Quantcast
Brexit

In representative democracy, the elected representatives shall make the decisions. They should now do their job and not think about their popularity. Their job is now to decide what is good for Britain. 



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
SpokenTruth said:
The American left would like to thank the UK for showing the world that our country is not the only laughing stock since 2016.

We both bought into something so fundamentally stupid that we'll be paying for it for years, if not decades.

My favorite part about the Brexit is the stance that it would be anti-democratic to let the people of the UK vote again three years later.

Meanwhile, it's the norm in democracies that the people get to vote for new governments every 4-6 years depending on the country. But for the Brexit it's apparently a betrayal of democratic principles to ask the people if their opinions have changed since three years ago.

But at the same time it's apparently totally democratic to vote in the parliament for the exact same thing 3 times in just as many months, with a 4th one looming in a close future.



Lafiel said:
Pyro as Bill said:
The British Government would do well to remember that they always lose against Englishmen defending their rights.

Yea, the Englishmen should be free to get rid of their EU rights, just a pity that the Irish-/Scotsmen (and Gibraltar) aren't free to stay in the EU and retain them although they voted for that.

Northern Ireland (98.9%), Gibraltar (98.97%) and Scotland (55.3%) have all been given the option to leave the UK and join whoever they want but they voted to stay instead.

RolStoppable said:
SpokenTruth said:
The American left would like to thank the UK for showing the world that our country is not the only laughing stock since 2016.

We both bought into something so fundamentally stupid that we'll be paying for it for years, if not decades.

My favorite part about the Brexit is the stance that it would be anti-democratic to let the people of the UK vote again three years later.

Let's re-run the Scottish Independence referendum first. We won't need a 2nd EU ref if they leave.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

RolStoppable said:
SpokenTruth said:
The American left would like to thank the UK for showing the world that our country is not the only laughing stock since 2016.

We both bought into something so fundamentally stupid that we'll be paying for it for years, if not decades.

My favorite part about the Brexit is the stance that it would be anti-democratic to let the people of the UK vote again three years later.

Meanwhile, it's the norm in democracies that the people get to vote for new governments every 4-6 years depending on the country. But for the Brexit it's apparently a betrayal of democratic principles to ask the people if their opinions have changed since three years ago.

In addition to a 2nd referendum taking into account changed opinions, I think it's also important as it allows us to weigh up remain against an actual, tangible deal.

The first referendum was a flawed in my opinion as it gave the option of 1 remain option against the entire spectrum of Brexit options, and we now know that people's ideas of what Brexit should actually be vary widely.

It's almost like getting a room of people to vote for what carry-out they want, with the question being structured as - 'ok guys, who wants Thai & who doesn't want Thai? If Thai loses then we'll vote on what non-Thai option we want' Thai gets 48% and loses, but when it's time to decide on what actual cuisine people want they can't agree and Chinese / Italian / Indian all fail to pull more than the 48% Thai lost by...

But it's all political manoeuvring now - I don't think any decision-makers actually care what's fair anymore - it's a race to the bottom...

I'm Scottish so I fear if Brexit does indeed go ahead it'll all but guarantee an independent Scotland (if Westminster approves another ref). The concern I have with this is the same one I have with leaving the EU - it'll make trade with our biggest market more difficult... Scotland exports most of it's good to the rest of the UK, just as the UK exports most of it's good to the EU...

It's all a complete cluster-fuck... And to think, that as a Scot, I may be looking at 1 or possibly 2 more referendums... I'm exhausted just thinking about it!



Pyro as Bill said:
Lafiel said:

Yea, the Englishmen should be free to get rid of their EU rights, just a pity that the Irish-/Scotsmen (and Gibraltar) aren't free to stay in the EU and retain them although they voted for that.

Northern Ireland (98.9%), Gibraltar (98.97%) and Scotland (55.3%) have all been given the option to leave the UK and join whoever they want but they voted to stay instead.

RolStoppable said:

My favorite part about the Brexit is the stance that it would be anti-democratic to let the people of the UK vote again three years later.

Let's re-run the Scottish Independence referendum first. We won't need a 2nd EU ref if they leave.

All of those votes where before Brexit, though. The Scottish vote especially partially failed because they would have left the EU that way, too.

So, let them all have another Referendum first, not just Scotland. All 3 voted remain after all, Gibraltar even by over 90%.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
SpokenTruth said:
The American left would like to thank the UK for showing the world that our country is not the only laughing stock since 2016.

We both bought into something so fundamentally stupid that we'll be paying for it for years, if not decades.

My favorite part about the Brexit is the stance that it would be anti-democratic to let the people of the UK vote again three years later.

Meanwhile, it's the norm in democracies that the people get to vote for new governments every 4-6 years depending on the country. But for the Brexit it's apparently a betrayal of democratic principles to ask the people if their opinions have changed since three years ago.

SpokenTruth said:
RolStoppable said:

My favorite part about the Brexit is the stance that it would be anti-democratic to let the people of the UK vote again three years later.

Meanwhile, it's the norm in democracies that the people get to vote for new governments every 4-6 years depending on the country. But for the Brexit it's apparently a betrayal of democratic principles to ask the people if their opinions have changed since three years ago.

I read that too and had to shake my head.  Sounds to me like some elected officials just don't like the idea of the people making decisions for themselves or don't want the people screwing up the backroom deals they are trying to make.  But calling it undemocratic is just ironic.

Imagine if a candidate barely won an election but the opponent wouldn't accept it and was able to keep them from taking power, and somehow dragged it out for 4 years until the next election. That would be cool because, democracy, right? I tend to think if the winner was liberal and the opponent was conservative that it wouldn't be seen as ok, at least the msm and their viewers would see it that way.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
RolStoppable said:

My favorite part about the Brexit is the stance that it would be anti-democratic to let the people of the UK vote again three years later.

Meanwhile, it's the norm in democracies that the people get to vote for new governments every 4-6 years depending on the country. But for the Brexit it's apparently a betrayal of democratic principles to ask the people if their opinions have changed since three years ago.

SpokenTruth said:

I read that too and had to shake my head.  Sounds to me like some elected officials just don't like the idea of the people making decisions for themselves or don't want the people screwing up the backroom deals they are trying to make.  But calling it undemocratic is just ironic.

Imagine if a candidate barely won an election but the opponent wouldn't accept it and was able to keep them from taking power, and somehow dragged it out for 4 years until the next election. That would be cool because, democracy, right? I tend to think if the winner was liberal and the opponent was conservative that it wouldn't be seen as ok, at least the msm and their viewers would see it that way.

Imagine if you made an analogy that actually made sense.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

EricHiggin said:
RolStoppable said:

My favorite part about the Brexit is the stance that it would be anti-democratic to let the people of the UK vote again three years later.

Meanwhile, it's the norm in democracies that the people get to vote for new governments every 4-6 years depending on the country. But for the Brexit it's apparently a betrayal of democratic principles to ask the people if their opinions have changed since three years ago.

SpokenTruth said:

I read that too and had to shake my head.  Sounds to me like some elected officials just don't like the idea of the people making decisions for themselves or don't want the people screwing up the backroom deals they are trying to make.  But calling it undemocratic is just ironic.

Imagine if a candidate barely won an election but the opponent wouldn't accept it and was able to keep them from taking power, and somehow dragged it out for 4 years until the next election. That would be cool because, democracy, right? I tend to think if the winner was liberal and the opponent was conservative that it wouldn't be seen as ok, at least the msm and their viewers would see it that way.

That's a pretty bad comparison so I don't know why you'd want us to imagine it. The reason for why it has taken this many years isn't because the Stay-side has refused to accept defeat but because the Brexiters has failed spectacularly in going through with Brexit. Perhaps if the Leave-side had had an actual plan and its leaders hadn't fled the field like cowards once the results was in, things had gone differently. Truth is though that they have had three years to come up with a solution but have not gotten anywhere.

Not allowing people to vote for Brexit again is like cancelling a general election because the ruling parties has yet to fulfill all of the promised reforms.



SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Imagine if a candidate barely won an election but the opponent wouldn't accept it and was able to keep them from taking power, and somehow dragged it out for 4 years until the next election. That would be cool because, democracy, right? I tend to think if the winner was liberal and the opponent was conservative that it wouldn't be seen as ok, at least the msm and their viewers would see it that way.

Imagine if you made an analogy that actually made sense.

Too busy trying to imagine a worthwhile response to my point.

forest-spirit said:
EricHiggin said:

Imagine if a candidate barely won an election but the opponent wouldn't accept it and was able to keep them from taking power, and somehow dragged it out for 4 years until the next election. That would be cool because, democracy, right? I tend to think if the winner was liberal and the opponent was conservative that it wouldn't be seen as ok, at least the msm and their viewers would see it that way.

That's a pretty bad comparison so I don't know why you'd want us to imagine it. The reason for why it has taken this many years isn't because the Stay-side has refused to accept defeat but because the Brexiters has failed spectacularly in going through with Brexit. Perhaps if the Leave-side had had an actual plan and its leaders hadn't fled the field like cowards once the results was in, things had gone differently. Truth is though that they have had three years to come up with a solution but have not gotten anywhere.

Not allowing people to vote for Brexit again is like cancelling a general election because the ruling parties has yet to fulfill all of the promised reforms.

It was only about the anti-democratic point. It wasn't really based directly on what is happening with Brexit. Either way, if the winner in my scenario didn't really have much of a plan and platform and wouldn't have gotten much accomplished anyway, then it wouldn't be much different. It's not like the stay side and the EU is going out of their way to make things super easy for the Brexiters to move ahead with their agenda.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

JRPGfan said:


There really isnt today, most of is done in Trading Blocs.
EU, EFTA,EEU (euro-asia).... then Caricom (carribean countries), AU (african union), USAN (south america),  NAFTA (north american), ect.

Alot of places dont do trade deals on a country by country bases anymore.
Chooseing not to trade with america at all, because you cant accept the things they ll force you to accept, will mean you ll have to go other places (which might not be as intrested in british products).

First, trading blocs =/= customs union so EFTA and especially NAFTA do not prevent those signatory countries from making trade deals with other countries ... 

Second, the AU and USAN are solely political unions and nothing more but the latter is pretty dead since most members have withdrawn from the organization ...

Third, this just leaves Caricom which doesn't have a whole lot of negotiating power (by which the UK alone is at least 20x bigger in market size) and the EAEU that consists of former satellite Russian states like Belarus ... 

Trade deals can still pretty much be done on an individual basis because either a customs union doesn't have a lot of clout or a country is not in a customs union. Despite the EU being the 2nd biggest single market economy, it does not guarantee the bloc a stronger bargaining power because what matters most in leverage is a strategic monopoly so the EU is pretty much forced to buy valuable digital electronics from small players such as Taiwan, South Korea or Japan and they can practically name whatever price they want unless the EU is willing to take a hit in productivity if they change their geopolitical interest to have an independent high-end technology sector! Heck, the EU is not gonna put sanctions on natural gas imports from Russia anytime soon since they have very few options for suppliers ... 

JRPGfan said:

Lets purposefully restart the bombings and killings in our own country again! What a great idea!
Im sure everyone will be lineing up to thank Theresa May.
Also the "blame" for such a thing wouldnt be the EU..... it would be England breaking the "Good Friday agreement",
when they choose to leave the EU without a plan or be willing to be part of a common market.

@Bold At least the DUP definitely will ...

Wouldn't be either EU or the UK's fault in case of no deal. Up to Ireland since both of them aren't interested in a hard Irish border and it's totally Ireland's obligation to meet either the single market regulations or the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement NEVER stipulated that Northern Ireland must be in a customs union so let's get rid of the myth that it's the UK who's the one breaking the Good Friday Agreement because that's not how bilateral international treaties work ... 

JRPGfan said:


"Why doesnt the EU countries just BEND over backwards for us, so leaveing isnt a issue, and doesnt start any trouble in the UK" (me paraphraseing)

Wow..... you realise other countries have self intrests too right? and the entire world doesnt revolve around the UK.
End customs union, freedom of movement, ect just to suit the UK? why?

Who gives a shit about the other countries interests ? What's good for the other members states is not necessarily good for the UK ... 

Sometimes compromise is not acceptable so that just means that both the EU and the UK go on their own separate ways. If the EU are only interested in being ideologically pure to promote neoliberalism then the likes of France, Germany, and the others had better be prepared to take the chance at wrecking their own nation in the process to make FoM or the SM succeed instead of placing risks on an unwilling participant (UK) ...  

The UK would not be in this fucking disaster of a mess had it not been for Tony Blair inflicting austerity on older people but I guess it's gotta be this way because the british public decided that the price of EU membership/SM is not worth the added +2M extra lives to provide for ... 

It's ironic how what the EU embraced (open borders) is going to end up becoming their anathema when the main continent is all of a sudden going to find themselves with another +2M lives along with the possibility of the SM being undermined by a backdoor LEL ... 

JRPGfan said:

You believe in rainbows & unicorns too I see :)
Hogwash, just leaveing the EU common market alone is a bigger hit economically than whatever member fee, you guys are paying.
Things will at best probably be end up being much the same.

Hopeing that leaveing magically saves the UK and gives jobs to the older UK citizens..
Those polish (eksample) workers that work on like farms ect, you think most UK citizens are jealous of them? and want to be underpaid and do farm jobs?
The reason the polish people are doing it, is because their okay with hard laber and low wages, most UK citizens wont do that work for that pay.
Once they leave, if those jobs go back to UK citizens, prices of farm products will rise.

Riseing prices on farm products, ontop of loseing "eu farming subsidies" (eu pays farmers), will mean the UK farming industry will not be nearly as competitive as it was before. Next thing that happends? the UK starts putting up trade barriers to "protect" its farming industry.  This "we want free trade" you brits are shouting now, will be long forgotten and gone soon too I suspect.

It's not just the member fee, the bill includes jobs and pensions for EU migrants as well which will easily balloon into hundreds of billions of pounds ... 

The working class UK citizens are definitely jealous because like it or not they do want these jobs! They want to be able to earn and live a half decent life as well if it means less than ideal labour. You underestimate just how exactly desperate the lower classes are ... 

It's not ALL about the middle class like you keep thinking! The working class and the middle classes interests have become divided ... 

Immigration had very little effect on depressing the wages so local minimum wage laws very clearly still applies to them. CAP doesn't benefit the British farmers and in fact currently gives them a yearly deficit of of 1B euros so who gives a fuck if the UK aren't going to receive yearly subsidies (more like bills) ? The UK isn't competitive because they are stuck footing the other member's bills despite the fact that they keep banning the most competitive methods to agriculture like GM foods, chlorinated chicken, and hormone treated beef ... 

Europe's disaster policies just give their citizens less to eat and less energy to use in general compared to the Americans ...