So much for United Kingdom eh?
Every rat for himself
Every rat for himself
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
What would NI do on their own? Would they unite with the Rep Ire? That would be amazing.
Possibly - hard to know to be honest - would be a rather nasty civil war first I would expect.
Cornwall will be next.
I'm sure it won't be. But why on earth would any country want to be 'hung on to' by the English/British empire? What a pathetic existence.
How does it further the interests of England though?
They provide benefits, I just don't think they outweigh the current costs. With the likes of Scotland & Wales that is much more debatable, but with Northern Ireland in particular? I'm sorry but it's very difficult to see what they provide to the UK other than border headaches, tensions and billions every year. Of course it should be supported if they genuinely want to remain part of the UK, but if that changes I'm certainly not going to be overly upset about it.
If Northern Ireland wants to stay then fine, great we'll move forward as a union, but if there is ever a genuine majority that want independence then fantastic, let's make that happen if they really want it. I honestly think the Republic wouldn't be so keen though, considering how much it would be costing them.
To be fair, things were remarkably stable under Cameron's coalition with the Liberals and even during his second term with a majority.
The utter chaos started when May took over. Now I know that it was a Cameron government called the referendum, but it was TM that harped on about 'strong and stable' instead of Corbyn's 'coalition of chaos'
I miss the old days of moderate Labour and moderate Tories. Its too much left vs right now.
You realise we haven't been an Empire for a little while, right? Empires don't usually allow parts of said Empire to vote on whether they want to remain in a union with them.
Only England and Wales voted for Brexit so presumably the majority there feel that it furthers their interests. Scotland and NI both voted against it for the opposite reason.
Well that tweet which is quite infamous now was after Cameron's coalition with the Liberals. In all honesty the chaos started under Cameron when he ceded to more harder right wing in his faction. Blame starts with him, I think he would be just as bad as May.
I've just remembered we still have PMQs today.
It doesn't though, the majority made a big mistake. Particularly in Wales where the EU has spent a lot of money on various development projects.
Brexit doesn't benefit England anymore than it does Scotland or Northern Ireland.
The United Kingdom of London and other profitable cities.
I think the outcome was inevitable given everything that had preceeded it. The mistake the UK government made was right at the start of the process when it put reaching an agreement with the EU at the heart of its plans, and the EU gleefully accepted this gift - it responded by taking the position that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, which was basically an impossible proposition.
I thought from the outset that we should have taken the opposite tack - i.e. gone with the working assumption that there wouldn't be a deal, outlined exactly what that would mean for all parties, and spent the intervening time planning for that. In essence, to prepare for a 'hard' Brexit, whilst working to reach agreements on specific issues to mitigate its effects. As a negotiating position, that would have given us significantly more leverage, and would probably have resulted in a more sensible process where both sides sought to make progress on the issues where they could reach agreement, understanding that there would still be areas which would need to be resolved long after Brexit had happened.
Oddly enough, that kind of approach is still one of the possible outcomes, albeit with a lot of time that could have been spent preparing for it having been wasted (and the sense that it will have happened by accident as the UK lost control of the negotiations).
Regarding the Irish border question, could the UK not simply have taken the position from the outset that this was a bilateral issue between the UK and Irish governments? Surely a hard border only exists if the nations on either side of it put the infrastructure in place to make it a reality. I did see somewhere an explanation of why this might not have been a realistic option for the UK, but I've forgotten what the reasoning was (it wasn't anything to do with EU rules or the single market).
There's a difference between 'get rid of anything unprofitable' and looking at Northern Ireland as a part of the UK with a unique, more troubling past compared to the rest, and a part which in particular is difficult to maintain and costs billions as a result.
If there is will to join with the Rep. of Ireland, I don't think that should be resisted too much in the way that we did with Scotland.
Cameron called for a referendum. That was the most bizzare, stupid thing to do for a so called "stable" PM
It just be shite to be Theresa May.
You think your job is stressful?
You think your job is stressful?
He never imagined the British people were so utterly idiotic as to actually vote to leave the EU. He over estimated the British people.
There isn't an empire anymore and what is more when there was Glasgow was deemed the second city of the Empire and did very well out of it. There is nothing the SNP would love more than for Scotland to go it alone. Whether that would be good news for their fishermen I don't know. But they could kiss goodbye to all the defence contracts that were awarded to Scotland as sweeteners in the last indyref at the expense of the poor folk of Portsmouth. BAE, Rolls Royce, Babcock and Thales would all struggle to keep operations going. So expect a big rise in unemployment.
They voted out and many of them did so because they felt it would further their own interests (jobs, wealth, less immigrants, etc.) and that of their country. Why else would they vote for it?
You have the right to complain when your county doesn't routinely vote in Tory governments.
It was a crazy miscalculation. He wanted to cement his position by lancing a boil within his own party and it was massively naive to bank on remain winning.
All I'm saying is that in the main, his time as leader was far less chaotic than what we have now and that he was more a far more charismatic statesman. I don't know how he'd have handled Brexit, nor if the EU would have dealt with him any differently.
...but I do feel TM lacks conviction in most of the decisions she makes and is nowhere near the speaker or thinker her predecessor was. Every time she answers a question it's just more waffle and hot air.
The EU has spent a lot of the UK's money on various development projects. I'm fine with that personally but it's not a Brexit issue. Once outside the EU then the UK parliament could spend the same, or more, or less, on development of the poorer regions/nations of the UK as it saw fit. EU development spending is of great importance to the poorer nations of the EU but not to the UK, as it's just our own money coming back.
Sorry, not quite true, EU spending is a Brexit issue for those that don't want to contribute to development of the poorer EU members, but that's a separate issue from the spending in the UK.
Doesn't get old indeed. He nicked that from a Danish 1935 campaign.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stauning_or_Chaos
Well, plenty actually took the route of 'Yeah it'll be damaging for the country, but we'll have our freedom!' so I think it's wrong to purely put it down to self interest. There was an air of 'feck it' about the entire vote, people reacting against the 'establishment' and buying in to the emotive leave campaign.
Those were factors for many of course, but I do think the whole vote is unique as even now there are lots of leave voters who would go down the no deal route knowing perfectly well it will be bad for the country in real terms. Tapping in to nationalist sentiment was a big part of why leave won.
That said, I wasn't denying that some people voted out of self interest, just that it will actually work out that way. Leaving won't create more wealth for anybody but perhaps a very select few who profit off chaos.
Sure, but from a Welsh perspective would Westminster have chosen to invest that money in to Wales? The EU focuses on helping develop poorer areas, of which Wales has many, whereas the UK doesn't necessarily function that way and will often invest the money wherever is most profitable.
Complain about what? You have your own a devolved parliament with all manner of powers, plus a say in the UK parliament, generous Barnett formula payments and you were given a vote on independence.
This was bound to be done
I think the EU have taken all possible outcomes into account for a long time and are better prepared for a no deal situation. In a way you are right about the approach of the UK government but their attitude all along is that if they leave they can keep all the benefits of the EU and taking none of the responibilities, which is still to this day the approach of the Labour party.
If they had accepted this was not possible and accepted the consequences then things may have been different. Also that they had accepted that the EU had the better cards but they couldn't admit this to the electorate.
If the UK leave the EU with no deal, that really does mean no deal and have no idea how the UK could cope with that. It won't be great for the EU but the effects will be significantly less than for the UK.
If the UK have no solution to the Irish border and leave on a no deal basis they become a totally separate country under totally different regulations and a non hard border would not be possible.
Ah, see what you mean. I'm left-leaning so support regional development but I doubt Boris or the like would to be honest. Then again who knows what colour EU governments might be in ten years time, they may all be right wing and the UK not, so I'm still not sure it's a Brexit issue.
Bookies shortening the odds on her winning tonight to 1.22
Fair enough. I guess it does satisfy the ideological delusions of a number that voted for it. Worth noting they are not a majority as the largest majority was non-voters.
None of that keeps us in the EU though does it?
Also, thanks for giving us a say in the UK parliament. Very generous.
She should win, the key question is by how much. Probably needs at least 2/3 of the Tory vote to be comfortable.
The Tories primarily are only interested in developing the areas that vote for them which always leaves the Northern regions neglected.
I'm not sure they're even interested in that to be honest, not if involves paying taxes.
Ben Bradley MP just said the difference between a 2nd vote on the leadership and a 2nd vote on brexit is that he didn't get to vote on the leadership last time.
I will just say it: Brexiteers are criminally stupid. The kind of stupid that should be made fun of, lest someone takes it for vision.
I will just say it: Brexiteers are criminally stupid. The kind of stupid that should be made fun of, lest someone takes it for vision.