Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1071890153906561026

Leo and Theresa have been speaking. My reading of the tweets is she's begging for Leo to throw ever a bone so she can limp on.

Anthracite

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Even the idea of "the white man's burden" is no problem when it bears the meaning of sacrificing your own interests for the benefit of others.

This racist concept of racial superiority is fine? I'm sure all the beneficiaries of this great concept are not at all bothered by the destruction of their cultures.

Anthracite

road_high wrote: »

Great was only ever a geographical term as in Greater/big to describe the island of Britain. It seems to have taken on a literal sense particularly with brexit going on. Ie Great Britain in a superior sense

I'm willing to bet 80% of British people don't know that.

Zubeneschamali

Folkstonian wrote: »

Great means big. Big Britain. As in, the biggest of the British isles.

No, Great Britain is Great because it is bigger than the other Britain, now known as Brittany.

Beanntraigheach

Folkstonian wrote: »

Great means big. Big Britain. As in, the biggest of the British isles.

The modern English name "Great Britain" is derived from the French "Grande-Bretagne". The adjective (superfluous in English) is necessary in that language to distinguish it from "Bretagne", Brittany (sometimes referred to as "Less/Little Britain").

ThePanjandrum

Anthracite wrote: »

This racist concept of racial superiority is fine? I'm sure all the beneficiaries of this great concept are not at all bothered by the destruction of their cultures.

Kipling's poem is not racist although it was colonialist. The most advanced nations of his time were ones where the majority of the population was white. He, speaking to these nations, wanted them to act in the interests of underdeveloped countries even though they were reviled for it - as has often happened. Yeah, there was a destruction of some parts of cultures but when these parts included those of raiding Ireland and other countries for slaves, invading neighbouring countries to enslave and sell their people, burning widows alive on funeral pyres, taking away the power of life and death of despotic kings, preventing human sacrifice, bringing education etc. to other countries then I think he has a point.

Today people are working to prevent FGM. That will destroy parts of the native cultures. Are you saying that this is a bad thing to do?

Folkstonian

Beanntraigheach wrote: »

The modern English name "Great Britain" is derived from the French "Grande-Bretagne". The adjective (superfluous in English) is necessary in that language to distinguish it from "Bretagne", Brittany (sometimes referred to as "Less/Little Britain").

Yep fair enough. Long time since I took my GCSEs and it clearly shows

Strazdas

Beanntraigheach wrote: »

The modern English name "Great Britain" is derived from the French "Grande-Bretagne". The adjective (superfluous in English) is necessary in that language to distinguish it from "Bretagne", Brittany (sometimes referred to as "Less/Little Britain").

To confuse things further, the Irish name for Wales is an Bhreatain Bheag (also 'Little Britain').

hill16bhoy

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

"Great" is fine as an aspiration, "Deutschland über alles" was fine too as it referred to the incorporation of the small states of Germany into a single entity. Even the idea of "the white man's burden" is no problem when it bears the meaning of sacrificing your own interests for the benefit of others. But ignoring the welfare of your own citizens or subjugating others purely for your own country's benefit can be problematic, though not inevitably so.

If "Deutschland Uber Alles" was "fine", as you say, why did they ban it after World War II?

I mean, really? You're telling us that a sentiment that contributed to the idea of the "master race" and the Holocaust is "fine"?

Folkstonian wrote: »

Great means big. Big Britain. As in, the biggest of the British isles.

That's the usual claim, anyway. It rings about as hollow as the debunked claim that the World Series of baseball was named after the New York World newspaper rather than the world itself.

A quick bit of googling suggests King James I in the 17th century was the first person to use the term. I'm not an expert in 17th century history, but what I do know is that Britain has always revelled in the term "Great Britain" as a bold statement that it was "Great" in the everyday use of the word.

I despise the term "The Great War" for the same reason I don't like the term Great Britain, because regardless of the claim that the word "Great" referred to size, it helped to and continues to help glorify a war that was a historical abomination.

But anyway, none of that was my point.

My point is that Brexit is the product of the same type of mindset that gave us "Make America Great Again" and Putin's obsession with making Russia a "Great" power, feared by others.

The obsession with "greatness" as a people. That Britain would "once again" be "Great". In a British context, that mindset laments the loss of empire and harks back to World War II. It's the same type of mindset that led them into Suez, Afghanistan and Iraq, and glorified the Falklands War, and has led numerous British Prime Ministers and politicians to try and portray themselves as a new Churchill (never mind that it was actually Churchill who called for a "United States of Europe").

It's an infantile, toxic, backward-looking mindset that arrogantly and bindly dismisses anybody who doesn't subscribe to it. Brexiteers really did think they could easily keep all the benfits of the EU while being outside it with no responsibilities. They really did think they could make Britain "stand alone" and bow to nobody, like in the days of the empire.

Hence, the farcical, potentially catastrophic position Britain now finds itself in comes as no suprise at all.

Germany was thoroughly disgraced by its conduct in World War II, and knew it had no choice but try to make some sort of amends by reforming itself going forward. It had to come to terms with its awful past. Its crimes against humanity were so awful, and so documented and public, and such a demonstration of the depths of depravity and barbarity that humans could sink to, that it could and shoould never again have any notions of "Greatness".

Britain has committed some pretty awful historical crimes itself. Yet it has never admitted to itself that its empire was a terrible thing, not a "Great" thing.

Anthracite

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Kipling's poem is not racist although it was colonialist. The most advanced nations of his time were ones where the majority of the population was white. He, speaking to these nations, wanted them to act in the interests of underdeveloped countries even though they were reviled for it - as has often happened. Yeah, there was a destruction of some parts of cultures but when these parts included those of raiding Ireland and other countries for slaves, invading neighbouring countries to enslave and sell their people, burning widows alive on funeral pyres, taking away the power of life and death of despotic kings, preventing human sacrifice, bringing education etc. to other countries then I think he has a point.

Today people are working to prevent FGM. That will destroy parts of the native cultures. Are you saying that this is a bad thing to do?

Did you see that there are some uncontacted people on the Sentinel Islands? We'd better take up our burden and give them McDonalds and Big Brother asap - to hell with whatever their culture has created over the last 60,000 years.

Sigh.

Beanntraigheach

Strazdas wrote: »

To confuse things further, the Irish name for Wales is an Bhreatain Bheag (also 'Little Britain').

It gets even more complicated than that. In Scottish Gaelic "A' Bhreatainn Bheag" means Brittany!

ThePanjandrum

Anthracite wrote: »

Did you see that tere are some uncontacted people on the Sentinel Islands? We'd better take up our burden and give them McDonalds and Big Brother asap - to hell with whatever their culture has created over the last 60,000 years.

Sigh.

Yeah, the situation with North Sentinel island is nothing new. With rare exceptions, if they find you they kill you. I think that they could have a much better way of life, preferably without McDonalds and Big Brother. However, if they did want these things, would you deny them?

josip

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Unfortunate attitude from the UK. It is a bit of a joke in Germany that the Brits can't see past WW2. Only a Brit would say "two world wars and one world cup" to a German. This goes right down to politics and their "we'll never bow down to Gerry!" attitude.
As another poster put it, "we'd rather die standing up than live on our knees". What absolute drivel and exactly the kind of unconstructive verbal diarrhea engaged in by the leave side. Inventing a conflict that just doesn't exist.
I want to make a few points. First, I am really, really glad that Germany lost the war. Secondly, according to the Brits, they singlehandedly defeated Germany, but it has to be said that, well, no.
But aside from that, look at Europe. Germany, Austria, Hungary, France, Sweden, Poland, well, pretty much every country has fought with every country in countless bloody and bitter wars over thousands of years. Europe is soaked in the blood of millions and millions of people. I'm sure you could cover all of it in several inches of bone dust.
You don't find Europeans talking to each other about whatever battles were fought several hundred years ago.
If every European country hung onto old grievances or former glories like the UK did, there would still be perpetual war here. A Brit would mention the war (pun intended), but Poles, French, Dutch, Norwegians, Belgians, well any surrounding country never would.
That's not because they feel intimidated by the evil German standing in front of them, but because it would never enter our heads to do so. We don't forget the past, but we don't dig it up every single time we meet someone we've had a beef with. We'd get nothing done.
And it's not just evil Germany, many other countries had designs on becoming world leaders. Spain, France, Italy, Sweden, to name but a few.
Brexit came about because the Brexiteers live in a glorious past that doesn't exist outside history books and old movies shown at Christmas time where they bloody well showed the Hun what for and make no mistake!
They should try inhabiting the 20th century first and then gradually work their way up to the 21st.
I love and admire the UK. I've been there, knew a lot of Brits in Ireland and who wouldn't love their culture and definitely their music. And no one does comedy better. They have helped shaped the world we know today.
What surprises me is that this regressive attitude hasn't always been there, but right now it seems to be very en vogue internationally to be right leaning and isolationist.

Maybe because you live in Germany now Dr. you don't hear WWII being brought up at any time.
But in the part of the Balkans that I'm familiar with, WWII is still very recent, not forgotten and quite often mentioned.
Not stories of heroism and derring do, but the brutality of it.

I don't know how Poles currently feel about WWII or if they've gotten on with things now as you say.
But some Polish lads I worked with on the rebuilding of the Killiney Court Hotel 13 years ago hadn't forgotten about it.
There were a couple of German lads working on the site too, hard workers, but a bit dour.
The German lads worked on a pour of concrete and then headed off to lunch.
When they came back from lunch, they found that someone had written "Arbeit Macht Frei' in the part they'd just worked on.

So although I agree with you that the British are quite insular, I don't think that they have a completely unique outlook towards WWII among European countries.

dr.fuzzenstein

josip wrote: »

Maybe because you live in Germany now Dr. you don't hear WWII being brought up at any time.
But in the part of the Balkans that I'm familiar with, WWII is still very recent, not forgotten and quite often mentioned.
Not stories of heroism and derring do, but the brutality of it.

I don't know how Poles currently feel about WWII or if they've gotten on with things now as you say.
But some Polish lads I worked with on the rebuilding of the Killiney Court Hotel 13 years ago hadn't forgotten about it.
There were a couple of German lads working on the site too, hard workers, but a bit dour.
The German lads worked on a pour of concrete and then headed off to lunch.
When they came back from lunch, they found that someone had written "Arbeit Macht Frei' in the part they'd just worked on.

So although I agree with you that the British are quite insular, I don't think that they have a completely unique outlook towards WWII among European countries.

They'd have a very different outlook still. The British attitude is more "we showed the Hun what for" and "we'll never bow down to the Bosh".
And the truly sad thing is that this attitude infiltrates right into their international politics.
It has simply been projected onto the EU. People were told that those evil Germans were back in the guise of the EU and they wanted to march in and tell them what to do.
Add to that anti Muslim and immigration sentiment and you're onto a winner.
The £350 million a week lie was just the cherry on top.
I know that a lot of countries have suffered for the actions of Germany, but you can't blame the current generation for that. I'm pretty sure that neither the Polish nor the German lads at the Killiney Court Hotel were born in WW2.

ancapailldorcha

Stop dumping videos please.

DOCARCH

ECJ has (just) ruled UK can exist A50 process without recourse to EU (as long as 'in good faith').

seamus

Just when it seemed like this whole thing couldn't get any crazier.

If I were British, I think I would be pushing for Parliament to vote down the deal and immediately begin moving to cancel the withdrawal. It's right there for the taking, there is literally no good reason to keep moving forward with the Brexit process. Put an end to 2.5 years of insanity, fix the massive deficit of indenpedent information and internal cohesion that caused this whole thing in the first place.

Currency markets aren't finding it good news though. Looks like the expectation is that there is no major party who is willing to cancel it, so they're still expecting the worst.

FrancieBrady

DOCARCH wrote: »

(as long as 'in good faith').

The problem with that is that most of the 27 believe the UK couldn't lie straight in the bed under the current and prospective alternate regimes.

ancapailldorcha

seamus wrote: »

Just when it seemed like this whole thing couldn't get any crazier.

If I were British, I think I would be pushing for Parliament to vote down the deal and immediately begin moving to cancel the withdrawal. It's right there for the taking, there is literally no good reason to keep moving forward with the Brexit process. Put an end to 2.5 years of insanity, fix the massive deficit of indenpedent information and internal cohesion that caused this whole thing in the first place.

Currency markets aren't finding it good news though. Looks like the expectation is that there is no major party who is willing to cancel it, so they're still expecting the worst.

Of course there's not. For ordinary people anyway. For hedge fund managers, the upper classes who are happy to take a hit and the non-domiciled oligarchs there is be it bets they've made on the outcome of a no deal or the fact that nobody in Brussels listens to them. And so we continue.

brickster69

Does that mean all the other countries could now invoke article 50 and then revoke it after two years ?

ancapailldorcha

brickster69 wrote: »

Does that mean all the other countries could now invoke article 50 and then revoke it after two years ?

Even without this ruling, I think some sort of process, ratified by the EU27 will be needed to make the process less messy in future.

EdgeCase

The markets have given the UK huge leeway in the assumption that things, in what has been historically a very stable and sensible country, couldn't possibly continue to be this crazy. That's turning out to be a false assumption and I'm seeing signs of market commentators' patience running out.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Even without this ruling, I think some sort of process, ratified by the EU27 will be needed to make the process less messy in future.

From the EU point of view, the process works fine. Although possibly they might want to tweak the Treaties to reverse the effect of the latest court ruling, and say that revocation of A50 notice requires consent.

DOCARCH

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The problem with that is that most of the 27 believe the UK couldn't lie straight in the bed under the current and prospective alternate regimes.

I think the only way this could work is if there was a second referendum with majority supporting remaining in the EU....'the will of the people' (and all that)....or at least if there was a majority vote in HoC to remain in the EU.

seamus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Even without this ruling, I think some sort of process, ratified by the EU27 will be needed to make the process less messy in future.

I imagine simply adding a "how to cancel your withdrawal" section to article 50 would be enough to ensure a proper process.

It was said way back at that start though that the article itself was included somewhat hastily and without sufficient scrutiny; it was put there to appease some euroskeptics, nobody ever thought any country would actually use it. As a result, there was plenty of confusion about what the UK could and couldn't do.

So they'll probably fully revise it and make a clearer process out of it now, regardless of what the UK decides to do next.

VinLieger

DOCARCH wrote: »

I think the only way this could work is if there was a second referendum with majority supporting remaining in the EU....'the will of the people' (and all that)....or at least if there was a majority vote in HoC to remain in the EU.

By all accounts there is and always has been a majority of MP's in favour of remain, the only problem is such a vote in parliament would more than definitely split the Tory party and leave the Labour party completely fractured and close to a split too. Neither parties leadership want such a vote as they know the consequences could be disastrous for their parties, once again they are both putting party before country.

DOCARCH

VinLieger wrote: »

By all accounts there is and always has been a majority of MP's in favour of remain, the only problem is such a vote in parliament would more than definitely split the Tory party and leave the Labour party completely fractured and close to a split too. Neither parties leadership want such a vote as they know the consequences could be disastrous for their parties, once again they are both putting party before country.

Second referendum, sooner or later, is probably the only logical way to go! That, or drop out with no deal.

Parliament/politics in the UK is completely paralyzed!!!

ambro25

DOCARCH wrote: »

ECJ has (just) ruled UK can exist A50 process without recourse to EU (as long as 'in good faith').

It doesn’t look like it.

The CJEU have basically given the nod to the AG’s opinion (revocation possible unilaterally, if domestic constitutional procedure followed), but completely dodged the issue of accountability of the “ex” withdrawing Member State to the EU27, by stripping the AG’s ‘good faith’ test from the issue.

There are no conditions to the revocation (edit:bar meeting domestic constitutional requirements), which is confirmed as reverting the revoking Member State to the status quo.

Good result for Remain, bad result for U.K. government, bad result for EU Commission.

I’d still argue, more of a bad result than a good one for the EU, as Article 50 could now be used in bad faith/as a destabilising mechanism, by Member States with a democratic deficit.

seamus

ambro25 wrote: »

I’d still argue, more of a bad result than a good one for the EU, as Article 50 could now be used in bad faith/as a destabilising mechanism, by Member States with a democratic deficit.

Ah, I disagree. Long-term it's probably a good result, even if short-term it's going to be pretty rocky. We're now closer than we've been in the last two years to a full cancellation of Brexit, and I expect the EU-27 will be so eager to never see a sh1tshow like this again that they'll move to amend A50 as soon as they can.

So long-term the UK may stay on board and the stability of the EU will be better guaranteed.

prawnsambo

ambro25 wrote: »

It doesn’t look like it.

The CJEU have basically given the nod to the AG’s opinion (revocation possible unilaterally, if domestic constitutional procedure followed), but completely dodged the issue of accountability of the “ex” withdrawing Member State to the EU27, by stripping the AG’s ‘good faith’ test from the issue.

There are no conditions to the revocation (edit:bar meeting domestic constitutional requirements), which is confirmed as reverting the revoking Member State to the status quo.

Good result for Remain, bad result for U.K. government, bad result for EU Commission.

I’d still argue, more of a bad result than a good one for the EU, as Article 50 could now be used in bad faith/as a destabilising mechanism, by Member States with a democratic deficit.

Well there are. Firstly (as I pointed out after the AG's opinion was published) the WA must not be concluded or the two year time limit expired. And secondly, the revocation must be based on a democratic decision. So either a plebiscite or a majority vote in parliament. The latter should be sufficient given that plebiscites in the UK always require parliamentary approval.