Brexit discussion thread IV

trellheim

1) Abandoning this farce under the threat of an economic disaster.
2) Being forced to take a deal on the EU's term's because they wasted too much time on this.

Although I appreciate the point I do not believe the political conditions exist for 1 and 2 , especially 1 - remember for many it is NOT a farce

devnull

devnull wrote: »

The most ridiculous thing is seeing lots of working class people who are cheerleaading for the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg whose policies outside Brexit would have a massively negative impact on their lives, but these people seem not to care. Rees-Mogg is an enemy of the working class, not a friend, but it seems some people are more than willing to be poorer and to have their living standards reduced just so they get a brexit they don't even understand.

And don't forget, the EU is going to collapse anyway. Any day now. Just wait and see.

This is the thing people don't get. The Left hate the EU because of how "right wing" it is. I don't think it particularly is but it would be further left than is is only for the UK. The anti-immigrant types don't seem to realise the UK was one of the few countries who had no limits on Eastern Europeans entering after accession, their choice again. Especially up North and in Wales the anger is so high that they can't or don't want to see that the EU is the only thing stopping London from completely cutting them off.

judeboy101

Infini wrote: »

I think realistically at some point the English are gonna have to face the fact that they'd sleepwalked themselves into an unmitigated disaster. I still feel they'll at the end of this either end up with

1) Abandoning this farce under the threat of an economic disaster.
2) Being forced to take a deal on the EU's term's because they wasted too much time on this.
3) Crashing out and risking their country disintegrating..

In term's of a crash it's no secret that if 3 happens and it's a Hard Brexit then it's most likely that NI will reunify with the rest of Ireland within 10 year's and Scotland will be a Republic as well. Hard Brexit will be the most focused example of Westminster's stupidity and the UK's utter dysfunctional setup as a state. Should Scotland become independent there's no doubt that the EU will fast track them back into the EU it has been hinted in the past that it would be a fairly straightforward process since most of their laws and such would be still at EU standards and adoption of the Euro would actually help them save time setting up their own currency. As for NI since it would end under Dublin's umbrella it would just be a matter of sorting out the finer details.

If 2 happen's then it won't be as a severe threat as a No Deal but they'll find themselves having no say at all in any EU policies and should they decide to change their minds about the whole thing they'll find themselves basically crawling back in with no exemptions since they blew it with this fiasco. They'll have to face the fact that they traded a better deal for a poorer one needlessly and it's their own fault for using the EU as a scapegoat for their OWN failures instead of actually dealing with the situation. Ultimately Brexit will go down as the event that ended the UK and it would be no small Irony that they ended up with an external border with Scotland in the EU on their island and the Irish border ended up disappearing entirely a century or so after it went up.

Even if 1 happen's and they abandon this failed exercise in total stupidity they'll still have suffered needless economic damage as it's unlikely businesses will ever move back under the current political climate. On top of that they'll NEED to seriously look and overhaul the defective and utter broken system of their country that has landed them in this situation. This would include reigning in the toxic part's of the media like the Daily Fail, Shítpost Express and that which have contributed to this situation by publishing lie's, untruths and distorted information and passing this off as fact when it's basically Ideological Propaganda and unfit for publishing. As for their political system they'll have to face the music that FPTP help's make a total mess of their system as the conservative's would likely not be in this mess if instead of having to pandering to the UKIP voter's to stay in power they were to let them get elected and keep their toxicity from spreading to their own party. Hiding them doesn't work you need to call them out on every single bad point they make. They also have to accept that coalition's are the way foward for most countries and not a failure of their party and trying to win all the vote's is unlikely nowadays unless it's an issue of significant importance.

No offence, but the scots had their chance out of this mess and they voted to stay by a decent amount. I've no sympathy for them, the welsh or the English. Time cools the hearts fire and they shots will, imho, never leave. Just look at the passion the Quebec ppl had over indo vote, heck they had an entire different religion and culture but once they rejected independence it was never to be offered again.

Imreoir2

judeboy101 wrote: »

No offence, but the scots had their chance out of this mess and they voted to stay by a decent amount. I've no sympathy for them, the welsh or the English. Time cools the hearts fire and they shots will, imho, never leave. Just look at the passion the Quebec ppl had over indo vote, heck they had an entire different religion and culture but once they rejected independence it was never to be offered again.

It depends on the outome of Brexit. If there is no brexit, or some form of workable deal, you may well be right that there wont be another indy referendum in Scotland for another 20 years. If there is a no-deal Brexit, though, I think there will be a referendum within a few years and it's hard to see the argument for staying in the UK at that stage.

judeboy101

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It depends on the outome of Brexit. If there is no brexit, or some form of workable deal, you may well be right that there wont be another indy referendum in Scotland for another 20 years. If there is a no-deal Brexit, though, I think there will be a referendum within a few years and it's hard to see the argument for staying in the UK at that stage.

Despite the snp's "we have oil" mantra, Scotland don't have an economy that could support independence, the fact that it would be geographicaly isolated from eu (assuming no Irish unity) and also that we would be crazy to let them into EU(our USP is that we are English speaking common law based, why share that with another country).

briany

judeboy101 wrote: »

Despite the snp's "we have oil" mantra, Scotland don't have an economy that could support independence, the fact that it would be geographicaly isolated from eu (assuming no Irish unity) and also that we would be crazy to let them into EU(our USP is that we are English speaking common law based, why share that with another country).

Couldn't imagine Ireland attempting to block Scottish accession to the EU on the basis of keeping any type of exclusivity.

The 'no economy to support independence' argument is bandied about with many regions. Like, with the UK-Brexit negotiations, I could see a period of bitter negotiations between the UK and Scotland to untangle 300 years of integration, but if Scotland acceded to the EU, they'd no doubt have financial support from the EU.

judeboy101

briany wrote: »

Couldn't imagine Ireland attempting to block Scottish accession to the EU on the basis of keeping any type of exclusivity.

The 'no economy to support independence' argument is bandied about with many regions. Like, with the UK-Brexit negotiations, I could see a period of bitter negotiations between the UK and Scotland to untangle 300 years of integration, but if Scotland acceded to the EU, they'd no doubt have financial support from the EU.

Why should I as an eu tax payer fund the accession of a country to the EU which has been the recipient of vast EU funds over the last 40 years?. It's well known the snp does not support the euro and would want to stay out of it. They campaigned for retaining the pound post independence. They are massively dependant on services, ~70% and would be a direct threat to our fdi from anglophilic looking nations.

Rhineshark

judeboy101 wrote: »

Despite the snp's "we have oil" mantra, Scotland don't have an economy that could support independence, the fact that it would be geographicaly isolated from eu (assuming no Irish unity) and also that we would be crazy to let them into EU(our USP is that we are English speaking common law based, why share that with another country).

They don't at the moment but that is because their economy is shaped into that of the whole UK. I think Scotland has as good a chance as any small country going independent if the alternative was a no-deal Brexit UK worst case scenario.

I don't think we'd be crazy to let them in - if anything we'd be crazy to keep them out! For a start, it seems morally wrong for the sake of something that petty given what access to the SM would mean to a newly-independent Scotland. There is the social backlash if it was seen as something like that as well as the international loss of face. The EU project has been about stabilising a continent to stop us all killing each other (essentially) and part of that is about bringing up standards of living in poorer regions. Wealth inequality breeds instability. Success variable but definitely has been of use. Keeping a country out that meets many of the standards for a selfish (debatable) benefit to one country flies in the face of that.

If there has to be an immediate benefit to us though - land bridge. That the island of Britain geographically isolates us is a huge problem. Also, one of the strongest determinants to trade is proximity. Britain going pear-shaped isn't good for our exports. We'd be mad to want two basketcase countries as our nearest neighbours when there was anything we could do to have one stable neighbour.

judeboy101

Rhineshark wrote: »

They don't at the moment but that is because their economy is shaped into that of the whole UK. I think Scotland has as good a chance as any small country going independent if the alternative was a no-deal Brexit UK worst case scenario.

I don't think we'd be crazy to let them in - if anything we'd be crazy to keep them out! For a start, it seems morally wrong for the sake of something that petty given what access to the SM would mean to a newly-independent Scotland. There is the social backlash if it was seen as something like that as well as the international loss of face. The EU project has been about stabilising a continent to stop us all killing each other (essentially) and part of that is about bringing up standards of living in poorer regions. Wealth inequality breeds instability. Success variable but definitely has been of use. Keeping a country out that meets many of the standards for a selfish (debatable) benefit to one country flies in the face of that.

If there has to be an immediate benefit to us though - land bridge. That the island of Britain geographically isolates us is a huge problem. Also, one of the strongest determinants to trade is proximity. Britain going pear-shaped isn't good for our exports. We'd be mad to want two basketcase countries as our nearest neighbours when there was anything we could do to have one stable neighbour.

Sure by that argument we should let turkey in. Scotland is rife with sectarianism, absentee landlords and a generous education and health system. The latter two kept going by westminster. Scotland can join Iceland and norway for all I care, but they share much more in common with the rest of the UK, than they will ever do with us.

briany

judeboy101 wrote: »

Why should I as an eu tax payer fund the accession of a country to the EU which has been the recipient of vast EU funds over the last 40 years?. It's well known the snp does not support the euro and would want to stay out of it. They campaigned for retaining the pound post independence. They are massively dependant on services, ~70% and would be a direct threat to our fdi from anglophilic looking nations.

As far as the Euro goes, it's a question of who needs the other more? Does the EU need a newly independent Scotland so much that they'll exert no pressure to join the Euro, or does a newly independent Scotland need the EU so much that they'll concede on the Euro?

I suppose the reason why you should fund a hypothetical Scottish accession is that you're paying tax into the system and some of that goes to the EU. Of course, you can maybe change that through a ballot or a protest.

McGiver

devnull wrote: »

They will mention the war and how they saved Germany who are now dictating to us, moaning about Merkel and things like that, read the Sun, Mail or Express and believe everything that they read or their favourite politicians say regardless of if any of these people have anything to back it up.

Even that is English revisionism and exceptionalism. England barely avoided being defeated, by the way thanks to Polish, Czechoslovak and other non-British pilots serving in the RAF and by the fact that it is an island (invasion more costly/difficult). And of course be it no involvement of the US and Russia after 1942 the UK wouldn't have stood any chance.

Then the next argument is about hospitals being full of foreigners, and saying that is why they are overcrowded, of course the fact that the Tories closed far more beds than there are additional foreigners in hospitals isn't something that they can see. Yes hospitals are more overcrowded and there are more foreigners, but the cuts are the real source of the issue.

You would see more non-EU nationals in those hospitals. The UK had full control over the non-EU immigration (which it exercised poorly) and partial control of the EU immigration (which it didn't exercise at all). But yet the EU is the issue. This is entirely a domestic UK issue.

McGiver

EdgeCase wrote: »

There's a huge issue in England with blaming "European regulations" on pretty much any annoying issue real or imagined.

I've had arguments asking people (in business) to cite (with the aid of Google) what EU regulation has created whatever situation they're complaining about and they never seem to be able to come up with an answer.

It's come from a culture of officialdom using EU regulations as a catch all excuse for all unpleasant or unreasonable local rules and from ridicule of the EU with genuinely fake comic stories about European rules either lampooning them out of context or just entirely making things up for comic value.

The other one that I've always observed has been UK media outlets quoting "European politicians" say .... and when you dig you discover it's some obscure extreme party with 1 MEP or something equally unrepresentative. They don't tell you that so, the assumption in Britian is that is an EU statement.

Because that stuff went entirely without challenge for decades it's now probably too late to undo the damage.

This EU website comes in handy if one is arguing about "evil EU regulations" with a Brexiteer.
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/
The fact that vast majority of the lies on the list are British made is certainly not a coincidence.

judeboy101

briany wrote: »

As far as the Euro goes, it's a question of who needs the other more? Does the EU need a newly independent Scotland so much that they'll exert no pressure to join the Euro, or does a newly independent Scotland need the EU so much that they'll concede on the Euro?

I suppose the reason why you should fund a hypothetical Scottish accession is that you're paying tax into the system and some of that goes to the EU. Of course, you can maybe change that through a ballot or a protest.

All true, but why pay to support a country that right now, has better schools and hospitals and infrastructure. if they choose independence they are choosing to loose benefits England gives them through their union, why should we support them. It's like a a kept older woman divorcing ger husband because he got old and fat, then expecting the younger sexy brother in law to pay for her upkeep.

Capt'n Midnight

McGiver wrote: »

Even that is English revisionism and exceptionalism. England barely avoided being defeated, by the way thanks to Polish, Czechoslovak and other non-British pilots serving in the RAF

The British National Party using a patriotic image of a spitfire never gets old.

It was of course from a Polish squadron.

Re the special relationship. It's also worth mentioning again that the US didn't exactly bail out the UK back then. Lend lease means the US are still in places like Diego Garcia. The Anglo American loan was used to force the pound off the gold standard.


WWII rationing in the UK started in 1939 and didn't end until 1954, long after other European countries. Even though the UK imports half it's food, 70% of imports are from the EU, I don't that will happen again. Prices going up ? Yeah I can see that.

blanch152

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It depends on the outome of Brexit. If there is no brexit, or some form of workable deal, you may well be right that there wont be another indy referendum in Scotland for another 20 years. If there is a no-deal Brexit, though, I think there will be a referendum within a few years and it's hard to see the argument for staying in the UK at that stage.

In many ways, Scotland like Northern Ireland, are the biggest losers from Brexit.

They can't afford to leave the UK, as things will get far far worse, but staying in the UK post-Brexit, when they wanted to leave, and will suffer more than most, is not a palatable choice either.

McGiver

Imreoir2 wrote: »

judeboy101 wrote: »

No offence, but the scots had their chance out of this mess and they voted to stay by a decent amount. I've no sympathy for them, the welsh or the English. Time cools the hearts fire and they shots will, imho, never leave. Just look at the passion the Quebec ppl had over indo vote, heck they had an entire different religion and culture but once they rejected independence it was never to be offered again.

It depends on the outome of Brexit. If there is no brexit, or some form of workable deal, you may well be right that there wont be another indy referendum in Scotland for another 20 years. If there is a no-deal Brexit, though, I think there will be a referendum within a few years and it's hard to see the argument for staying in the UK at that stage.

Yes, given that Scotland voted 62% for remain (24% difference - could be called a landslide victory). That's a significant difference to 53% for leave in England (6% difference - marginal victory).

Rhineshark

judeboy101 wrote: »

All true, but why pay to support a country that right now, has better schools and hospitals and infrastructure. if they choose independence they are choosing to loose benefits England gives them through their union, why should we support them. It's like a a kept older woman divorcing ger husband because he got old and fat, then expecting the younger sexy brother in law to pay for her upkeep.

What a strange analogy to use. And Turkey didn't meet the requirements and won't with a hardliner like Erdogan in charge so that's out and has been since before the Brexit referendum.

Does the land bridge reducing travel time for goods movement and having at least one stable near neighbour to export to cut any ice? We have an established market there and while we do export further ofc, proximity is useful and cheaper.

McGiver

Rhineshark wrote: »

judeboy101 wrote: »

All true, but why pay to support a country that right now, has better schools and hospitals and infrastructure. if they choose independence they are choosing to loose benefits England gives them through their union, why should we support them. It's like a a kept older woman divorcing ger husband because he got old and fat, then expecting the younger sexy brother in law to pay for her upkeep.

What a strange analogy to use. And Turkey didn't meet the requirements and won't with a hardliner like Erdogan in charge so that's out and has been since before the Brexit referendum.

Does the land bridge reducing travel time for goods movement and having at least one stable near neighbour to export to cut any ice? We have an established market there and while we do export further ofc, proximity is useful and cheaper.

But the land bridge would be from NI not from RoI, wouldn't it?

briany

judeboy101 wrote: »

All true, but why pay to support a country that right now, has better schools and hospitals and infrastructure. if they choose independence they are choosing to loose benefits England gives them through their union, why should we support them. It's like a a kept older woman divorcing ger husband because he got old and fat, then expecting the younger sexy brother in law to pay for her upkeep.

In this analogy, the woman would be getting married to the brother-in-law, or at least definitely moving in with him, and in either scenario there's an expectation that there'll be a give and take. The give and take with Scotland and the EU would be that they're getting money to maintain a standard of living, but people from the rest of the EU can easily come to work and live and Scotland, and avail of that infrastructure. Scotland also has fishing waters and some oil it can offer to sweeten the deal, as well as productive people who learn their skills in schools funded by EU money.

First Up

The EU is an arrangement between sovereign nations. If a sovereign nation - e.g. the UK - doesn't want to be party to those arrangements, that is their choice. What they do internally is their own business.

The EU (i.e the member states) will do nothing that intrudes on any country's internal affairs.

If Scotland wants to stay in the EU, it first needs to sort out its situation viz a vis the UK. Brussels won't talk to Edinburgh until Edinburgh has a voice.

Imreoir2

judeboy101 wrote: »

Despite the snp's "we have oil" mantra, Scotland don't have an economy that could support independence

Neither did we.

Rhineshark

McGiver wrote: »

But the land bridge would be from NI not from RoI, wouldn't it?

I think he did exclude Irish unity so yes as a straight across east thing. But we are allowed to go diagonally across the Irish sea Still a lot easier than looping the island entirely!

(Ah, that might be it - not a literal land bridge, stepping stone to Europe as Britain is now I mean.)

judeboy101

briany wrote: »

In this analogy, the woman would be getting married to the brother-in-law, or at least definitely moving in with him, and in either scenario there's an expectation that there'll be a give and take. The give and take with Scotland and the EU would be that they're getting money to maintain a standard of living, but people from the rest of the EU can easily come to work and live and Scotland, and avail of that infrastructure. Scotland also has fishing waters and some oil it can offer to sweeten the deal, as well as productive people who learn their skills in schools funded by EU money.

Disputed fishing waters and oil, rest of UK has rockall, Orkney maybe Shetlands.

Water John

If you're discussing ideas like this, one should consider an alignment of ROI, NI and Scotland. Remember the Unionists of NI are largely Scots- Irish.

judeboy101

Water John wrote: »

If you're discussing ideas like this, one should consider an alignment of ROI, NI and Scotland. Remember the Unionists of NI are largely Scots- Irish.

The thoughts of jimmy kranky having anything to do with running our country would drive me to partition.

Nate--IRL--

judeboy101 wrote: »

The thoughts of jimmy kranky having anything to do with running our country would drive me to partition.

I think he means alignment in the sense of Visegrád or Benelux.

Nate

Water John

Some see opportunities others see problems. Brexit is a real difficulty, but we need to think all sorts of options.

First Up

Imreoir2 wrote: »

judeboy101 wrote: »

Despite the snp's "we have oil" mantra, Scotland don't have an economy that could support independence

Neither did we.

We paid a heavy economic price for about 40 years but we didn't have an EU to shelter and support us. Scoland would.

Water John

The Baltic States, the breakup of Yugoslavia created many new poor Countries. They have all become independent and thrived.

First Up

Water John wrote: »

The Baltic States, the breakup of Yugoslavia created many new poor Countries. They have all become independent and thrived.

I spend a fair bit of time in countries of the former Yugoslavia. They are all economic basket cases, with the notable exceptions of Slovenia and Croatia, who are in the EU.

The Baltic States all joined the EU at the first opportunity.

See the connection?

An Ciarraioch

New ComRes poll for the Mirror:

39% favour no-deal Brexit (51% of Con, 26% Lab)
20% back Chequers (so presumably 41% have no opinion)

25% want extension of A50 (36% Lab, 16% Con)



https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-voting-brits-would-quit-12925014

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

New ComRes poll for the Mirror:

39% favour no-deal Brexit (51% of Con, 26% Lab)
20% back Chequers (so presumably 41% have no opinion)

25% want extension of A50 (36% Lab, 16% Con)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-voting-brits-would-quit-12925014

No third option given?

An Ciarraioch

lawred2 wrote: »

No third option given?

Doesn't like it, going by the article.

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1018604332353294336

murphaph

Finally someone starts talking some sense in the Tory party.

Capt'n Midnight

Theresa May was dealt a fresh blow on Sunday after she suffered the eighth resignation over her Brexit plans.

MP Robert Courts , who now sits in David Cameron’s old seat, indicated he would vote against the government in a house of commons vote on Monday.

devnull

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

New ComRes poll for the Mirror:

39% favour no-deal Brexit (51% of Con, 26% Lab)
20% back Chequers (so presumably 41% have no opinion)

25% want extension of A50 (36% Lab, 16% Con)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-voting-brits-would-quit-12925014

My god, that would be truly terrifying for me if I was a citizen of the UK, the vast majority of people who voted for that option probably have no idea what it entails and probably deem everyone telling them the consequences of no deal are just scaremongering.

Capt'n Midnight

What's the difference between IKEA and Theresa May?
A cabinet designed by IKEA doesn't fall apart so easily.

Another one gone :rolleyes:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44833946

The minister for small business, Andrew Griffiths, has resigned from government after sending text messages of a sexual nature to two female constituents.

#StrongAndStable

Imreoir2

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What's the difference between IKEA and Theresa May?
A cabinet designed by IKEA doesn't fall apart so easily.

Another one gone :rolleyes:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44833946


#StrongAndStable

I'm guessing he wished he had resigned over Brexit before now.

Enzokk

To add to the conversations on the BBC, here is a view on their Brexit coverage,

How the BBC Lost the Plot on Brexit

Basically the BBC got a little gun shy after they lost staff over the accusations they made that Blair "sexed" up the Iraq dossier. With Brexit after the results they shifted their position to reflect the majority of the people, hence how they are covering, or not, the whole debacle. They were given stories of great importance, including the Cambridge Analytica story and the VoteLeave expenses stories. They rejected both.

The BBC was given the opportunity to interview the whistleblower and have a documentary ready to go once the news was out. But like Eliot rejecting Orwell, the BBC’s investigative program Panorama backed away. There was no “smoking gun,” it said. Within days, the smoke from Facebook’s burning reputation was billowing from its Palo Alto headquarters.

The pattern repeated itself with Shahmir Sanni from the Vote Leave campaign (whose deliberate refusal to present the British public with a workable plan for Brexit I mentioned earlier). Vote Leave was the supposedly respectable face of British nationalism. It counted Boris Johnson and several other Conservative ministers among its supporters. Sanni turned whistleblower and showed how the group had bypassed electoral law and allegedly breached the official spending limit of £7 million ($9.3 million) during the run-up to the EU referendum. One leading London lawyer said the breach was of a scale and seriousness beyond anything Britain had seen in modern times. Once again, the BBC did not want the scoop. “We don’t have enough evidence to turn this around in three weeks,” a Panorama bureaucrat wrote to Cadwalladr.

TLDR, seems to me that the author states that their coverage in 2004 has had an influence on their current decisions. Add to this that they are beholden to the government of the day and they want to reflect the public opinion. This is where we find ourselves now it seems.

Achernar

I was thinking the other day looking a the Queen meeting Trump, all hell may well break loose in England when she dies.  She represents so much of what English people see as their own culture and history, a person who has contained their ideological quarrels over so many generations from the post-war years to the present.  Once she goes, that containment may be lost, and civil strife or major civil disorder and potentially UK break-up may be hastened.  Obviously she is just a figurehead but she is a strong unifying figure who will completely overshadow her son when he succeeds her.  Just another factor to think about in all this Brexit mess.

Infini

judeboy101 wrote: »

Disputed fishing waters and oil, rest of UK has rockall, Orkney maybe Shetlands.

On the subject of oil the Sindo this morning had a report that the government were planning on shifting Irelands oil reserves out of the UK and back to Ireland itself since its untenable after Brexit.

EdgeCase

Infini wrote: »

On the subject of oil the Sindo this morning had a report that the government were planning on shifting Irelands oil reserves out of the UK and back to Ireland itself since its untenable after Brexit.

Crazy to have them in the UK in the first place. There are potential situations where we might not be able to access them.

briany

Achernar wrote: »

I was thinking the other day looking a the Queen meeting Trump, all hell may well break loose in England when she dies.  She represents so much of what English people see as their own culture and history, a person who has contained their ideological quarrels over so many generations from the post-war years to the present.  Once she goes, that containment may be lost, and civil strife or major civil disorder and potentially UK break-up may be hastened.  Obviously she is just a figurehead but she is a strong unifying figure who will completely overshadow her son when he succeeds her.  Just another factor to think about in all this Brexit mess.

I could see her death being a bit of a unifier. In the event, there'd be a lot of patriotism and calls for the nation to put aside their differences in that time of mourning.

Achernar

briany wrote: »

Achernar wrote: »

I was thinking the other day looking a the Queen meeting Trump, all hell may well break loose in England when she dies.  She represents so much of what English people see as their own culture and history, a person who has contained their ideological quarrels over so many generations from the post-war years to the present.  Once she goes, that containment may be lost, and civil strife or major civil disorder and potentially UK break-up may be hastened.  Obviously she is just a figurehead but she is a strong unifying figure who will completely overshadow her son when he succeeds her.  Just another factor to think about in all this Brexit mess.

I could see her death being a bit of a unifier. In the event, there'd be a lot of patriotism and calls for the nation to put aside their differences in that time of mourning.

Yes I suppose it could work either way really.
But given his record on speaking out on issues of the day, I don't think Charles being a unifier to the same extent.

Strazdas

Achernar wrote: »

Yes I suppose it could work either way really.
But given his record on speaking out on issues of the day, I don't think Charles being a unifier to the same extent.

I think there is hope for the British long term with the royals though. Charles seems sensible enough as do William and Harry. It was said this week that Charles and William refused to meet Trump and wanted nothing to do with him.

Even Harry marrying a mixed race American woman would suggest he feels no affinity whatsoever to the inward looking English nationalists at the heart of Brexit.

McGiver

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

New ComRes poll for the Mirror:

39% favour no-deal Brexit (51% of Con, 26% Lab)
20% back Chequers (so presumably 41% have no opinion)

25% want extension of A50 (36% Lab, 16% Con)



https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-voting-brits-would-quit-12925014

Means 39% of the UK population are complete nuts/ignorant/stupid. Backing no-deal Brexit is insane.

McGiver

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1018604332353294336

Think they'll surely find out that the only way out in a sense to getting rid of any responsibility for Brexit is to ask for another people's vote and shift the responsibility to the people. Then they could always say "not my fault, it was your decision".

judeboy101

Strazdas wrote: »

I think there is hope for the British long term with the royals though. Charles seems sensible enough as do William and Harry. It was said this week that Charles and William refused to meet Trump and wanted nothing to do with him.

Even Harry marrying a mixed race American woman would suggest he feels no affinity whatsoever to the inward looking English nationalists at the heart of Brexit.

They made the poor girl change her religion and nationality, pretty inward looking if you ask me.

LuckyLloyd

The irony being that - in the rush to back the consensus opinion and not upset the government of the day - the BBC is actually demonstrating that it is no longer worthy of its state funding and privileged position.