty wrote: »

Rochdale is more than 50% Asian. I have no idea how they voted. I do know that some elderly white people I have met there are afraid to walk in town at night because they fear that being white makes them a target for violence. Whether it does or not, I have no idea, but that's what more than one think (our business is on a busy thoroughfare, and several have spontaneously remarked that they wouldn't dare walk there after dark due to being white)
You can argue against the rights, wrongs and morals. You can strawman til you're blue in the face, but it is just a fact.
Have you ever been there, as a matter of interest?

There are many places like this accross the UK, a lot of the Birmingham area, Leicester, Bradford, and many others.
You cannot judge immigration purely financially as most of the posters seem to be doing. The attitude is that if the country is making a few quid from them then everything is grand. No it's not. Most of you have never lived there in the areas most effected. The area I grew up in has been decimated by immigration, my parents are elderly and still live there. I wish I could have bought them with me. Most of you really have no idea what you are talking about and just follow the trendy views on multiculturalism. I had 36yrs experience living in an area of high immigration with friends and colleagues from every type of background you could think of. There are ghettos where white people don't go.
But I'm just a racist xenophobe.
You are right though in a way, the British took out their anger and desperation on the wrong target with the EU. The Polish and other eastern Europeans are honest hard working people who have been caught up in something that was not there making.

Mezcita

murphthesmurf wrote: »

There are many places like this accross the UK, a lot of the Birmingham area, Leicester, Bradford, and many others.
You cannot judge immigration purely financially as most of the posters seem to be doing. The attitude is that if the country is making a few quid from them then everything is grand. No it's not. Most of you have never lived there in the areas most effected. The area I grew up in has been decimated by immigration, my parents are elderly and still live there. I wish I could have bought them with me. Most of you really have no idea what you are talking about and just follow the trendy views on multiculturalism. I had 36yrs experience living in an area of high immigration with friends and colleagues from every type of background you could think of. There are ghettos where white people don't go.
But I'm just a racist xenophobe.
You are right though in a way, the British took out their anger and desperation on the wrong target with the EU. The Polish and other eastern Europeans are honest hard working people who have been caught up in something that was not there making.

What do you mean by "decimated by immigration"? In what way?

cml387

murphthesmurf wrote: »

You are right though in a way, the British took out their anger and desperation on the wrong target with the EU. The Polish and other eastern Europeans are honest hard working people who have been caught up in something that was not there making.

Well exactly. The vote for Brexit was on the basis of the wrong target.

Something everyone has been saying here ever since last June 12 months.

listermint

murphthesmurf wrote: »

There are many places like this accross the UK, a lot of the Birmingham area, Leicester, Bradford, and many others.
You cannot judge immigration purely financially as most of the posters seem to be doing. The attitude is that if the country is making a few quid from them then everything is grand. No it's not. Most of you have never lived there in the areas most effected. The area I grew up in has been decimated by immigration, my parents are elderly and still live there. I wish I could have bought them with me. Most of you really have no idea what you are talking about and just follow the trendy views on multiculturalism. I had 36yrs experience living in an area of high immigration with friends and colleagues from every type of background you could think of. There are ghettos where white people don't go.
But I'm just a racist xenophobe.
You are right though in a way, the British took out their anger and desperation on the wrong target with the EU. The Polish and other eastern Europeans are honest hard working people who have been caught up in something that was not there making.

But you have been informed that non EU migration is the concern. Yet voted out of the EU.

Perplexed.

First Up

It seems that geography is not a strong point of your average Brexiteer.

murphaph

http://www.portstrategy.com/news101/world/europe/dublin-prepares-for-brexit

Short article about Dublin port's plans to build customs infrastructure. How very depressing.

The Rape of Lucretia

May agrees with EU no physical border in Ireland.
So in the sea we presume it is. The only sensible option.
That is if she can now survive in the job to see it through. Looking increasingly unlikely I feel.

First Up

The Rape of Lucretia wrote:

May agrees with EU no physical border in Ireland. So in the sea we presume it is. The only sensible option. That is if she can now survive in the job to see it through. Looking increasingly unlikely I feel.

As long as that sea border is between Britain and NI, and not between ROI and the EU.

cml387

The impression gained from this last EU summit is that the 27 are doing their best for Teresa May because if they don't be seen at least to cut he some slack, then she could be overthrown and then the dogs of war would be unleashed.

That presupposes the accession of a new PM would be a foregone conclusion, i.e. a fervent Brexiteer.

But is that necessarily the case?

Britain is facing an existential crisis, akin to Corn Law repeal or the Ulster question. The last leadership election was a fiasco. Does the Tory party hate itself more than a Labour government?

I think they'd rather go down than compromise between themselves.

Rain Ascending

murphaph wrote: »

http://www.portstrategy.com/news101/world/europe/dublin-prepares-for-brexit

Short article about Dublin port's plans to build customs infrastructure. How very depressing.

Actually, it's all pretty inevitable. With the UK planning to leave the Single Market and the customs union, it's clear that these kind of preparations need to be kick-started now. Nothing short of a change of government in the UK will change that reality and even then, it's not clear how committed Labour are to rejoining either.

What did encourage me from the article was the following quote:

Meanwhile, he [O'Reilly, chief executive of Dublin Port Company] noted, shipping lines are investing in new tonnage to link Dublin directly to Europe. “And we have had a lot of inquiries from Europe.”

This we'll desperately need in the event of a hard, "no deal" exit. The indicators are that the landbridge to the continent will likely be a no-go route for perhaps months. For a good analysis of why this might be so, see this blog entry from Richard North. The bottom line there is that a "no deal" exit will put the UK/EU trade in a worse position than your typical country with no free trade agreement with the EU. What will be missing are customs cooperation agreements and mutual recognition of conformity testing, resulting in much higher percentages of inspections than the 5% quoted by Dublin Port. The situation at the Channel ports will quickly become impossible, not because of the lack of facilities on the English side, but because of a lack of facilities on the French, Belgian, and Dutch side.

Of course, we could gamble that the UK government will cave in before we reach that point ... and while a rational assessment would suggest that they'll have to, I wouldn't like to bet Ireland's prosperity on it. Hence the importance of increasing the available direct links to France.

Jim2007

While being able to ship to the U.K. is critical for food industry, getting paid may be just as big an issue - a beef carcass attracts on average tariffs of about 65% - 70%, add the FX decline and you may well find people can't afford to eat Irish meat as often and so on. Investing in some kind of offal products factory in the U.K. might be a smart move.

flatty

Blowfish wrote: »

So why exactly did they vote to leave then? Leaving pretty much guarantees more non EU immigration than currently exists.

You know that, and I know that. That wasn't my point, however.

LeinsterDub

murphthesmurf wrote: »

There are many places like this accross the UK, a lot of the Birmingham area, Leicester, Bradford, and many others.
You cannot judge immigration purely financially as most of the posters seem to be doing. The attitude is that if the country is making a few quid from them then everything is grand. No it's not. Most of you have never lived there in the areas most effected. The area I grew up in has been decimated by immigration, my parents are elderly and still live there. I wish I could have bought them with me. Most of you really have no idea what you are talking about and just follow the trendy views on multiculturalism. I had 36yrs experience living in an area of high immigration with friends and colleagues from every type of background you could think of. There are ghettos where white people don't go.
But I'm just a racist xenophobe.
You are right though in a way, the British took out their anger and desperation on the wrong target with the EU. The Polish and other eastern Europeans are honest hard working people who have been caught up in something that was not there making.

Certain areas of Dublin are no go areas, certain areas of Glasgow are no go areas, as are certain areas of Belfast . I don't get your point?

Jim2007

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

May agrees with EU no physical border in Ireland.
So in the sea we presume it is. The only sensible option.
That is if she can now survive in the job to see it through. Looking increasingly unlikely I feel.

That is all very, but the logical consequence of the is that EU warships, certainly Irish, probably Dutch and Danish will have to conducting boardings of the coast of NI.

LeinsterDub

Jim2007 wrote: »

That is all very, but the logical consequence of the is that EU warships, certainly Irish, probably Dutch and Danish will have to conducting boardings of the coast of NI.

No it's not customs only care about what is landed unless you expect some sort of massive piracy on the sea.

Also Ireland doesn't have warships, being a defence force and all that

Poll in the UK Independent.

76% believe the British government's negotiations aren't going well.
46% think a deal unlikely. 37% the opposite.
45% believe a no deal scenario is bad for UK, 11% good, 22% think it makes no difference.
52% believe a deal must be reached regardless, while 28% say a no deal scenario should be pursued.
If a deal is reached, 48% believe the EU will emerge the better, while only 21% think the UK will.

One thing that seems clear from this poll is that a no deal option is not popular amongst the British public.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-public-go-badly-leave-eu-remainer-brexiteer-no-deal-theresa-may-trade-deal-economy-a8011771.html

Sand

Blowfish wrote: »

So why exactly did they vote to leave then? Leaving pretty much guarantees more non EU immigration than currently exists.

Honestly I would presume its a mix of two factors:

1 - European voters are relentlessly against mass immigration (immigration to the level that it changes European culture, as opposed to migrants becoming European), but is not offered any vote on mass immigration policy over the past 70 years. Brexit therefore became a proxy vote.

2 - Brexiteers successfully linked the EU to uncontrolled mass immigration. The breakdown of EU borders in 2015 after Merkel's invitation to anyone and everyone didn't help combat this connection.

People can argue until they are blue in the face about EU free movement not being non-EU migration. It doesn't matter. The link between the EU and uncontrolled mass migration was made, and never broken. The reality is support of the EU and support of mass migration was (correctly or incorrectly) seen as one and the same - both by supporters of Brexit and Remain.

Sand

ambro25 wrote: »

I'm ever so mindful of Mods comments on the thread, but it takes some level of abnegation not to attack the player, when solo is being so consistently disingenuous.

Good morning!

That's very harsh. I admire Solo for his persistent engagement on the topic where he adds so much. He is clearly extremely genuine and well informed.

Completely off topic, but have you ever googled Ken M?

Much thanks,
sand

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

Poll in the UK Independent.

76% believe the British government's negotiations aren't going well.
46% think a deal unlikely. 37% the opposite.
45% believe a no deal scenario is bad for UK, 11% good, 22% think it makes no difference.
52% believe a deal must be reached regardless, while 28% say a no deal scenario should be pursued.
If a deal is reached, 48% believe the EU will emerge the better, while only 21% think the UK will.

One thing that seems clear from this poll is that a no deal option is not popular amongst the British public.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-public-go-badly-leave-eu-remainer-brexiteer-no-deal-theresa-may-trade-deal-economy-a8011771.html

And people are still grossly uninformed about what Brexit actually means if only 45% think a no deal is bad for UK.

And since Solo is such a huge fan of democracy here's what the Brexiteers are planning to ensure their vision is delivered:

Hardline Brexiteers claim they want a free trade agreement with the EU,but privately some prefer the “no deal” scenario they now talk up as inevitable, even though a World Trade Organisation tariff regime would harm the economy. They are putting growing pressure on May to walk out of the negotiations and put the Government’s energies into preparing for “no deal” and a “clean break” in March 2019. One reason for their campaign is that they fear an attempt by Parliament to block “no deal” if the talks collapse.

So since they are afraid of losing a vote in parliament they want to yet again circumvent the democratically voted MPs and simply rule by making a bad deal behind everyone's back to get their way. UK democracy in action.

Jim2007

LeinsterDub wrote: »

No it's not customs only care about what is landed unless you expect some sort of massive piracy on the sea.

Yes, boardings will have to be conducted it the consequences of a border.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Also Ireland doesn't have warships, being a defence force and all that

Warships is just a common term used to distinguish them from other vessels. Nothing to do with size or military purposes.

murphaph

I don't see any need for boardings if there was a customs border in the Irish sea. It still throws NI under the bus as most of their output heads to GB but it is better for the RoI than a land border and we have to put ourselves first in this like the UK has.

steddyeddy

murphaph wrote: »

I don't see any need for boardings if there was a customs border in the Irish sea. It still throws NI under the bus as most of their output heads to GB but it is better for the RoI than a land border and we have to put ourselves first in this like the UK has.

54% of the North's exports go to the EU. A lot of that is agricultural products and their agri products depend on grants from the EU. A sea border is the only option as it gives them the chance to stay in the single market.

LeinsterDub

Jim2007 wrote: »

Yes, boardings will have to be conducted it the consequences of a border.

Why would boardings have to be conducted. You've just made this contention based on nothing.

Jim2007

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why would boardings have to be conducted. You've just made this contention based on nothing.

Actual experience back in the day.

The Rape of Lucretia

Deleted User wrote: »

Poll in the UK Independent.

76% believe the British government's negotiations aren't going well.
46% think a deal unlikely. 37% the opposite.
45% believe a no deal scenario is bad for UK, 11% good, 22% think it makes no difference.
52% believe a deal must be reached regardless, while 28% say a no deal scenario should be pursued.
If a deal is reached, 48% believe the EU will emerge the better, while only 21% think the UK will.

One thing that seems clear from this poll is that a no deal option is not popular amongst the British public.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-public-go-badly-leave-eu-remainer-brexiteer-no-deal-theresa-may-trade-deal-economy-a8011771.html

Yes. But this is a poll of the people who in a referendum, voted to Brexit. So not exactly the smartest or most well informed folk to give a view on any of those questions put to them.
Brexit really is the UK's lowest moment, and must be a contender for any modern countries most stupidly selfharming mis-use of its democracy. Germany in 1933 perhaps. Its in that range of cockup.

murphaph

steddyeddy wrote: »

54% of the North's exports go to the EU. A lot of that is agricultural products and their agri products depend on grants from the EU. A sea border is the only option as it gives them the chance to stay in the single market.

The majority of NI's "exports" go to GB. That's why they don't show up as exports but make no mistake a sea border will crucify their economy every bit as much as a land border with the south. There is no good outcome to this for NI so long as the UK leaves the SM and CU. It's slightly less worse for us if they accept the sea border.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

The majority of NI's "exports" go to GB. That's why they don't show up as exports but make no mistake a sea border will crucify their economy every bit as much as a land border with the south. There is no good outcome to this for NI so long as the UK leaves the SM and CU. It's slightly less worse for us if they accept the sea border.

It's more than 'slightly less worse', given an MP was talking about British troops on the border only this week.
A land border is a 'dissident's charter' or starter for ten. And if that kicks off, nobody knows where it will end.

steddyeddy

murphaph wrote: »

The majority of NI's "exports" go to GB. That's why they don't show up as exports but make no mistake a sea border will crucify their economy every bit as much as a land border with the south. There is no good outcome to this for NI so long as the UK leaves the SM and CU. It's slightly less worse for us if they accept the sea border.

I don't think the border is their biggest problem. It's leaving the single market. Especially when they're a services or agri economy. The only reason I say a sea border is because it keeps them in the single market.

Blowfish

Blowfish wrote: »

So why exactly did they vote to leave then? Leaving pretty much guarantees more non EU immigration than currently exists.

You are presuming that the people that identify as Asian did not vote.

If 60% of Rochdale voted leave and the majority of people in rochdale identify as Asian then surely a lot of people weren’t voting to keep out non eu migrants.

Are there any good broad sources on what NI produces (goods and services), where it goes and how it gets there?

I am curious to see if say food exports to GB go via Dublin or if Bombardier wings go straight to Canada.

I imagine some of the information might be caught in the UK employment reviews that haven't been released.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's more than 'slightly less worse', given an MP was talking about British troops on the border only this week.
A land border is a 'dissident's charter' or starter for ten. And if that kicks off, nobody knows where it will end.

The British will do the absolute bare minimum on their side to keep the WTO happy that tariffs are being correctly levied. There is zero chance of security checkpoints where private cars are stopped on the British side. It's far more likely the Irish side will be more secure tbh.

You don't believe everything British MPs say I'm sure.

First Up

Aegir wrote:

If 60% of Rochdale voted leave and the majority of people in rochdale identify as Asian then surely a lot of people weren’t voting to keep out non eu migrants.

I suspect Asians who voted for Brexit did so to keep out the Polish etc competition -smart.

I suspect some British Brexiteers didn't understand the difference between EU and non-EU immigration - stupid.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

The British will do the absolute bare minimum on their side to keep the WTO happy that tariffs are being correctly levied. There is zero chance of security checkpoints where private cars are stopped on the British side. It's far more likely the Irish side will be more secure tbh.

You don't believe everything British MPs say I'm sure.

What makes you think there is 'zero chance'?

What do both governments do if border posts and officials come under fire/attack, send workers out unprotected?

It isn't difficult to see a situation escalate very very quickly. Starting when they try to construct infrastructure.
Personally looking at the mood along the border at the moment I can see peaceful protest against the building of these checkpoints forming already.

steddyeddy

Interesting article from the FT indicating that the EU don't want to push May too hard lest a Eurosceptic be in charge of the Tories.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/9ff65598-b5af-11e7-aa26-bb002965bce8

Enzokk

I see that there are reports the EU has promised the UK there will be no physical border on the island of Ireland. I fail to see how they could promise this to the UK without knowing detailed plans on what relationship the UK wants with the EU. The story I read did say it was reported by Theresa May that this is what the EU has said though. Leo Varadkar reports that Theresa May said there would be no border but that there were once again no details offered by the UK.

But the EU council did pass the ball back to the UK to provide the "flexible and imaginitive" solution for NI and Ireland.

Theresa May: 'UK and EU agree there should be no physical infrastructure at border in Ireland'

I have a few concerns about this though. I agree on what should happen, but that doesn't mean it will. I have a feeling that this issue may be a powder keg that could blow up the negotiations and/or the UK Government. What does NI want? No-one knows as there is no executive and while we know what one party wants we don't know about the rest. If the UK pursues an avenue that is against what the DUP wants regarding the border then the UK may need new election sooner rather than later.

If they go along with the DUP solution then how does that square with the majority of voters in Northern Ireland? This is a mess, but at least there seems to be some movement and at least there is talks on the border. I think though that this will be even more contentious than the brexit bill and this could delay even longer the start of trade talks. The UK focused on the wrong issue from the start and will regret not paying more attention to the border and EU citizens rights instead of quibbling line for line about the commitments they have agreed to.

Europe agrees no physical border between Republic of Ireland and the North, says Theresa May

In its closing statement, it said this would have to take into account avoidance of a hard border, but it placed the onus on the UK to present and commit to "flexible and imaginative" solutions.

Sand

The EU may not want to undermine May, but she is already teetering and seems to lack the authority or conviction to face down the Tory lunatic fringe. I don't see how it ends other than May resigning, or going for a ultra hard Brexit to try buy a few more months in power. Tory brexit policy is under a terrible inertia.

I think the only way for May to get out of the corner she has painted herself into is by seeking some form of cross-party support with Labour and the LibDems to get enough moderate, soft brexit MPs to secure a parliamentary majority on brexit terms. It could also offer her political cover for abandoning stupid red lines. The Tory lunatic fringe would be livid, but would they topple the government to invite in Corbyn instead?

I don't think May will go for it though, I don't think she has the charisma to pull it off and I don't think Labour would respond positively. They would likely see it as an opportunity to kick the chair out from under May, hoping for an early election. But its the only way I see the British position breaking free of its current trajectory.

Ultimately though, attempts by the EU to go easy on May only delay the inevitable. She is getting weaker and weaker, not stronger. There's no advantage to giving her time.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

listermint wrote: »

So tell me again how under EU rules immigration cant 'really' be controlled.
I mean details specific details.
.

Gerry T wrote: »

You have that control at present. Mentioned umpteen times in this thread. The UK can remove EU migrants that don't secure work

I don't know why you both ask this question when I've already answered it.

Immigration can't be controlled effectively under EU rules. I'd agree with you that the 6 month limit may help, but it wouldn't stop an oversupply of labour in certain sectors undercutting wages. That's the real issue that you highlighted in the quote you posted.

The 6 month limit isn't effective if you want to prevent against an oversupply of labour in particular sectors. To address this concern properly you need to have quotas to give priority to British workers in contested sectors. This isn't permitted whilst being a member of the EU.

Brexit is now happening. There's not much point of trying to argue against it because it is an inevitability. What is important is to argue for the best exit arrangement possible.

Rehashing the referendum debate from last year is in my mind not particularly helpful given this reality.

Gerry T wrote: »

Just catching up on the thread and came to this nugget.
This really sums up the disconnect from both sides.
You seem to think that the Bill is like a divorce, husband leaves and wife gets the house and half the bank account. That's NOT what the other side think IMO.
The "bill" or "divorce fee" is neither a bill or fee. The UK has committed to paying projects, it also owes monies to people that are going on pension/drawing pensions for services to the UK for the past 40yrs. The EU is trying to get agreement from the UK on what portion of these costs the UK will pay. Let's make up a case, say 24,428 civil servants the EU may say 5,000 have been there for the uk, then the UK demonstrates it's actually 2,000. If agreed then the pension costs for the next 20, 30 or 40 yrs is paid for those people by the UK. Or an actuary works out the current value and that's paid to the EU today and the EU pays the peoples pensions that worked for the UK for 40 yrs.
What your suggesting is, if the EU doesn't give the UK the deal they want then the UK won't pay anything????
Don't you see how dishonest that would be. People that work in Europe looking after the UKs interests for decades end up with no pension?

Brexit and the settlement payment is wrapped together, one and the same thing. They need to be settled together, with the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and the Irish border.

Any trade discussions are secondary to separating. Both groups want to trade with each other so a deal will be struck, one that benefits both. But the UK is the minor partner, so shouldn't expect the same terms the EU will get.

My point is that there are two perspectives on what is happening. There is the EU one, and there is the British one. Both are important because if a reasonable arrangement is to be struck it'll have to find support in the UK and not just in the EU.

Here in Britain people aren't willing to give a huge sum of money to the European Union with no concession in return. There is a high risk that if the other side of the deal isn't good enough for Britain that Theresa May won't get this through parliament.

Also, it shouldn't be assumed that just because the EU thinks Britain should pay for something that it should. The UK is rightfully going through each item line by line with a legal team to ensure that the UK should pay for the things that the EU claim it should.

Sand wrote: »

Good morning!

That's very harsh. I admire Solo for his persistent engagement on the topic where he adds so much. He is clearly extremely genuine and well informed.

Completely off topic, but have you ever googled Ken M?

Much thanks,
sand

This made me smile, thank you!

Nody wrote: »

And people are still grossly uninformed about what Brexit actually means if only 45% think a no deal is bad for UK.

And since Solo is such a huge fan of democracy here's what the Brexiteers are planning to ensure their vision is delivered:
So since they are afraid of losing a vote in parliament they want to yet again circumvent the democratically voted MPs and simply rule by making a bad deal behind everyone's back to get their way. UK democracy in action.

I don't know why you insist on invoking my name here. I'm primarily hoping for a good deal with the EU. I think obviously no deal needs to be an option in the scenario that the EU are not willing to provide a good deal to the UK.

The European Council this week gives me hope that there will be progress.

murphaph wrote: »

I don't see any need for boardings if there was a customs border in the Irish sea. It still throws NI under the bus as most of their output heads to GB but it is better for the RoI than a land border and we have to put ourselves first in this like the UK has.

The reason we want the border to remain open is primarily for Northern Ireland and not for the Republic. Decimating Northern Ireland's economy is not an option that anyone should support. The UK won't accept any arrangement that undermines the union so there's not really any point proposing this as a serious scenario.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

Sand wrote: »

The Tory lunatic fringe would be livid, but would they topple the government to invite in Corbyn instead?

This whole Brexit mess is about who would lead the Tory party.

There's no shortage of people who'd like to be leader of the Tory party, if they could only get away without being blamed for shafting the whole country.

All they need is a fall guy. And the fall guy might just win too.


"I would rather be first in a village than second in Rome".

murphaph

Solo, if Northern Ireland was anything other than an afterthought in England then Brexit would not have won.

Read the comments sections of the mail etc and half the English nationalists on there would gladly dispense with NI altogether!

steddyeddy

murphaph wrote: »

Solo, if Northern Ireland was anything other than an afterthought in England then Brexit would not have won.

Read the comments sections of the mail etc and half the English nationalists on there would gladly dispense with NI altogether!

Let's not forget that NI voted to remain. May also has little regard for the GFA and the required "rigorous impartiality".

The Rape of Lucretia

steddyeddy wrote: »

Let's not forget that NI voted to remain. May also has little regard for the GFA and the required "rigorous impartiality".

Lets not forget either that they voted to Brexit as part of the UK.
If they were truly more interested in Remaining rather Brexiting, they would be Referenduming on secession.

Firblog

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Brexit really is the UK's lowest moment, and must be a contender for any modern countries most stupidly selfharming mis-use of its democracy. Germany in 1933 perhaps. Its in that range of cockup.

Do you really think this?

I think they grasped their last chance at restoring democracy in the UK, whereby they would be governed by those they voted for; not some mismash of failed politicians (commission) and a committee (council of leaders) only one of whom had their interests at heart.
The UK has been dragged down the road to 'ever closer union' aka franco/german domination for years, and the referendum was their escape route, none of their leaders have had the where with all to draw the line in the sand, and so the people did when given the opportunity.

Lets face it, the EU as it is currently set up is no lover of democracy, and hasn't been for more than 20 years, when countries sign up for it, the people they send have to leave their democratic principles at the door of the meeting room

steddyeddy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Lets not forget either that they voted to Brexit as part of the UK.
If they were truly more interested in Remaining rather Brexiting, they would be Referenduming on secession.

I don't think that the UK can survive if the democratic wishes of every country in the union, I.E scotland and NI.

steddyeddy

Firblog wrote: »

Do you really think this?

I think they grasped their last chance at restoring democracy in the UK, whereby they would be governed by those they voted for; not some mismash of failed politicians (commission) and a committee (council of leaders) only one of whom had their interests at heart.
The UK has been dragged down the road to 'ever closer union' aka franco/german domination for years, and the referendum was their escape route, none of their leaders have had the where with all to draw the line in the sand, and so the people did when given the opportunity.

Lets face it, the EU as it is currently set up is no lover of democracy, and hasn't been for more than 20 years, when countries sign up for it, the people they send have to leave their democratic principles at the door of the meeting room

NI and Scotland voted to remain. Do you think they should seek independence.

Firblog

steddyeddy wrote: »

NI and Scotland voted to remain. Do you think they should seek independence.

What good would that do them? Did the EU say that if the people of Scotland voted for independence in the last referendum they would be outside the EU and would have to apply for admission? And the same will apply to any country/region that gains independence from a current member?

First Up

Firblog wrote:

What good would that do them? Did the EU say that if the people of Scotland voted for independence in the last referendum they would be outside the EU and would have to apply for admission?

If they were independent now, they could apply for admission - an option not available to them. How's that for democracy?

steddyeddy

Firblog wrote: »

What good would that do them? Did the EU say that if the people of Scotland voted for independence in the last referendum they would be outside the EU and would have to apply for admission? And the same will apply to any country/region that gains independence from a current member?

Well you said democracy is upmost importance. Now you're saying that becoming independent would be bad because they wouldn't be in the EU. What good will Brexit do them?

Dont be at yourself

Firblog wrote: »

Do you really think this?

I think they grasped their last chance at restoring democracy in the UK, whereby they would be governed by those they voted for; not some mismash of failed politicians (commission) and a committee (council of leaders) only one of whom had their interests at heart.
The UK has been dragged down the road to 'ever closer union' aka franco/german domination for years, and the referendum was their escape route, none of their leaders have had the where with all to draw the line in the sand, and so the people did when given the opportunity.

Lets face it, the EU as it is currently set up is no lover of democracy, and hasn't been for more than 20 years, when countries sign up for it, the people they send have to leave their democratic principles at the door of the meeting room

Yes, give me The House of Lords any day! Never mind the collapse of Stormont, the power of the monarchy, or the West Lothian question...

Firblog

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well you said democracy is upmost importance. Now you're saying that becoming independent would be bad because they wouldn't be in the EU. What good will Brexit do them?

That's not what I said at all, I was asked if I thought they should vote for independence, on the basis that they had voted to remain. I didn't refer to it being 'good' or 'bad', as all that depends on what the voters in those countries deem to be important, immigration, economy etc

They cannot remain no matter what they do now. If they go independent, then they ask to join the EU, they will not be joining on the conditions they have membership now.

steddyeddy

Firblog wrote: »

That's not what I said at all, I was asked if I thought they should vote for independence, on the basis that they had voted to remain. I didn't refer to it being 'good' or 'bad', as all that depends on what the voters in those countries deem to be important, immigration, economy etc

They cannot remain no matter what they do now. If they go independent, then they ask to join the EU, they will not be joining on the conditions they have membership now.

Great well then you'll agree a country being dragged out of the EU against its will is anti-democratic?