Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Letwin_Larry

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

the truck/tractor did but the trailer came over from Zeebrugge into Purfleet.
those poor people may well have been dead before he even arrived.
disgusting whatever, but the driver may be totally innocent.

Yes, quite likely he just picked up the trailer to take to the industrial estate, the real question is how long did it take to get from Bulgaria to Zeebrugge.

Tired Gardener

Sam Russell wrote: »

I used the term 'Special Relationship' not 'Special Agreement'. There is a huge difference. I may have an agreement to buy a car from someone, but if that someone is my brother, then it is different as we both have to live with it if there is a problem. Not the same with a stranger.

The UK had an agreement with the USA during the 2nd WW which was call 'Lend Lease' where the USA sold munitions and supplies to the UK, and got payment after hostilities ended. This bankrupted the UK. They had an agreement on nuclear weapons, but the UK had to stop developing and buy USA trident. They had an agreement on computers, but the UK had to abandon development in favour of US computers. etc etc etc. Agreement ended up in buying American, or follow USA into war - but not the other way round. That is the basis of an agreement, that is true.

The UK lost its Empire in 1948 when India became independent. India was the Empire - the rest were just colonies. The colonies were lost to uprises and revolutions by native populations against the colonial power.

Ireland on the other hand visits the White House every year to celebrate St Patrick's Day, and holds the St Patrick's Day Parade in NY on St Patrick's Day every year - one of very few parades held on the actual day.

Most US presidents visit Ireland to help their re-election. Most US politicians like to emphasise any Irish heritage. Now that is a relationship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship

Sorry to derail this, but the UK and the US do have a special relationship, it is an unofficial term for the 'unparralled closesness' of the two countries, no other two countries are as close. The big difference is that while the people of US have a very favourable view towards Ireland, it is the US governments that have a favourable view towards the UK. The UK is still after all the world's 5th largest economy and has a very large modern military, so has more to offer in a relationship.

Losing Hong Kong was the end of the British Empire, yes losing Indian would have been a massive blow to the Empire, but the British Empire still had many African nations. The last to be given independence was Zimbabwe in 1980, some view that as the end of the Empire, bit historically it was with Hong Kong. It could be argued that the Empire was over with the end of WW1, just given the sheer colossal size of it, it took nearly 100 years for it to die.

Nody

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship

Sorry to derail this, but the UK and the US do have a special relationship, it is an unofficial term for the 'unparralled closesness' of the two countries, no other two countries are as close. The big difference is that while the people of US have a very favourable view towards Ireland, it is the US governments that have a favourable view towards the UK. The UK is still after all the world's 5th largest economy and has a very large modern military, so has more to offer in a relationship.

Yes the US has a special relationship with the UK; it's a great asset (read obedient dog) to be used as needed but that's it's a one way relationship. Shall we talk about for example how Trump sent out the information that UK had gathered and set as top secret around the Russian poisoning for example? Or that US has stated that UK will have to lower it's standards in any future trade deal? That US wanted one way extraditions (UK to USA but not the other way around)? Installing spy satellites for NSA (how many spy installations does the UK have in the US again?), etc.? You can keep talking about the special relationship but can you show were US was in the Falklands war or supported UK in any other major conflict or issue? Now compare how many conflicts UK have backed up the US in by comparison. Yes, special one way relationship indeed but nothing more than that, US loves to call up the UK if it needs something but if it's the other way around it's ignored.

jimmycrackcorm

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship

Sorry to derail this, but the UK and the US do have a special relationship, it is an unofficial term for the 'unparralled closesness' of the two countries, no other two countries are as close. The big difference is that while the people of US have a very favourable view towards Ireland, it is the US governments that have a favourable view towards the UK. The UK is still after all the world's 5th largest economy and has a very large modern military, so has more to offer in a relationship.
.

I think the reality is that special relationship means one sided in favour of the US telling the UK that they go to war in the middle East when they are told.

Only the brits talk about it and its because they were so relieved after grovelling during WW2 that the US joined. To Americans, their view of the brits is more exemplified by the the film 'The Patriot'.

I can't see how the UK should think they have such in all practical reality other than be useful idiots for the US security services.

The UK doesn't get immigration preclearance, the Americans don't celebrate St George's day, and burne republicans and Democrats both say they will vote down a FTA if Ireland is harmed through breaking the GFA. Not a peep about telling the EU they won't get a trade deal if the UK doesn't get a great WA.

GM228

Just another way to frustrate MPs:-

https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1187063196345163776?s=19

He writes like a doctor, but at least he signed it

LeinsterDub

Rumours abound on Twitter that Johnson is going to push for a mid December election

Sam Russell

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Losing Hong Kong was the end of the British Empire, yes losing Indian would have been a massive blow to the Empire, but the British Empire still had many African nations. The last to be given independence was Zimbabwe in 1980, some view that as the end of the Empire, bit historically it was with Hong Kong. It could be argued that the Empire was over with the end of WW1, just given the sheer colossal size of it, it took nearly 100 years for it to die.

Victoria was declared Empress of India. It was after that declaration when reference to 'The British Empire' and 'British India' started and the myth of he Great British Empire was extended to all British colonies.

When India gained independence in 1948, the Empire ceased. Inia has a flag that is green, white and gold because it was the second country to break away from the British.

I wonder who was the first?

Irish Praetorian

Sam Russell wrote: »

Victoria was declared Empress of India. It was after that declaration when reference to 'The British Empire' and 'British India' started and the myth of he Great British Empire was extended to all British colonies.

When India gained independence in 1948, the Empire ceased. Inia has a flag that is green, white and gold because it was the second country to break away from the British.

I wonder who was the first?

That would be Burma if we're talking about the Commonwealth, or the USA if we're talking about secession from UK rule.

Danzy

Going Strong wrote: »

I read somewhere that this demographic is mostly the same one that, 40 years ago, took a gamble on Margaret Thatcher. The curbing of trade unions, deregulating nationalised utilities and breaking open the housing market benefited them and they saw Brexit as another opportunity to diminish state control once again.


After all, they've voted Conservative to impose austerity on "Work Shy Scroungers" and deter immigrants from "Clogging up the NHS". Brexit should return sovereignty to Westminster to remove any EU-related impediments to further cuts in government spending so that "The Squeezed Middle" such as themselves can be feather-bedded some more.

In short, they feel that, whatever downsides there might be to Brexit, they will be immune from it and relatively wealthy enough to profit from it at the expense of the 'undeserving'.

Yet as the bar chart earlier on voters showed, the majority of the working class voted leave, the majority of the managerial class voted Remain.

Just even talking to people in the Remain protests recently, different side of the tracks.

Class divide is important in why people voted leave and remain and the motives they ascribe to each other.

Joe_ Public

GM228 wrote: »

Just another way to frustrate MPs:-

https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1187063196345163776?s=19

He writes like a doctor, but at least he signed it

Would you normally expect such a letter to be typed? I cant even read it. Seemed to be some difficulty with Priti Patel too, heard one mp mention in the house yesterday they had been trying to get her in front of a select committee since august, at least thats what i thought i heard?

GM228

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Would you normally expect such a letter to be typed? I cant even read it. Seemed to be some difficulty with Priti Patel too, heard one mp mention in the house yesterday they had been trying to get her in front of a select committee since august, at least thats what i thought i heard?

I would think so, but you would also normally expect a PM to attend.

GM228

Do not dump memes here please.

Joe_ Public

GM228 wrote: »

I would think so, but you would also normally expect a PM to attend.

Most unfortunate he is causing such dither and delay to vital committee business.

To answer my own question above i see they did get Patel in front of committee today. She was unable to answer their questions on border checks between GB and NI because, basically, she is utterly useless.

hotmail.com

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Rumours abound on Twitter that Johnson is going to push for a mid December election

Tuesday December 10th apparently.

VinLieger

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Rumours abound on Twitter that Johnson is going to push for a mid December election

There was a report that it wouldnt be possible to have it later than the 12th due to all the school facilities they would require being booked for christmas stuff, exams, plays etc

listermint

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Rumours abound on Twitter that Johnson is going to push for a mid December election

But how can he get the election?

Strazdas

Two pollsters on Newsnight saying a GE would be risky for Johnson, as the electorate are so volatile at the moment and nobody can be sure what way the votes for the four main English parties will split.

Joe_ Public

listermint wrote: »

But how can he get the election?

While its in labours interests to keep him stewing for as long as possible i do wonder if this waiting for no deal line is going to wear thin very soon. If extension is settled this week for instance, how can labour seriously keep refusing it?

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

Two pollsters on Newsnight saying a GE would be risky for Johnson, as the electorate are so volatile at the moment and nobody can be sure what way the votes for the four main English parties will split.

I think cummings is the one desperate for quick election on a people v parliament ticket so he can wallow in a gloves off dirty campaign.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think cummings is the one desperate for quick election on a people v parliament ticket so he can wallow in a gloves off dirty campaign.

Indeed, but many think it will be a gamble. Two unknowns are how the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party will fare and how much damage they can do to Con and Lab.

LeinsterDub

listermint wrote: »

But how can he get the election?

With Labour on board he'd get the 2/3 required. But according the rumours Labour aren't on board and more concerning from his pov is that is party isn't even on board

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed, but many think it will be a gamble. Two unknowns are how the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party will fare and how much damage they can do to Con and Lab.

Lib Dems will do decent i'd think, probably hurt labour while damage BP could do to tories is considerable. So volatile its really hard to be certain. If you get some effective alliances working on either side, could have a real bearing.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Lib Dems will do decent i'd think, probably hurt labour while damage BP could do to tories is considerable. So volatile its really hard to be certain. If you get some effective alliances working on either side, could have a real bearing.

If it was a hung parliament again, it would send the Brexit process right back to square one. It would make it virtually impossible to get any WA through.

jimmycrackcorm

Strazdas wrote: »

If it was a hung parliament again, it would send the Brexit process right back to square one. It would make it virtually impossible to get any WA through.

It might even come to a point that they will simply say the only way is a binding referendum.

That will take six months alone to agree wording and options

Seth Brundle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, quite likely he just picked up the trailer to take to the industrial estate, the real question is how long did it take to get from Bulgaria to Zeebrugge.

mod note: let's leave the discussion on the truck tragedy to the threads on it please

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

If it was a hung parliament again, it would send the Brexit process right back to square one. It would make it virtually impossible to get any WA through.

If Labour did reasonably ok, you might get a situation where the pressure came on lib dems to back corbyn for pm so to get referendum in place. With snp, green and other support. What odds on all that though? Plus, it would require yet another extension. No easy way out!

GM228

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It might even come to a point that they will simply say the only way is a binding referendum.

That will take six months alone to agree wording and options

The UK does not do binding referendums.

It could legislate that a referendum will be binding, but, then again it could revoke/amend that legislation, as such the UK can never have a truly binding referendum.

Danzy

listermint wrote: »

But how can he get the election?

Corbyn said to be backing an election if No Deal Brexit is ruled out, which isn't asking much as so few MPs want, a dozen?

His shadow cabinet want a 2nd referendum as part of it which is another joke, they want to avoid an election, understandably given the polling, they are looking tougher now than under Foot, according to the Guardian.

Real bind for the opposition there, if they don't want the deal, won't allow an election, people will hammer them the longer it goes on.

Doesn't matter what you think of Brexit, they are stuck in the ultimate gonzo political position at the moment.

Danzy

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think cummings is the one desperate for quick election on a people v parliament ticket so he can wallow in a gloves off dirty campaign.

He is desperate for it because it's a great opportunity for his side to cement power.

The longer it goes on the better it may be as people get frustrated.

marno21

Surely if no deal is ruled out pre-election, a post election Tory majority can just repeal the relevant legislation and plough the UK into the abyss?