Brexit discussion thread II

Professor Moriarty

devnull wrote: »

And if someone leaves their club for a new one do they start asking their previous club for some kind of help financially and to do deals with them in the same way that they did when they played for their previous club and then when they can't get their own way throw their toys out of the pram?

Or should the old club think, he's left, now we will focus on what is best for us?

If I were the team manager, I would be happy that the dressing room will be a lot easier to manage and I would emphasise that the ex-player is now an opposition player and needs to be treated as such.

Bigus

An hour ago I was talking to an Irish, reasonably heavy hitter in the London city property market , he was saying the wheels have come off the wagon already but it's just like here in 2006 , when the crash before the real 2008 crash started , but nobody mentions it until after they unload stuff , which is becoming harder and harder and will eventually collapse.
Also rentals near the banking quarter have gone from 30 viewings a day to 3 unsuitable clients in one month.

A Little Pony

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

It is something my fellow Brexiteers argue against or feel almost insulted if this is mentioned.

The problem with British nationalism in the northeast of Ireland is that it's a minority. The people in the north can vote themselves out of the UK into a unified Ireland back inside the EU where the majority wanted to remain.

I'm sure the English would be delighted to see the back of Ireland and I'd say the EU would be very supportive of a UI too.

British nationalism is certainly not some sort of minority in the UK as I described it, Brexiteers exist all over the UK.

carrickbally

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Please engage with other posters rather than rephrasing your last post.

Are you suggesting that the imposition of the border in Ireland by the imperial parliament in London is irrelevant to the present Brexit debate?

There would be no large land border of 500 kms between the EU and the UK but for the imposition of the border in Ireland.

The imposition of the land border in Ireland was contrary to the imperial parliament's own Act giving self rule to the island of Ireland with a parliament in Dublin.

That was passed and signed into law by the monarch in 1914.

An amendment to impose a border was actually defeated.

It took till 1998 when the Good Friday Agreement was signed to settle that argument.

But Brexit has torn up the GFA.

You could not make it up.

A Little Pony

devnull wrote: »

Just heard Phillip Hammond call the European Union 'the enemy' they really are not very good at this negotiations lark are they?

They just come across as a bunch of petulant spoiled children throwing their toys out of the pram because the EU won't give them what they want, despite the fact they were the ones who are leaving yet they somehow think they are owed big style by the club they have decided to leave and not pay the membership but still want the benefits.

If they are leaving the club then the EU are going to act in a way which benefits the 27 countries remaining the most, they couldn't and shouldn't care less about what happens to a country that has decided to leave, it's not their problem anymore, all their focus should be on is doing the best for the 27 and if the UK don't like that, that is their fault for leaving.

They know it's going to be a no deal but still trying to come across as if a deal is possible when we know the EU doesn't want a deal.

murphthesmurf

Gerry T wrote: »

I don't agree people on here wish the UK I'll, some might, but not all. The general concensus is the UK is damaging the EU, Ireland and more importantly itself.
So what was the reasons you voted for brexit. And how will things be better post brexit
Do you see the UK with better trade deals etc....

I didn't vote as I don't live there anymore. I believe people who don't live in a country should not have a vote on that countries future. For me it's just wrong, I cannot understand the argument by some people in Ireland that those who have left to live elsewhere should still be able to vote in elections here.
As for trade deals only time will tell. As a whole I think the EU is a failure though. An unelected failure.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

They know it's going to be a no deal but still trying to come across as if a deal is possible when we know the EU doesn't want a deal.

The EU (Which includes me) doesn't know what the 'deal' is. Brexiters should have known what was going to happen before they jumped like lemmings.
They didn't know, and further more were not told.
Fabulously ironic that they now blame the EU who are doing what everyone (except brexiteers) knew they would do.

Calina

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I didn't vote as I don't live there anymore. I believe people who don't live in a country should not have a vote on that countries future. For me it's just wrong, I cannot understand the argument by some people in Ireland that those who have left to live elsewhere should still be able to vote in elections here.
As for trade deals only time will tell. As a whole I think the EU is a failure though. An unelected failure.

What about the people who do live there, do pay tax there, but just happen to be EU (but not Ireland) citizens who did not have the right to vote in that referendum?

Calina

A Little Pony wrote: »

They know it's going to be a no deal but still trying to come across as if a deal is possible when we know the EU doesn't want a deal.

The EU wants an orderly exit. The UK appears to think an exit arrangement and a trade deal are the same thing.

This is why there will be no deal

murphthesmurf

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah. What if your friend is going to seriously damage your economy, endanger peace in your country and severely damage an institution that is fundamental to your wellbeing? This isn't football.

The referendum was for the British people to vote on what thry believed to be best for Britain. Not what is best for the rest of the EU. If the club was a one man team then it wasn't a very good club.
I live here too remember, I have no intention of going anywhere else, Ireland is my home now. I have a young son who will spend his whole life here, and his children too. Any bad outcomes that come from Brexit on Ireland will affect me and him too. But I don't hold it against my fellow countrymen, they did what they thought was best. I don't expect them to do what is best for me over here. They felt the EU wasn't working so they left.

murphthesmurf

Calina wrote: »

What about the people who do live there, do pay tax there, but just happen to be EU (but not Ireland) citizens who did not have the right to vote in that referendum?

That is the same as me living in Ireland, I have no vote here and I pay taxes etc. If I went to your country would I automatically have the right to vote there? I doubt it, so why should you be different?

Calina

murphthesmurf wrote: »

That is the same as me living in Ireland, I have no vote here and I pay taxes etc. If I went to your country would I automatically have the right to vote there? I doubt it, so why should you be different?

If you are British, you have the right to vote in most Irish elections although not the referendums. That being said, at least Ireland has a) a written constitution and b) runs referendums properly so that ramifications of each outcome is clear before the votes take place.

I got the impression you lived in Ireland. Perhaps you are not fully aware of your rights in Ireland.

However, I voiced this comment because you suggested that people who didn't live in a country shouldn't have the right to vote (Although quite a few Brits had and did vote) but the corollary of that is that perhaps those who do, should

And because the UK does not have clear definitions on requirements for setting the voting population here, the government did have the discretion to extend the voting mandate if they wanted, and in fact did do for Scotland's independent referendum. IN fact that one was far better run than the Brexit one was.

Gerry T

murphthesmurf wrote:

My personal belief is that free movement between UK and Ireland will remain. You have to understand though that the people decided on Brexit, the government just has to carry it out. The people did not like being part of the EU, I don't believe anyone, even the rightest of right wing people want to see relations with Ireland suffer. The British like the Irish much more than the Irish like the British from my experience. If you and a friend are in a football club together, and your friend decides that the club isn't for him anymore and he goes to play for another team. It means you are a man down and the club may feel betrayed. But do you stop being his friend? He just did what he believes is best for him.

Yes but he keeps showing up sun morning expecting to play. Doesn't show for training, won't pay the club fees and won't pay the refs fee, in fact he says the ref no longer can tell him what to do. But it's ok because a mate of his or on the side line and he's going to ref the game for him. And after all that he takes the ball home with him and doesn't understand why you put out

murphaph

A Little Pony wrote: »

They know it's going to be a no deal but still trying to come across as if a deal is possible when we know the EU doesn't want a deal.

The EU will happily sign a FTA with the UK I'm quite sure. The UK however wants much more than this, ie a status akin to being a member of the single market....but they reject what every other country in the single market accepts, the supremacy of the ECJ. No ECJ, no single market.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you can keep saying this as often as you like, it will never actually become the truth.

The UK has not "Torn Up" any agreements. It is seeking to legally and through due process exit from one, whilst the other is untouched.

Yes it has Fred. Article 1 of the Good Friday agreement states that rigorous impartially is central to the agreement. Colin Harvey, Professor of human rights at Queen's university states:

“‘Rigorous impartiality’… is central to the Good Friday agreement and to the British-Irish agreement (an international treaty between the UK and Ireland). The concept flows from the complex right of self-determination on which the current British-Irish constitutional compromise is based."

Rigorous impartiality is required yet Theresa May stated "she will never be neutral in regard to Northern Ireland" and then she formed an alliance with the political wing of loyalism.

In relation to Brexit we have a PM with no regard towards the other community in Northern Ireland forming an alliance with the DUP when issues such as the Irish border have to be sorted before trade arranged. Her loyalist leanings will damage the North and significantly damage Britain.

murphaph

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I didn't vote as I don't live there anymore. I believe people who don't live in a country should not have a vote on that countries future. For me it's just wrong, I cannot understand the argument by some people in Ireland that those who have left to live elsewhere should still be able to vote in elections here.
As for trade deals only time will tell. As a whole I think the EU is a failure though. An unelected failure.

A failure that has only delivered the longest period of sustained peace among its members in European history. Yeah it's a disaster altogether.

It is elected by the way. The EU is arguably more democratic than the individual member states.

Zubeneschamali

murphthesmurf wrote: »

The referendum was for the British people to vote on what thry believed to be best for Britain. Not what is best for the rest of the EU.

Absolutely. And per Article 50, they have a right and a mechanism to leave.

Sadly, they are wrong about what is best for Britain, and a generation of British people are about to learn that the hard way.

cml387

As someone who has had an interest in British politics for over thirty years, what I see happening now scares me.

The best analogy I can think of is the state of Britain just after the Sheffield was sunk during the Falklands war.

There was a sudden realisation in government backbenches and the rightwing press that maybe things could go horribly wrong.

The result was a hunt for the "enemy within". This consisted of the BBC, moderate Tories, anyone who did not unquestionably back Britain.

They were "traitors".

Now we see the same thing happening. Philip Hammond is a traitor. The judges are traitors. The treasury are traitors.

At this point all logical thought goes out the window.

murphthesmurf

murphaph wrote: »

A failure that has only delivered the longest period of sustained peace among its members in European history. Yeah it's a disaster altogether.

It is elected by the way. The EU is arguably more democratic than the individual member states.

I don't agree with the idea that had their been no EU then European countries would have been at war over something. The last war between European countries was because the Germans invaded Poland and then the rest of Europe. Not just because they didn't get on. European countries have been at war or attacked other countries. The world changed after WW2, the danger has been from outside of Europe since. But I guess it's something we'll never know.

carrickbally

That neo-racist, patronising attitude ala Johnson to both Europe and Ireland still thrives in London and deserves no sympathy in the upcoming negotiations.

Nate--IRL--

Saw this on another forum - if this is true, May's incompetence knows no bounds.

Robert Peston posted this on Facebook today: wrote:

“Theresa May will be gone by Christmas”.
https://www.facebook.com/pestonitv/posts/1930951983896204

Not my words. Those of a minister - who says that the past week has seen a shattering of the conceit that her continuation as PM till after we Brexit in March 2019 is the best guarantee of relative stability in unpredictable times for her party and country.

Barely a day has passed since the summer holidays that has been unmarked by ministerial strife and bickering, which has normally been some version of Boris and Gove Vs Hammond or Hammond Vs Boris and Gove.

To be clear, this instability is not about personal ambition, or rather not just the irresistible desire of the predatory male politician to finish off a wounded prime minister.

If anything it is more about the appallingly unfinished business for the Tories of working out what kind of Brexit they want.

Her perhaps fatal weakness is that she lacks the authority to settle this argument, such that the rest of the EU would have a clear understanding of who actually represents the UK and what we want from Brexit.

In the words of a senior member of the cabinet, it is a scandal that there has never been a cabinet discussion about what kind of access we want to the EU’s market once we leave, what kind of regulatory and supervisory regime should then be in place to ensure a level playing field for EU and UK businesses, and - don’t gasp - how much we might actually pay to the EU as the so-called divorce bill.

In the absence of a settled government position on these most basic of our Brexit demands, it is little short of a miracle that the leaked draft of a possible EU council statement actually holds out the possibility of the EU itself beginning to mull the form of possible trade and transition deals with us.

To be clear, it has been her ordinance that there should be no cabinet discussion of all this. And if the prime minister lacks the power and authority to negotiate Brexit with her own ministers - who after all are supposed to be on the same side as her - what possible chance is there of her reaching any kind of entente with 27 EU governments?

What should trouble her profoundly is that even those who just a week ago were savaging Boris for his disloyalty, or who detest his Brexit dogmatism, now say little could be worse than the status quo - and that as he seems to own a torch and a stick, they’d rather have him.

To be clear, I am not saying Boris Johnson will be PM within weeks. But I am saying that I no longer regard that as an absurd notion.

Nate

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes it has Fred. Article 1 of the Good Friday agreement states that rigorous impartially is central to the agreement. Colin Harvey, Professor of human rights at Queen's university states:

“‘Rigorous impartiality’… is central to the Good Friday agreement and to the British-Irish agreement (an international treaty between the UK and Ireland). The concept flows from the complex right of self-determination on which the current British-Irish constitutional compromise is based."

Rigorous impartiality is required yet Theresa May stated "she will never be neutral in regard to Northern Ireland" and then she formed an alliance with the political wing of loyalism.

In relation to Brexit we have a PM with no regard towards the other community in Northern Ireland forming an alliance with the DUP when issues such as the Irish border have to be sorted before trade arranged. Her loyalist leanings will damage the North and significantly damage Britain.

Article 1?

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/good_friday/full_text.html

"1. We, the participants in the multi-party negotiations, believe that the agreement we have negotiated offers a truly historic opportunity for a new beginning."


Nope, not Article 1.

Later on it says:

"affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities;"

All that says is that the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality etc......

That does not mean the sovereign government cannot have a view on the future status of Northern Ireland.

murphthesmurf

Calina wrote: »

If you are British, you have the right to vote in most Irish elections although not the referendums. That being said, at least Ireland has a) a written constitution and b) runs referendums properly so that ramifications of each outcome is clear before the votes take place.

I got the impression you lived in Ireland. Perhaps you are not fully aware of your rights in Ireland.

However, I voiced this comment because you suggested that people who didn't live in a country shouldn't have the right to vote (Although quite a few Brits had and did vote) but the corollary of that is that perhaps those who do, should

And because the UK does not have clear definitions on requirements for setting the voting population here, the government did have the discretion to extend the voting mandate if they wanted, and in fact did do for Scotland's independent referendum. IN fact that one was far better run than the Brexit one was.

I see your point, but as I asked would a British person have the right to vote in a referendum in your country? If not then you can hardly expect a vote there.

As for irish referendums being run properly, I'll reserve judgement until after the referendum on the 8th ammendment.

carrickbally

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I don't agree with the idea that had their been no EU then European countries would have been at war over something. The last war between European countries was because the Germans invaded Poland and then the rest of Europe. Not just because they didn't get on. European countries have been at war or attacked other countries. The world changed after WW2, the danger has been from outside of Europe since. But I guess it's something we'll never know.

Well Russia has invaded Ukraine and Yugoslavia has had a vicious and horrific civil war.

The EU is the most advanced effort in international cooperation in the world.

The British decision to tear up the agreement is indefensible.

blanch152

Gerry T wrote: »

I don't agree people on here wish the UK some disaster, some might, but not all. The general concensus is the UK is damaging the EU, Ireland and more importantly itself.
So what was the reasons you voted for brexit. And how will things be better post brexit
Do you see the UK with better trade deals etc....

There are two types of emotional responses to the Brexit issues.

Some of us are sad that the UK has done this to itself, and are somewhat angry that they have placed the economy of this country in peril.

Others of us are in high glee at the disaster the UK has inflicted on itself and are imagining all sorts of united Irelands arising out of the disaster.

FrancieBrady

murphthesmurf wrote: »

The referendum was for the British people to vote on what thry believed to be best for Britain. Not what is best for the rest of the EU. If the club was a one man team then it wasn't a very good club.
I live here too remember, I have no intention of going anywhere else, Ireland is my home now. I have a young son who will spend his whole life here, and his children too. Any bad outcomes that come from Brexit on Ireland will affect me and him too. But I don't hold it against my fellow countrymen, they did what they thought was best. I don't expect them to do what is best for me over here. They felt the EU wasn't working so they left.

If they were so certain it 'was for the best', then what is the problem?

Why all the dithering, obfuscation and blaming?

The reality is that you are projecting. Projecting some sort of orderly vision of the future on Brexiteers when it was more likely a media inspired, nostaglia fuelled kneejerk reaction to the ongoing breakup of the UK.

murphaph

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I don't agree with the idea that had their been no EU then European countries would have been at war over something. The last war between European countries was because the Germans invaded Poland and then the rest of Europe. Not just because they didn't get on. European countries have been at war or attacked other countries. The world changed after WW2, the danger has been from outside of Europe since. But I guess it's something we'll never know.

Ask yourself the following: if Poland and Germany had been members of a common market in 1939, would Germany have invaded Poland?

Junkyard Tom

A Little Pony wrote: »

British nationalism is certainly not some sort of minority in the UK as I described it, Brexiteers exist all over the UK.

Unlike the six counties, no country in Britain has in place a guarantee that they will have automatic membership of the EU if they vote to end UK jurisdiction.

Your British nationalism blinded you to the risk Brexit poses to the six counties' constitutional position. You'd better hope the north thrives post-Brexit or you could well be living in a united Ireland down the line.

I just don't get why unionists aren't absolutely furious with the DUP for pushing for Brexit which may well unravel their place within their beloved (if unrequited) union with Britain.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Unlike the six counties, no country in Britain has in place a guarantee that they will have automatic membership of the EU if they vote to end UK jurisdiction.

Your British nationalism blinded you to the risk Brexit poses to the six counties' constitutional position. You'd better hope the north thrives post-Brexit or you could well be living in a united Ireland down the line.

I just don't get why unionists aren't absolutely furious with the DUP for pushing for Brexit which may well unravel their place within their beloved (if unrequited) union with Britain.

'British' nationalism is a curious term. English nationalism I can understand.
When you say 'British nationalism' I see the National Front and kitsch displays of the fleg and other disparate elements.

Maybe it is a new political identity but I cannot see any cohesive centre holding it together.

cml387

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If they were so certain it 'was for the best', then what is the problem?

Why all the dithering, obfuscation and blaming?

The reality is that you are projecting. Projecting some sort of orderly vision of the future on Brexiteers when it was more likely a media inspired, nostaglia fuelled kneejerk reaction to the ongoing breakup of the UK.

I don't often agree with Francie's point of view but this is the nail on the head.

Britain,it seems and I hate to admit it being born there myself, has never accepted that the empire is gone. I thought they had, but seventy years of postwar history has now come to this mess.

After Suez, one might have thought that the lesson had been learned. Hoping the common market would go away and clinging to the Great Relationship with the US propelled the Macmillan government into surrendering Britain (well, Scotland) to a first strike target at Holy Loch. Macmillan clung to the belief that Britain could be the Greeks in the Roman Empire.

When that was a failure he suddenly found his European credentials and asked to join, and was humiliatingly rebuffed by the French.

When they did join, Labour opposed joining. Dressed up with left wing rhetoric it boiled down to the same thing...we are a great nation who can do without foreigners across the channel.

Britain maintains a pointless nuclear deterrent which exists only at the behest of the Americans, and can never be used because by the time it's required it's too late.

All this is to show that Britain, or maybe England alone, cannot continue to fool itself that i can make it's own way in the world and become some kind of Atlantic Singapore. The fact that it needs to pointed out to them is a sign of the self delusion at the heart of the English nation

Sam Russell

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I don't agree with the idea that had their been no EU then European countries would have been at war over something. The last war between European countries was because the Germans invaded Poland and then the rest of Europe. Not just because they didn't get on. European countries have been at war or attacked other countries. The world changed after WW2, the danger has been from outside of Europe since. But I guess it's something we'll never know.

Sorry, but did you ever read a history book?

The causes for WW II lay with the dreadful end to WW I. The Russian Revolution that lead to Stalin. The terrible demand by the British/American side demanding crippling reparations from Germany that led to hyperinflation and total destitution, giving rise to Hitler.

WW II was the result of the rise of Hitler who demanded the unification of Austria and the the invasion of Sudetenland, which over-ran the Chezk defences and allowed German troops to invade unhindered. Poland was the invasion that triggered Britain to declare war.

Following the end of the hostilities, Russia was in control of much of Germany and a quarter of Berlin. They then started a blockade of Berlin, which was relieved by an airlift to feed and fuel Berlin that lasted just short of a year.

The 'Iron Curtain' was a real threat to Europe and had to be countered by a strong Europe that was economically strong, could feed itself, and could defend itself. The result was agreement between countries that had been enemies just a few years before - the European Coal and Steel Community, that became the EEC and then the EU. The Soviet Union was a real threat to European security until its collapse, and some see Russia under Putin being a present and real threat. I think Russia is part of Europe, and some of the former Warsaw Pact countries are now members of the EU.

The EU has been a major player for peace in Europe. Russia is still a threat, for example Ukraine, Georgia, Crimea, Chechnya are all areas where Russia is active, Currently, they are involved in military games in the Baltic.

Britain is already looking at backing the US in North Korea.

FrancieBrady

cml387 wrote: »

I don't often agree with Francie's point of view but this is the nail on the head.

Britain,it seems and I hate to admit it being born there myself, has never accepted that the empire is gone. I thought they had, but seventy years of postwar history has now come to this mess.

After Suez, one might have thought that the lesson had been learned. Hoping the common market would go away and clinging to the Great Relationship with the US propelled the Macmillan government into surrendering Britain (well, Scotland) to a first strike target at Holy Loch. Macmillan clung to the belief that Britain could be the Greeks in the Roman Empire.

When that was a failure he suddenly found his European credentials and asked to join, and was humiliatingly rebuffed by the French.

When they did join, Labour opposed joining. Dressed up with left wing rhetoric it boiled down to the same thing...we are a great nation who can do without foreigners across the channel.

Britain maintains a pointless nuclear deterrent which exists only at the behest of the Americans, and can never be used because by the time it's required it's too late.

All this is to show that Britain, or maybe England alone, cannot continue to fool itself that i can make it's own way in the world and become some kind of Atlantic Singapore. The fact that it needs to pointed out to them is a sign of the self delusion at the heart of the English nation

To understand Britain leaving you have to understand them joining. And that was as fraught as what we are going through now.

I am suspicious of the EU, I wish there was another way but I fully understand what it has done for Ireland and for Europe in general. I am sure that Brexiteers have not even begun to appreciate it tbh.

cml387

FrancieBrady wrote: »

To understand Britain leaving you have to understand them joining. And that was as fraught as what we are going through now.

I am suspicious of the EU, I wish there was another way but I fully understand what it has done for Ireland and for Europe in general. I am sure that Brexiteers have not even begun to appreciate it tbh.

Joining the EU was down to one man, and that was Ted Heath. Now that his reputation is in the gutter possibly adds to the Brexiteers arguments, but that ignores his other history. He was the main negotiator in the failed attempt in 1962 and won widespread admiration in Europe at the time. He had experienced Nazi Germany at first hand in the 1930's and was firmly of the belief that the only hope Europe had of avoiding another war was co-operation (something he had in common with Winston Churchill, it is often forgotten).

Britain did have a referendum to join, something that may have also been forgotten, in 1975.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'British' nationalism is a curious term. .

Indeed because there is no real British nation as regards a nation of people. You've the Scots, Welsh, English and Irish (?) Unionists.

I believe the idea of 'the British people' was advanced in an attempt to create cohesion between the nations of Britain but it's little more than the underpinning of 'Greater England' i.e. Britain.

FrancieBrady

cml387 wrote: »

Joining the EU was down to one man, and that was Ted Heath. Now that his reputation is in the gutter possibly adds to the Brexiteers arguments, but that ignores his other history. He was the main negotiator in the failed attempt in 1962 and won widespread admiration in Europe at the time. He had experienced Nazi Germany at first hand in the 1930's and was firmly of the belief that the only hope Europe had of avoiding another war was co-operation (something he had in common with Winston Churchill, it is often forgotten).

Britain did have a referendum to join, something that may have also been forgotten, in 1975.

Did the French repudiation of Britain's application sour things from the get go or is it an inherent distrust of all foreigners?


*That sounds like a 'have you stopped beating your wife question but it isn't.

Capt'n Midnight

Calina wrote: »

If you are British, you have the right to vote in most Irish elections although not the referendums. That being said, at least Ireland has a) a written constitution and b) runs referendums properly so that ramifications of each outcome is clear before the votes take place.

Most of the rights of UK citizens here and our rights there stem from us being one country a while back.

UK citizens aren't allowed vote for our head of state and visa versa.

cml387

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did the French repudiation of Britain's application sour things from the get go or is it an inherent distrust of all foreigners?


*That sounds like a 'have you stopped beating your wife question but it isn't.

There is an exchange in "Yes,Minister" (still the touchstone if you want to understand British politics).

Jim Hacker is questioning the relevance of the nuclear deterrent. Sir Humphrey says "But minister, how could we allow a situation where the French have the bomb, and we don't?"

Calina

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

If you are British, you have the right to vote in most Irish elections although not the referendums. That being said, at least Ireland has a) a written constitution and b) runs referendums properly so that ramifications of each outcome is clear before the votes take place.

Most of the rights of UK citizens here and our rights there stem from us being one country a while back.

UK citizens aren't allowed vote for our head of state and visa versa.

TBF they aren't allowed vote for their head of state either...

FrancieBrady

cml387 wrote: »

There is an exchange in "Yes,Minister" (still the touchstone if you want to understand British politics).

Jim Hacker is questioning the relevance of the nuclear deterrent. Sir Humphrey says "But minister, how could we allow a situation where the French have the bomb, and we don't?"

d

I know every episode

The Thick Of It continues the tradition of great British acerbic comedy.
What is happening is not comedy though. And I am not sure there is an antidote. It is like there is a cancer at the heart of GB that is slowly consuming it.

First Up

FrancieBrady wrote:

It is like there is a cancer at the heart of GB that is slowly consuming it.

Been going that way for a long time but I'm much more interested in how Europe (including Ireland) goes on from here without them.

Leave the Brexiteers to their own delusions and devices.

View

cml387 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

To understand Britain leaving you have to understand them joining. And that was as fraught as what we are going through now.

I am suspicious of the EU, I wish there was another way but I fully understand what it has done for Ireland and for Europe in general. I am sure that Brexiteers have not even begun to appreciate it tbh.

Joining the EU was down to one man, and that was Ted Heath. Now that his reputation is in the gutter possibly adds to the Brexiteers arguments, but that ignores his other history. He was the main negotiator in the failed attempt in 1962 and won widespread admiration in Europe at the time. He had experienced Nazi Germany at first hand in the 1930's and was firmly of the belief that the only hope Europe had of avoiding another war was co-operation (something he had in common with Winston Churchill, it is often forgotten).

Britain did have a referendum to join, something that may have also been forgotten, in 1975.

That’s a completely false narrative spun by Brexiters.

Heath was one MP out of 600+. By no stretch of the imagination does one MP come close to constituting a majority in Parliament.

Instead the reality is that the Conservatives led the U.K. into the European Communities and Brexiter Conservatives are just trying to disown this by blaming Heath rather than by stating that they made the “wrong” decision (to a Brexiter) at the time, since that might raise the obvious question in voters’ minds as to whether they might also be making the wrong decision now.

Capt'n Midnight

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I don't agree with the idea that had their been no EU then European countries would have been at war over something. The last war between European countries was because the Germans invaded Poland and then the rest of Europe. Not just because they didn't get on. European countries have been at war or attacked other countries. The world changed after WW2, the danger has been from outside of Europe since. But I guess it's something we'll never know.

How quickly people forget.


Russia invaded Finland in November 1939 , a lot of people don't consider that part of WWII and not started by Germany.

Germany wasn't the only country that invaded Poland in September 1939.

Before that
The Spanish Civil war was still going on until April 1939 the same month that Italy invaded Albania. Neither war was started by Germany.


Before that
In September 1938 Poland took over part of Czechoslovakia. As did Hungry.

Then there were the various colonial wars in North Africa, and go back to the 1920's there was Poland vs. Russia and Turkey vs Greece

Or look at Hungry in 1956 and 1968.


Most Europeans view the EU as being useful for more than just being a common market.

FrancieBrady

First Up wrote: »

Been going that way for a long time but I'm much more interested in how Europe (including Ireland) goes on from here without them.

Leave the Brexiteers to their own delusions and devices.

Quite simple- we take the hit but once and for all remove the dependency and actively seek to unite the island in a way that means we can survive as a prosperous member of the EU.
We are getting to that crossroads sooner than I thought.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Quite simple- we take the hit but once and for all remove the dependency and actively seek to unite the island in a way that means we can survive as a prosperous member of the EU.
We are getting to that crossroads sooner than I thought.

Sometimes when I read your posts I get the impression you're at least slightly glad Brexit is happening exactly because you believe it will bring a united Ireland sooner than it might have otherwise happened.

Is that a fair assessment or am I wide of the mark?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Sometimes when I read your posts I get the impression you're at least slightly glad Brexit is happening exactly because you believe it will bring a united Ireland sooner than it might have otherwise happened.

Is that a fair assessment or am I wide of the mark?

I have said before that an unexpected event would bring about a UI because partition is inherently precarious. I thought it would be Scotland leaving but here we have Brexit.
But, and it is a big but, I take no relish in Brexit. It will hurt decent British people, unionist people and Irish people. It would be a bit like cheer leading WW1 because it gave us the oppurtunity for independence.

cml387

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How quickly people forget.


Russia invaded Finland in November 1939 , a lot of people don't consider that part of WWII and not started by Germany.

Germany wasn't the only country that invaded Poland in September 1939.

Before that
The Spanish Civil war was still going on until April 1939 the same month that Italy invaded Albania. Neither war was started by Germany.


Before that
In September 1938 Poland took over part of Czechoslovakia. As did Hungry.

Then there were the various colonial wars in North Africa, and go back to the 1920's there was Poland vs. Russia and Turkey vs Greece

Or look at Hungry in 1956 and 1968.


Most Europeans view the EU as being useful for more than just being a common market.

And if it's not checked, and Britain spins off into it's own nationalist enclave, what about Orban in Hungary who is creating his own proto-fascist state, and the Polish government which is rewriting history for its own ends, and eastern Germany who voted mainly for the AFD?

Now we are back to 1913 and an unstable mass of little dictatorships who define themselves only by their differences, and not there similarities.

FrancieBrady

cml387 wrote: »

And if it's not checked, and Britain spins off into it's own nationalist enclave, what about Orban in Hungary who is creating his own proto-fascist state, and the Polish government which is rewriting history for its own ends, and eastern Germany who voted mainly for the AFD?

Now we are back to 1913 and an unstable mass of little dictatorships who define themselves only by their differences, and not there similarities.

We need something like the EU?

LeinsterDub

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How quickly people forget.


Russia invaded Finland in November 1939 , a lot of people don't consider that part of WWII and not started by Germany.

Germany wasn't the only country that invaded Poland in September 1939.

Before that
The Spanish Civil war was still going on until April 1939 the same month that Italy invaded Albania. Neither war was started by Germany.


Before that
In September 1938 Poland took over part of Czechoslovakia. As did Hungry.

Then there were the various colonial wars in North Africa, and go back to the 1920's there was Poland vs. Russia and Turkey vs Greece

Or look at Hungry in 1956 and 1968.


Most Europeans view the EU as being useful for more than just being a common market.

And before that Japan and China in 37. And some even consider ww2 a continuation of ww1.

Capt'n Midnight

LeinsterDub wrote: »

And before that Japan and China in 37. And some even consider ww2 a continuation of ww1.

Japan and Russia in '37in Mongolia wasn't in Europe. Except of course that Russia is a European country and Japan was encroaching on European areas and interests in China.

WWII was a continuation of the European Civil War that was WWI

Ferdinand Foch said of the Treaty of Versailles "This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years"
But he was wrong, by 90 days.

Can't find the link but Stalin also had a speech where he spoke of the need for the five year plans and was wrong about how the counry would be attacked, by 30 days.

Billy86

devnull wrote: »

And if someone leaves their club for a new one do they start asking their previous club for some kind of help financially and to do deals with them in the same way that they did when they played for their previous club and then when they can't get their own way throw their toys out of the pram?

Or should the old club think, he's left, now we will focus on what is best for us?

Not only that but your friend hasn't so much left for a new club as he has decided he is going to be his own club, because he reckons 11 man teams won't stand a chance against him. But he still wants full access to train and play in matches with you as he used to because he once stole some of your training gear and never gave it back which eventually wound up being more or less a "fine, you can have it" situation. Just you though, he doesn't want to share a training ground or play in matches with the rest of the team after all, and at the same time he says he doesn't want you to leave the club because that's your decision.

Except every now and then some of his less savoury family members who him convince him to leave the club try to start rumours that you kind of want to leave the club too when that is completely untrue.