Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
The ones that would hoover up the businesses probably have more to lose than to gain. Ireland would appear to be the biggest benefactor but they'd have a hard border in the North. Germany, France, Belgium and The Netherlands would lose a big trading partner.
Losing the UK for them would be bad but they'd rather that than gaining some businesses.
I've seen nothing to suggest other countries want the UK to leave, they just want this ordeal to be over with.
Ireland would be hit hard by a no-deal Brexit, probably nearly as bad as the UK in the short term, no way around it really. I think Dublin will benefit but the rest of the country will suffer. The only positive is we'll have the EU backing us, hopefully.
He's spent the last two years alienating the centrists and people who want to remain in the EU. He has now changed tack and is trying to keep the remainers on side, alienating all those who want the country to leave the EU. This isn't a 'he can't win' situation, or well it is but it is one of his own making.
Why would the vote for something they don't agree with? They don't want to leave the EU, so why would they vote for a motion that would see the country leave the EU?
Why?
I though the EU had already said withdrawal can be unilateral but a delay has to be agreed to by the EU?
Corbyn's version is the unicorn version. It will never be possible. There's a distinction with the reality version.
Anyone who thinks the idiots from 2016 have suddenly become intelligent are in for a shock.
The message seems to be that the EU would only agree to an extension if there were a definite reason for it, such as to prepare for a clear and binding referendum or election. I think just wanting more time to debate would not be enough.
To stop a no-deal, parliament have to agree on something, even if they vote against no deal, without agreeing on something it will happen by default and they're not giving any impression that they're even close to agreeing anything.
This was what the Brexiters wanted when they voted against immigrants from the EU, wasn't it?
This was what the Brexiters wanted when they voted against immigrants from the EU, wasn't it?
My wife is part of the non-EU stats, being American and having moved here in September 2016. My mother, who voted to leave, doesn't consider her case as similar to an EU citizen moving here. My mother isn't necessarily racist but she doesn't seem to understand it's (almost) the same principle.True to a certain degree. Everyone (especially including the EU negotiators) knows 500+ MPs don't really want Brexit though.
Best thing the EU can do is refuse an extension of A50 until a concrete course of action is voted through parliament. That is what Macron was suggesting I think, and it's pretty sensible. Unless the EU wants this to drag on indefinitely, need to have the stones to force the UK in to a decision.
Could be wrong but i'm pretty sure the ECJ ruled that the UK can withdraw Art 50 unilaterally. So she wouldn't need the agreement of the 27.
they probably think that as long as it's not the Polish taking their jobs then it's fine.
Can withdraw but an extension would need agreement with EU member states I think
One month left until Brexit. (As it currently stands)
Yeah thats right but withdrawing art50 and cancelling Brexit doesn't need agreement as i understand it.
Yeah sorry, I was trying to say, but badly that only an extension requires agreement
Don't get me wrong, I am pleased and genuinely welcome the change in his outlook. However I feel it's a little bit late and will do nothing for him in the General Election he would prefer to have instead.
It's not too hard to imagine most Brexiters would want both EU and non-EU immigration to be reduced, but they've only ever been given a vote directly affecting one of those categories. As for Joe Bloggs on the street, any statistic like the above that show increased immigration from anywhere would only strengthen the likelihood of them voting Leave in a second referendum I'm afraid, as that would be the only option available to them if immigration were their chief concern, however irrelevant to much of that immigration the vote might be.
This was what the Brexiters wanted when they voted against immigrants from the EU, wasn't it?
I agree with you - but if you remember at the beginning it wasn't that they didn't object to immigrants, supposedly, just that it should be spread more around the citizens of nations throughout the world and no favouritism to EU citizens, so theoretically they got what they wanted.
Yes, there was the odd politician did say that, as they all by nature cast around for arguments to validate their 'side', as do zealots of both Leave and Remain.
It wasn't the view of the average voter though, so it's a point that will go over their heads I'm afraid, most of them just wanted less immigration, end of.
I know folk who wanted fewer immigrants from India and Pakistan, so they voted Leave. You know, India and Pakistan, those European countries.Yes, there was the odd politician did say that, as they all by nature cast around for arguments to validate their 'side', as do zealots of both Leave and Remain.
It wasn't the view of the average voter though, so it's a point that will go over their heads I'm afraid, most of them just wanted less immigration, end of.
The stats seem to indicate that we've 'metaphorically' traded Poles for Pakistanis.
What will the bigots campaign for now?
What could he have done ? I hear this all the time about well Corbyn should of done more etc but like what ?
After the referendum result everyone in the party part from the far left and the membership tried to get rid of Corbyn. So a whole year was wasted trying to regain the party and its structures and still even with the far left of labour controlling most of the party, yesterdayMPs from the centre left and right were literally lying on tv about the party. There is no winning over these people for Corbyn and in all honestly there shouldn't be, these MP's are only doing what is best for their type of politics. The argument sadly hasn't change since 2015, who control the party members or MPs. Until one side leaves, Labour will be a party of contradictions.
Has anyone else made a convincing argument about another second referendum that has somehow won over the country ? The Peoples Vote has achieved nothing, The TIG showed yesterday with their vote they are interested in one thing and one thing only stopping a potential labour government, The Lib Dems are still being the Lib Dems. Its turns out I was wrong earlier in thinking Reman was miles a head in the polls but the latest one has Remain 4 points a head.
And finally there simply isn't the number in parliament to get a second referendum. The Tories need to be seen and be the party of hard brexit to keep their voter base glued together, there are too Labour MP's in leave parts of the country for them to vote for another referendum.
Still have said all of this I agree with you that labour supporting another referendum now is useless but Corbyn had to follow the party conference as it would have rightly pissed a lot of labour voters off.
That 10 point leads turns out sadly to be now about 4People will come round
https://britainelects.com/polling/europe/
Indeed, but as I said earlier, there has never been a referendum on non-EU immigration, so the average anti-immigration voter has voted Leave as it's all that's been open to them. It's illogical of course, but votes are determined as much by emotion as logic I'm afraid. If I'm reading Wolfie's thoughts right, a Leave vote might actually increase the likelihood of bringing in Asian and African nurses (for example) at the expense of bringing in European ones, probably not at all what the folk you know wanted!
Well one of the Pro-Leave arguments was that they were less racist because the UK would bring in more people from non-EU countries whilst EU migrants would be more likely to be white, so they can't claim to be completely unknown to the idea.
It is also one of the reasons why some minorities voted Leave as well.
As said earlier, some politicians did say that, but I don't believe the average Leave voter thought that way for a minute. Average voter isn't as interested in point-scoring as the politically active, they simply wanted less immigration and voted for something they thought, rightly or wrongly, would achieve that.
Yes it is one of the reasons, as you say. I wouldn't paint all members of minorities with the same brush though.
Yes, but I think that was only up to the original deadline of 29th March this year? If the EU agree to Art50 being extended, even by a small amount, then all 27 countries have to agree, both to the extra period and to any proposals defined thereafter (even a withdrawal) which may follow.
I am not absolutely sure if this is correct, but the media reporting on the ECJ ruling seem to imply this, i.e. that arbitrary withdrawal is only valid up to the 29th March. So if May is to pull the plug on Brexit on her own, it will have to be before the 29th March.
I'm not convinced Remain would win in another referendum but I also don't see how the original referendum can stand when there are clear irregularities and criminal prosecutions with regards to the Leave campaign, further compounded by the Leave campaign essentially selling lies. If it were a clean win, fair enough. I think another referendum needs to be held with ranked voting, allowing for a choice between no deal (as disastrous as that sounds), remain and May's deal. That seems to be the most logical way forward for me.
Point taken.
Thanks for the link, pretty consistent message from those polls...
Agree with you here.
Wasn't Remain around 10 -16 before the last referendum started. My worry is at best 10 point lead can be lost pretty quickly especially because the rights argument this type is even easier than last - The "liberal elite" are trying to stop democracy.
Last edited:
This was what the Brexiters wanted when they voted against immigrants from the EU, wasn't it?
Perfect example of some peoples idiocy isn't it.
The leave campaign sold some gullible souls the idea that immigration was all the fault of the UK being in the EU - how can we stop them when we have free movement of people...so to reduce immigration we have to leave the EU don't we....
Meanwhile the remain campaign tried to convince people that immigration was positive for the economy.
But, as a result of the government's austerity policy, public services have been cut back to unsustainable levels to balance the books (another failed policy) the cause was incorrectly blamed on immigration. AKA the EU was the problem.
Now the truth is becoming evident that myth is exposed. Wondering who will be blamed now.
No it's just to the extension, the date is arbitrary. A country can't be forced to leave and have the right to withdraw that was the ruling.
Interested in sources that say otherwise