Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Juncker is on record saying no-one will block an extension:

If Britain asks for a delay to its departure from the European Union, none of the existing members will stand in its way, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Tuesday.
But, speaking at an event in the German city of Stuttgart, Juncker added that if the extension lasted until the European Parliament elections at the end of May, British voters would have to take part in the polls.

I was replying to a poster saying that the EU could unilaterally extend it. In short, they can't. There has to be a request. And it has to have a duration. And there has to be a good reason (as many EU leaders have said). So a unilateral extension is not an option.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

It seems all 3 of the Tory defectors do want a second referendum.

VinLieger

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

It seems all 3 of the Tory defectors do want a second referendum.

While a 2nd referendum might end up keeping them in the EU theres been years of damage done economically already that it is a not going to be easy to recover from.

Harry Palmr

seamus wrote: »

That said, it would be fair to say that the Irish know a lot more about UK politics than the British know about Irish politics. Given the close relationship between the two countries, it seems more than a little bit incompetent for a UK political commentator to not understand the basics.

What the Irish know about British history would fill a book, what the British know about Irish history wouldn't fill a sheet of a book.

Infini

VinLieger wrote: »

While a 2nd referendum might end up keeping them in the EU theres been years of damage done economically already that it is a not going to be easy to recover from.

In fairness a 2nd referendum wont undo the damage but it would at least give the British people a chance to stop any further damage. This whole episode basically has exposed a severe level of ignorance and stupidity not to mention how woefully inept the current political system is over there. They need serious reforms and need to drop the "my way or the highway" that's basically landed themselves in this and start real reforms to their political system to make it more representative. They also need to go after all this dirty money as well that was allowed to skew the vote and stop slacking on that as well.

kunst nugget

Harry Palmr wrote: »

What the Irish know about British history would fill a book, what the British know about Irish history wouldn't fill a sheet of a book.

They were the neighbour that's played a major part in most of our history over the last eight hundred plus years. We were an insignificant part of an empire that covered a quarter of the globe at one point.



Not trying to run us down but apart from being a bit of a pain in the arse in modern times because of Northern Ireland, why would they be bothered studying the history of Ireland in depth?

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

The UK is in major trouble, it's clear from PMQ that Corbyn has not a single notion of a plan either.

ArmaniJeanss

kunst nugget wrote: »

They were the neighbour that's played a major part in most of our history over the last eight hundred plus years. We were an insignificant part of an empire that covered a quarter of the globe at one point.



Not trying to run us down but apart from being a bit of a pain in the arse in modern times because of Northern Ireland, why would they be bothered studying the history of Ireland in depth?

Weren't we part of their country via the Act of Union, not just part of their empire.
Its like Scotland (if they voted Independence) not being mentioned much in English history textbooks 50 years from now. It would be a bit strange.

Call me Al

kunst nugget wrote: »

They were the neighbour that's played a major part in most of our history over the last eight hundred plus years. We were an insignificant part of an empire that covered a quarter of the globe at one point.



Not trying to run us down but apart from being a bit of a pain in the arse in modern times because of Northern Ireland, why would they be bothered studying the history of Ireland in depth?

We were part of their country, not just a far-off gloomy isle in the middle of the sea. I don't think anyone would expect the intricacies of the 1916 rising to be covered, but I would expect them to know at the very least where their own borders begin and end, not to mention the circumstances under which those borders came to be.

I watched a BBC prog about Scotland recently and one of the contributors commented that Scottish and Celtic history had been consciously omitted from their history curriculum, and only recently had that been rectified.

Christy42

seamus wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Haha, I can imagine Leo ringing up Mary Lou to tell her to get SF to take up their seats.

To be fair, Sinn Fein and their seats is an issue of subtlety that requires explaining 100 years of Irish history to make sense. I wouldn't expect a foreign journalist to get it unless their specific area of focus was Irish politics.

Journalists tend to consider foreign parliaments as one contiguous governing body, but domestic parliament is a mish-mash of warring factions. They forget that other parliaments have their own opposition parties, bun fights and historical squabbles. This is as true of the BBC as it is of RTE.

That said, it would be fair to say that the Irish know a lot more about UK politics than the British know about Irish politics. Given the close relationship between the two countries, it seems more than a little bit incompetent for a UK political commentator to not understand the basics.

It is also UK history. Northern Ireland is still meant to be part of their country. That they can't be bothered learning about large sections of their own country is a different matter.

In 100 years when UI has long been a given I could see the argument but not now.

downcow

Harry Palmr wrote: »

What the Irish know about British history would fill a book, what the British know about Irish history wouldn't fill a sheet of a book.

A fairly sweeping statement. Where would your evidence be for this?

An Ciarraioch

Presumably No Deal is no longer a viable option for May, given around 20 Tory Remainers would walk if that became her strategy?

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

A fairly sweeping statement. Where would your evidence be for this?

Well they aren't taught anything about it in school for one.....

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

A fairly sweeping statement. Where would your evidence be for this?

Well there's the tweet I posted today, that's just from today. You'll also have seen many other examples posted on this thread alone. And then there's the simple fact of what's in their cirriculum on Anglo Irish history.

PropJoe10

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

The UK is in major trouble, it's clear from PMQ that Corbyn has not a single notion of a plan either.

The most amazing thing to me about these Commons exchanges is that they've been having the exact same exchanges for the past two months. Corbyn rambles on about a customs union, May tells him to support her deal. Rinse and repeat. The whole thing is going nowhere very fast indeed, and it's very hard to see a breakthrough.



May is also not setting a timeline on the next meaningful vote. Seems that her strategy of pushing the vote as close to March 29th is alive and well.

Nody

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Presumably No Deal is no longer a viable option for May, given around 20 Tory Remainers would walk if that became her strategy?

No deal only requires May to stall it out until 29th March; unlike any other alternative which require the whole Tory party (and/or possible some Labour/independent) to agree on something. No deal is the most viable option currently because it's the least effort and require no decision to happen unlike anything else.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

No deal is the most viable option currently because it's the least effort and require no decision to happen unlike anything else.

That's like saying driving off the cliff is the most viable option because it is less effort than truning the wheel or hitting the brakes.


"Viable" literally means possible by extension from "able to live". Driving off a cliff is not viable just because it is easy - it is lethal.

LeinsterDub

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

The UK is in major trouble, it's clear from PMQ that Corbyn has not a single notion of a plan either.

PMQ's is nothing but a clown show. I don't know why anyone puts any stock in it . Nothing ever comes out of it . The media and everyone else should ignore it until such time as the circus is ended

Strazdas

joeysoap wrote: »

‘Confident’


https://www.joe.ie/news/kate-hoey-confident-ireland-leave-eu-659076

Hoey is now one of the most extreme MPs in the Commons. If she was in the ERG, she would be one of their most hardline members (ditto with Sammy Wilson).

Strazdas

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I think it is a little bit more significant than you suggest. A labour splinter group is one thing and largely insignificant in the shceme of things, but that they have been able to attract dis-satisified members from both sides makes them a much bigger threat if you ask me. They have 10 MPs now, the same number as the DUP, they could possibley be a kingmaker for a softer Brexit deal.

EDIT: The article says 8 former labour MP's, I thought there was only 7? Does that bring them up to 11?

Totally agree, if this was just about one party imploding, it could be dismissed as a stunt but when it's happening to the two major parties, it's a huge story.

10000maniacs

Shelga wrote: »

Finally, three Tories have had enough and defected to the Independent Group:

Three Tory MPs join Labour breakaway group http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47306022

Great news, they just need another 100 or so to join them now.

In terms of Brexit, there is going to be a hard Brexit in 37 days time and you may ask how is this even possible when the majority of the House of Commons don't want it.
Both remainers and leavers who don't want a hard Brexit don't want to run the risk of the other side being the ones to get the concessions, whether it a customs union or removal of the backstop, so May has no chance of getting her deal through. So that leaves no Brexit or no deal.
76% of Tories in the HOC would prefer a no-deal to remaining. And 65% of Labour constituencies voted for no-deal. So if you were a Labour remainer in one of those constituencies, you would reject any Article 50 amendment or be out of work after the next General Election. So after Mays new deal is rejected, Yvette Coopers Article 50 amendment vote will be retriggered and rejected.
What's next after that?

LuckyLloyd

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

The UK is in major trouble, it's clear from PMQ that Corbyn has not a single notion of a plan either.

Did you actually watch it? It's fairly clear what his plan is! He wants to rule out No Deal and agree to a permanent Customs Union. Dropping that Red Line would offer much greater flexibility to the EU and allow the WA to be reopened, particularly the section on the Backstop.

You can debate the rights and wrongs of that plan, but it's definitely a plan of action. By contrast, May continues to offer no flexibility on her red lines and talk about unicorns. From an EU perspective, Corbyn would be far easier to deal with.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, Sinn Fein and their seats is an issue of subtlety that requires explaining 100 years of Irish history to make sense. I wouldn't expect a foreign journalist to get it unless their specific area of focus was Irish politics.

Journalists tend to consider foreign parliaments as one contiguous governing body, but domestic parliament is a mish-mash of warring factions. They forget that other parliaments have their own opposition parties, bun fights and historical squabbles. This is as true of the BBC as it is of RTE.

That said, it would be fair to say that the Irish know a lot more about UK politics than the British know about Irish politics. Given the close relationship between the two countries, it seems more than a little bit incompetent for a UK political commentator to not understand the basics.

He was caught out playing to the gallery of imbeciles who know nothing and don't want to know anything about what happens beyond British shores.

seamus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Judging from this, the people of Britain seem to have an opinion on WW2 that they are totally alone in holding.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/05/01/Britain-America-disagree-who-did-more-beat-nazis

Off-topic, I always feel bad for Russia in WWII history. I'm no fan of them, but their contribution in WWII was completely whitewashed by the West during the cold war. Between 9 and 10 million Soviets died fighting in WW2. Of which Russians alone account for nearly 7 million. The UK and US combined lost less than a million.

LuckyLloyd

seamus wrote: »

Off-topic, I always feel bad for Russia in WWII history. I'm no fan of them, but their contribution in WWII was completely whitewashed by the West during the cold war. Between 9 and 10 million Soviets died fighting in WW2. Of which Russians alone account for nearly 7 million. The UK and US combined lost less than a million.

And also substantial destruction of infrastructure and natural resources on vast expanses of homeland, something the US avoided almost completely. Quite the sacrifice.

boggerman1

Was listening to pmq's today (I know how sad!) and it was the most downbeat one I've heard in a while.both the maybot and Jeremy the commi sounded like beaten dockets.same old same old stuff.rule out no deal,vote for the deal ,re open talks on the backstop etc.whatever about our country's history with the UK and while I may take a little bit of delight in their comeuppance this is sad to watch a country tearing itself to shreds over a perceived greatness and empire

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Well at the risk of going off-topic had the Brits just said "Oh well" then what would have stopped the Germans from winning? There's different ways of phrasing and thinking about it. The Brits probably did the most to stop the Germans winning. The Russians and Yanks were what won it in the end but there wouldn't have still been a war but for the Brits.

The point is that WW2 was a very nuanced affair and the British are those who are least able to understand that, as the graph shows. Education should temper that but it doesn't, the myths persist.
Compare that to how we understand our own conflicts and wars and it is very different, all the nuances are expressed and are unhidden. I.E. the current major doc with Cillian Murphy narrating which is largely a warts and all look at our decade of conflict/war.

Sam Russell

downcow wrote: »

Will I dont t think roi people know very much about the British input to the 2nd world war. But why should they
Tbh why should any of us be expected to take an interest in history that doesn’t interest us.
Less history and more looking forward would be helpful

I think a lot of Irish people actually know/knew about the British input to the 2nd WW because they took part in it - both fighting in British uniforms and working in the munitions factories. Also, the Irish authorities were neutral on the side of the Allies, providing them with valuable intelligence - in particular the vital weather forecast before D-Day.

Many people in Ireland have relations in the UK and know a lot about the UK.

Imreoir2

seamus wrote: »

Off-topic, I always feel bad for Russia in WWII history. I'm no fan of them, but their contribution in WWII was completely whitewashed by the West during the cold war. Between 9 and 10 million Soviets died fighting in WW2. Of which Russians alone account for nearly 7 million. The UK and US combined lost less than a million.

Never mind losses suffered, if you look at the losses inflicted on the German military, it is clear that the Soviets did the vast bulk of the lifting when it came to defeating the Garman Army. Had the Soviets been defeated without much fuss in 1941 the Anglo-American alliance would not have had a snowballs chance of liberating Western Europe.

blackwhite

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And also substantial destruction of infrastructure and natural resources on vast expanses of homeland, something the US avoided almost completely. Quite the sacrifice.

I'm not sure that "sacrifice" ("give up (something valued) for the sake of other considerations") is the appropriate word.

I'd always consider a sacrifice as something you choose to do/give up in order to serve a greater good.

The USSR was quite happy to hop into bed with Nazi Germany up until the point the Nazi's double-crossed them and attacked Soviet forces in Poland.
They didn't enter the war to try and defeat Fascism or the Nazis - their initial position was to try and seize territory in Eastern Europe, then to repel an invasion, and finally the combined goal of crippling Germany to prevent risk of future invasions, whilst also revisiting the first goal of a land-grab.

"Sacrifice" always strikes me as far too altruistic a description to associate with Soviet involvement in WWII.