Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Drifter]

Rachel Johnson's Naked Brexit Protest




As TV sunk so low

 

[Maticmaker]

Rachel Johnson's Naked Brexit Protest




As TV sunk so low

Yes it has, we all clicked on this video didn't we? We are down in the mud folks, Michaele Obama's plea to "go high when they go low", is not working, is it?

 

[sun_tzu]

How could it be worse? If he sets up his own party, if they get the numbers to bring us back to Brexit, you'd hope they'd go about it in a better way than we are currently attempting. Making use of the interim to actually plan out this possible outcome, no fumbling around making it up as we go like we are currently doing...

How long is this pause supposed to last? It's over 2 years! Any pause for introspection has long subsided...

I think the idea of farrage with the brexit party... possibly a new centrist party (chukka and some labour MP's probably the lib dems and maybe even some remain conservatives) would mark a real change in the political spectrum

you would probably end up with 2 enclaves of mostly local issue parties (Northern ireland with sinn fein and DUP plus the SNP in scotland) and then possibly you have now 4 parties (momentum / old labour... centrist / new new labour... traditional tories / conservative and an eclectic mix of xenophobes, racists and ultra right wing economic types probably more resembling the tee party movement in america)

but with 4 main parties plus large local contingents effectively and first past the post you are going to pretty much ensure its always coalition government and at a guess most probably at some point you then have to move to PR to effectivley reflect the reality of that.

The long term political impact of brexit might actually be a total change in our democratic system and much as i prefer us to remain I must admit changing the first part the post and almost a 2 party system (wigg tory to conservative lib to conservatve labour) is something that id actually be in favour of... even if it does unfortunately mean we have to listen to farrage and his dog whistle rubbish

 

[711]

I think the idea of farrage with the brexit party... possibly a new centrist party (chukka and some labour MP's probably the lib dems and maybe even some remain conservatives) would mark a real change in the political spectrum

you would probably end up with 2 enclaves of mostly local issue parties (Northern ireland with sinn fein and DUP plus the SNP in scotland) and then possibly you have now 4 parties (momentum / old labour... centrist / new new labour... traditional tories / conservative and an eclectic mix of xenophobes, racists and ultra right wing economic types probably more resembling the tee party movement in america)

but with 4 main parties plus large local contingents effectively and first past the post you are going to pretty much ensure its always coalition government and at a guess most probably at some point you then have to move to PR to effectivley reflect the reality of that.

The long term political impact of brexit might actually be a total change in our democratic system and much as i prefer us to remain I must admit changing the first part the post and almost a 2 party system (wigg tory to conservative lib to conservatve labour) is something that id actually be in favour of... even if it does unfortunately mean we have to listen to farrage and his dog whistle rubbish

Not sure about the actual effect of PR though. Look at parliament now, in paralysis because no one group has a majority, wouldn't PR make that more likely? Another problem is it can give an influence out of proportion to relatively small extreme groups. I thing Israel has been cited for that, maybe someone with better knowledge than I could comment.

 

[sun_tzu]

Not sure about the actual effect of PR though. Look at parliament now, in paralysis because no one group has a majority, wouldn't PR make that more likely? Another problem is it can give an influence out of proportion to relatively small extreme groups. I thing Israel has been cited for that, maybe someone with better knowledge than I could comment.

I think if we do end up with 4 parties then even with first past the post you will end up with coalition all the time
And I think you only have to look at the DUP to see how a small group can have far too much influence even under the current set up

 

[711]

I think if we do end up with 4 parties then even with first past the post you will end up with coalition all the time
And I think you only have to look at the DUP to see how a small group can have far too much influence even under the current set up

Fair comment. And as someone that looks forward to a Labour split I'm maybe on shaky ground anyway.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Rachel Johnson's Naked Brexit Protest




As TV sunk so low

She say's she was wearing a boob tube, anyway.

 

[Reiver]

I think the idea of farrage with the brexit party... possibly a new centrist party (chukka and some labour MP's probably the lib dems and maybe even some remain conservatives) would mark a real change in the political spectrum

you would probably end up with 2 enclaves of mostly local issue parties (Northern ireland with sinn fein and DUP plus the SNP in scotland) and then possibly you have now 4 parties (momentum / old labour... centrist / new new labour... traditional tories / conservative and an eclectic mix of xenophobes, racists and ultra right wing economic types probably more resembling the tee party movement in america)

but with 4 main parties plus large local contingents effectively and first past the post you are going to pretty much ensure its always coalition government and at a guess most probably at some point you then have to move to PR to effectivley reflect the reality of that.

The long term political impact of brexit might actually be a total change in our democratic system and much as i prefer us to remain I must admit changing the first part the post and almost a 2 party system (wigg tory to conservative lib to conservatve labour) is something that id actually be in favour of... even if it does unfortunately mean we have to listen to farrage and his dog whistle rubbish

Think this is a good analysis. If all this brought about PR then that would be something - that was one of Blair's biggest missed opportunities IMO.
Im no fan of FPTP. The way that May has to placate the ERG when she could have sought a cross party agreement a long time ago...hopefully situations like this would go with it.
Having said that, PR and coalition mean seeking real compromise and not giving mad DUPpers a £1 billion bung. I don't know if I trust our current crop of politicans to do their job under any kind of system.

 

[Honest John]

Everyone knows that the EU isn't perfect and literally no one has ever suggested that it shouldn't evolve and improve. The irony here is that the poster that you are responding to was telling us yesterday that there was no reason to change the institutions that existed in 1975. Brexiteers are highly dishonest, they play for both teams, claim that they want change and then claim that things should go back to the way they were.

The point is that 67% of the UK were happy to stay in the then Common Market now 52% voted to leave the EU. Clearly something has changed. Your assertion is that it is the UK which has changed. I am suggesting that the thing that the UK voted for in 1975 is not the same thing as it is now. Furthermore, although approval for for the EU has increased over the last years when polled across different members, there are still areas where people are not so content. In the last poll (May 2018 I believe) only 44% of Italians said that they thought the EU was a good thing against an EU average of 64%. What is interesting is that in that same poll 53% of UK nationals thought the EU was a good thing. Taken altogether there is enough evidence to suggest that there are quite large swathes of the EU population that are not happy with the EU and therefore claiming that the EU has nothing to answer for in this debacle is a bit arrogant. That is not to say that the UK is blameless. Far from it and in the coming years there will a massive reckoning in this country as to how something like this was allowed to happen and retribution will not be confined to the press and parliament. The courts and the street will have their say too. The world is changing and if the EU just blithely decide that the blame for all this lies firmly at the feet of the UK and refuses to examine its mission, its bloody indivisible rules and its road-maps then I would suggest that the UK will not be the last casualty.

 

[JPRouve]

The point is that 67% of the UK were happy to stay in the then Common Market now 52% voted to leave the EU. Clearly something has changed. Your assertion is that it is the UK which has changed. I am suggesting that the thing that the UK voted for in 1975 is not the same thing as it is now. Furthermore, although approval for for the EU has increased over the last years when polled across different members, there are still areas where people are not so content. In the last poll (May 2018 I believe) only 44% of Italians said that they thought the EU was a good thing against an EU average of 64%. What is interesting is that in that same poll 53% of UK nationals thought the EU was a good thing. Taken altogether there is enough evidence to suggest that there are quite large swathes of the EU population that are not happy with the EU and therefore claiming that the EU has nothing to answer for in this debacle is a bit arrogant. That is not to say that the UK is blameless. Far from it and in the coming years there will a massive reckoning in this country as to how something like this was allowed to happen and retribution will not be confined to the press and parliament. The courts and the street will have their say too. The world is changing and if the EU just blithely decide that the blame for all this lies firmly at the feet of the UK and refuses to examine it mission, its bloody indivisible rules and its road-maps then I would suggest that the UK will not be the last casualty.

Answer this question, between 1975 and 2015 has the UK been part of the EU and actively built it?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

The point is that 67% of the UK were happy to stay in the then Common Market now 52% voted to leave the EU. Clearly something has changed. Your assertion is that it is the UK which has changed. I am suggesting that the thing that the UK voted for in 1975 is not the same thing as it is now. Furthermore, although approval for for the EU has increased over the last years when polled across different members, there are still areas where people are not so content. In the last poll (May 2018 I believe) only 44% of Italians said that they thought the EU was a good thing against an EU average of 64%. What is interesting is that in that same poll 53% of UK nationals thought the EU was a good thing. Taken altogether there is enough evidence to suggest that there are quite large swathes of the EU population that are not happy with the EU and therefore claiming that the EU has nothing to answer for in this debacle is a bit arrogant. That is not to say that the UK is blameless. Far from it and in the coming years there will a massive reckoning in this country as to how something like this was allowed to happen and retribution will not be confined to the press and parliament. The courts and the street will have their say too. The world is changing and if the EU just blithely decide that the blame for all this lies firmly at the feet of the UK and refuses to examine its mission, its bloody indivisible rules and its road-maps then I would suggest that the UK will not be the last casualty.

The people in 1975 are not the same people who voted in 2016.
The press wasn't the same in 1975.
Social media brainwashing the gullibles didn't exist in 1975.

One thing is quite clear though, the majority of the electorate didn't know what they voted for in 1975 or 2016.
I didn't vote for British Leyland to sell its Morris Marinas in 1975.

 

[Honest John]

Answer this question, between 1975 and 2015 has the UK been part of the EU and actively built it?

I can work for a company for years and give it my absolute best but there may come a time when I am no longer happy.
I may try to change things whilst still in the company but at the end of the day I have to decide whether this is the place for me or not.

 

[JPRouve]

I can work for a company for years and give it my absolute best but there may come a time when I am no longer happy.
I may try to change things whilst still in the company but then end of the day I have to decide whether this is the place for me or not.

Answer the question and the UK weren't working for the EU, they were decision makers, the EU is treaty based.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I can work for a company for years and give it my absolute best but there may come a time when I am no longer happy.
I may try to change things whilst still in the company but then end of the day I have to decide whether this is the place for me or not.

But after you left you still want your salary and tell the company it should change.

 

[Honest John]

But after you left you still want your salary and tell the company it should change.

As I recall the UK is giving the EU £39bn

 

[Massive Spanner]

As I recall the UK is giving the EU £39bn

Not if there's no deal.

And they're not "giving" anything, that is money they owe. It's not a gift.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

As I recall the UK is giving the EU £39bn

It's not a gift, it's what they owe and includes the cost of the transition period if there is one and will be reduced if they go out with no deal.

 

[Honest John]

You don't find 44% of Australians not happy with the trading arrangements they have.

Answer the question and the UK weren't working for the EU, they were decision makers, the EU is treaty based.

Whilst the UK were member it was instrumental in forming the EU. Many of the laws that the Labour party now think we are going to abandon were tabled and driven by the UK. But whilst the UK was acting in good faith it, like many countries in the EU, was often only acting on narrow approval for the whole project. If it has done nothing else, Brexit has demonstrated just how flimsy that approval can be.

I would suggest the the current approval rating of the EU would have been boosted by expansion and the inclusion of countries that are still in a honeymoon period.

The EU will be challenged in the future and these challenges will expose all manner of prejudices in various countries. The migrant crisis put this into stark relief.

The idea that you can fudge the books to allow nations into the block when they were clearly not ready to be admitted, was highlighted by the Greek affair.

It almost suggests a fanatical approach to some master plan which must be fulfilled no matter what the consequence.

These issues have not gone away and if the EU persists with this unwavering approach to the project then I fear the worst.

 

[Honest John]

Not if there's no deal.

And they're not "giving" anything, that is money they owe. It's not a gift.

Yeah but we are not asking for our salary to continue to be paid as suggested above.

 

[JPRouve]

The people in 1975 are not the same people who voted in 2016.
The press wasn't the same in 1975.
Social media brainwashing the gullibles didn't exist in 1975.

One thing is quite clear though, the majority of the electorate didn't know what they voted for in 1975 or 2016.
I didn't vote for British Leyland to sell its Morris Marinas in 1975.

And I think that it's the issue because most of the things people are now talking about were already there when the UK joined, some weren't like the monetary union or Schengen but the UK opted-out. It would be nice for people to mention something that the UK were coerced to join between 1975 and 2015.

 

[Siorac]

Everyone knows that the EU isn't perfect and literally no one has ever suggested that it shouldn't evolve and improve. The irony here is that the poster that you are responding to was telling us yesterday that there was no reason to change the institutions that existed in 1975. Brexiteers are highly dishonest, they play for both teams, claim that they want change and then claim that things should go back to the way they were.

The one thing the EU should do is make its benefits more visible, especially to citizens of the richer countries. Here in Hungary it's bleeding obvious why being part of the EU is a good thing (ignore the anti-Brussels rhetoric of the government, it's nothing but posturing about immigration, aimed at the domestic voters). But maybe the EU need to do more to show the average citizens in richer countries why being a part of it is a good thing.

I have no idea how to do that, mind. I'm not exactly a great fan of the idea of spending tons of money on propaganda.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Yeah but we are not asking for our salary to continue to be paid as suggested above.

But the Uk are asking for the same benefits as when they're in it, first the Tories and now Labour.

Usually when you leave your job, you have an idea to get another job or go for something better , the UK are quitting not because the outside is better and they've got nothing lined up.
It's like being a member of the board and resigning and deciding to apply for a job as an office boy if you can find a company that wants you and at a much lower salary.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

And I think that it's the issue because most of the things people are now talking about were already there when the UK joined, some weren't like the monetary union or Schengen but the UK opted-out. It would be nice for people to mention something that the UK were coerced to join between 1975 and 2015.

I think very few people really understand what the EU/EC is or was about.
In 1975 the UK had so many problems it's got to be better in the EU, in 2016 we can get rid of some immigrants and we want to be mighty UK again and that's basically it.

 

[JPRouve]

The one thing the EU should do is make its benefits more visible, especially to citizens of the richer countries. Here in Hungary it's bleeding obvious why being part of the EU is a good thing (ignore the anti-Brussels rhetoric of the government, it's nothing but posturing about immigration, aimed at the domestic voters). But maybe the EU need to do more to show the average citizens in richer countries why being a part of it is a good thing.

I have no idea how to do that, mind. I'm not exactly a great fan of the idea of spending tons of money on propaganda.

It's not possible because the main communities are very old, people have almost only lived with them. Just think about this, the EUCU was created in 1968 and we have politicians that are just discovering it, we have people that have had years to look at what was around in 1975 and didn't even after the referendum. People don't want to know, they want to blame something or someone.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

You don't find 44% of Australians not happy with the trading arrangements they have.
.

You wont find 0.44% of British people who know what the Uk's trading arrangements are.

I'd be surprised if 0.044% of British people know how international trade works.

But the country have decided to take their advice.

 

[JPRouve]

You don't find 44% of Australians not happy with the trading arrangements they have.

Whilst the UK were member it was instrumental in forming the EU. Many of the laws that the Labour party now think we are going to abandon were tabled and driven by the UK. But whilst the UK was acting in good faith it, like many countries in the EU, was often only acting on narrow approval for the whole project. If it has done nothing else, Brexit has demonstrated just how flimsy that approval can be.

I would suggest the the current approval rating of the EU would have been boosted by expansion and the inclusion of countries that are still in a honeymoon period.

The EU will be challenged in the future and these challenges will expose all manner of prejudices in various countries. The migrant crisis put this into stark relief.

The idea that you can fudge the books to allow nations into the block when they were clearly not ready to be admitted, was highlighted by the Greek affair.

It almost suggests a fanatical approach to some master plan which must be fulfilled no matter what the consequence.

These issues have not gone away and if the EU persists with this unwavering approach to the project then I fear the worst.

So since the UK have been instrumental in forming the EU, what is the argument to leave the EU and demand introspection from the EU?

 

[JPRouve]

You wont find 0.44% of British people who know what the Uk's trading arrangements are.

I'd be surprised if 0.044% of British people know how international trade works.

But the country have decided to take their advice.

And the EC wasn't a trade arrangement.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Yeah but we are not asking for our salary to continue to be paid as suggested above.

But you owe them money for previous obligations. Just because you made some analogy about a worker and their employer doesn't make it accurate here. It's more like if you sign legally binding contracts with a company that state you have to invest a certain amount of money over time, under the agreement that you won't be leaving, and then you decide to leave, you still have to pay those investments. You can't just decide to feck off without doing so, that's not how the world works.

 

[Honest John]

So since the UK have been instrumental in forming the EU, what is the argument to leave the EU and demand introspection from the EU?

Demand is a bit strong. When did I demand that? And if you read what I have said then I readily accept that the UK will need to take a long hard look at itself after all this. What you seem to be devoid of is any concept at all that the current plan is flawed and may need to be reviewed. Or do you think the EU is working?

I mean where else on this planet is the EU model being duplicated? Do you think the Australians would join under the current rules? Or the Japanese? There may be economical upsides sure. But with the world the way it is FOM, monetary union, federalism, EU armies etc. may be more than many would want to pay. Better to negotiate a simple FTA with EU and be done.

 

[Honest John]

But you owe them money for previous obligations. Just because you made some analogy about a worker and their employer doesn't make it accurate here. It's more like if you sign legally binding contracts with a company that state you have to invest a certain amount of money over time, under the agreement that you won't be leaving, and then you decide to leave, you still have to pay those investments. You can't just decide to feck off without doing so, that's not how the world works.

I agree the £39 is owed and should be paid. I wanted Mays deal to be accepted. All the other WA elements are no problem rights of citizen. The problem lies with the border question and May can't get it through the house. She is not going rip up the UK Parliamentary rules, sack the ERG or any of those bizzare things that many on here think should happen. So she is asking for help to get this over the line.

Then, the FTA will be negotiated and everyone and his dog knows that it won't be the same as staying in.

The Tories are not asking for the same as 'staying in' they are asking for a close relationship.

Labour are only asking for the same as 'staying in' because they want to score political points.

You don't really believe that anyone in the Labour party truly believes that any deal other than staying in is going to be the same as staying in do you?

She needs something that commands a majority in the house. At the moment she's pinning her hopes on negotiating some movement on the backstop.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Demand is a bit strong. When did I demand that? And if you read what I have said then I readily accept that the UK will need to take a long hard look at itself after all this. What you seem to be devoid of is any concept at all that the current plan is flawed and may need to be reviewed. Or do you think the EU is working?

I mean where else on this planet is the EU model being duplicated? Do you think the Australians would join under the current rules? Or the Japanese? There may be economical upsides sure. But with the world the way it is FOM, monetary union, federalism, EU armies etc. may be more than many would want to pay. Better to negotiate a simple FTA with EU and be done.

There was FOM in 1975. The UK has not adopted nor would have had to adopt the Euro and there is no federalism or EU army.
A simple FTA with the EU will be a catastrophe for the UK.

If the UK were situated on the other side of the world why would it want to join the EU. The geographical location is very important.

 

[JPRouve]

Demand is a bit strong. When did I demand that? And if you read what I have said then I readily accept that the UK will need to take a long hard look at itself after all this. What you seem to be devoid of is any concept at all that the current plan is flawed and may need to be reviewed. Or do you think the EU is working?

I mean where else on this planet is the EU model being duplicated? Do you think the Australians would join under the current rules? Or the Japanese? There may be economical upsides sure. But with the world the way it is FOM, monetary union, federalism, EU armies etc. may be more than many would want to pay. Better to negotiate a simple FTA with EU and be done.

I said in this very page that the EU wasn't perfect and should improve and evolve, which has always been the case by the way. As for the second question it's borderline shocking, you basically show that you have no idea about the reason why the ECSC was created and I invite you to read the preamble of the Treaty of Rome, think about what links France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherland and Luxemburg in 1957. Also, you are not part of the monetary Union, there is no EU army, no federalism and you joined something that existed for two decades, if you didn't like it then, you shouldn't have join it.

 

[Honest John]

There was FOM in 1975. The UK has not adopt nor would have had to adopt the Euro and there is no federalism or EU army.
A simple FTA with the UK will be a catastrophe for the UK.

If the UK were situated on the other side of the world why would it want to join the EU. The geographical location is very important.

In 1975 FOM did not involve 500 million people from countries that were not economically up to the task when being accepted into the block. There was no concept of what FOM meant or could possible mean. And it is disingenuous for you to assume that knowledge of the intricacies every element of the union the UK was signing up to should have been as well known as the bloody alphabet. It wasn't and nor could it have conceivably been. You can't stand there and say that the UK should have known what it was getting itself into. Could you have predicted the fall of the Berlin wall then?

 

[caid]

I think there has been introspection. I dont think the conclusions of it are that helpful to the British. I think its mostly focused minds on the benefits and on the poor standard of british politicians primarily.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

In 1975 FOM did not involve 500 million people from countries that were not economically up to the task when being accepted into the block. There was no concept of what FOM meant or could possible mean. And it is disingenuous for you to assume that knowledge of the intricacies every element of the union the UK was signing up to should have been as well known as the bloody alphabet. It wasn't and nor could it have conceivably been. You can't stand there and say that the UK should have known what it was getting itself into. Could you have predicted the fall of the Berlin wall then?

500 million people who are not up to the task? No concept of what FoM means? What the hell are you saying?
Sounds as if it's East Germans you don't like.

If people don't know even the basics of what they're voting for, they shouldn't vote.

 

[Honest John]

I think there has been introspection. I dont think the conclusions of it are that helpful to the British. I think its mostly focused minds on the benefits and on the poor standard of british politicians primarily.

This seems to be a contradiction

 

[Abizzz]

People banging on about European introspection after 2 years of British mess is even more ironic than people calling themselves honest and hiding behind "devils advocate".


I weep for you Brits who have to put up with millions of these. Good luck.

 

[Honest John]

500 million people who are not up to the task? No concept of what FoM means? What the hell are you saying?
Sounds as if it's East Germans you don't like.

If people don't know even the basics of what they're voting for, they shouldn't vote.

Nothing to do with who I Like. But if you let countries in that are not economically ready and then tell them 'you are in, you can go wherever you like'. Where are they going to go? This would be less of the case if those country's had genuinely achieved the required economic standards.

 

[Massive Spanner]

I mean where else on this planet is the EU model being duplicated? Do you think the Australians would join under the current rules? Or the Japanese? There may be economical upsides sure. But with the world the way it is FOM, monetary union, federalism, EU armies etc. may be more than many would want to pay. Better to negotiate a simple FTA with EU and be done.

I think you should probably look up the history of Europe, particularly the 1910's and 1940's.

 

[caid]

This seems to be a contradiction

It might seem it, but its relevant - the politicians you've sent to europe in recent years have been the likes of Nigel Farage, David Davis and Dominic Raab. People who added nothing of value and have just disrupted business. You've become an obstacle to the running of the union. I think the conclusion that we probably need to go our own way for some period of time is fair.
You dont object to any of the actual policies of the EU, you haven't exposed any serious flaws. The likes of a billion turks invading has a solution - one country rejects their admission. The reason Poles or East Germans or whatever wasn't used as an example of a foreign invasion is because their not exotic enough to be a good boogeyman, people dont have any real issue with them. Which probably shows the sense and value of admitting them in the first place. You've shown that an incompetent and hostile national government can be a problem ... but I think we already knew that.