Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Internet, Jun 24, 2016.
It's always easy to confirm your own biases
It's been a popcorn-fest already, with little sign of it easing up anytime soon.
This looks good for years of snacking.
I smell a coward
View attachment Brexit%2Bwhy%2Bare%2Bthey%2Bdragging%2Btheir%2Bfee
I get the impression that Michael Gove didn’t get the deal he wanted from Boris. An e-mail from Michael Gove’s wife to Michael Gove and his assistants was cc’d to someone else who leaked it.
The email read:
“Very important that we focus on the individual obstacles and thoroughly overcome them before moving to the next. I really think Michael needs to have a Henry or a Beth with him for this morning’s crucial meetings.
“One simple message: you MUST have SPECIFIC from Boris OTHERWISE you cannot guarantee your support. The details can be worked out later on, but without that you have no leverage.
“Crucially, the membership will not have the necessary reassurance to back Boris, neither will Dacre/Murdoch, who instinctively dislike Boris but trust your ability enough to support a Boris Gove ticket.
“Do not concede any ground. Be your stubborn best.
This is one of the reasons why I dislike Murdoch and Dacre (Daily Mail) so much.
I don't think there was any intentional insult, but rather it was diplomatic protocol.
Sturgeon has no standing to negotiate as Scotland is still part of the U.K. Before Scotland could apply to enter the EU, it would have to secede from the UK and declare national sovereignty. The only people Tusk can deal with are those in the British Foreign Office.
If I lived in Scotland, I would be very concerned about Sturgeon because her approaching EU officials at this time indicates she is not thinking straight and has a disregard for rules.
The German engine without the English Turbo
Not thinking straight and has a disregard for the rules? Where have I heard that recently? Oh, right.
Give has now said he felt it was up to him to unite the country and Boris Johnson wasn't up to the job.
There's also a question of whether seceding for the UK to join the EU would actually pay, or indeed even be possible:
Scotland is better off in the UK than on its own in the EU
The resident Brits will he to comment on the economical aspects though.
here's a good snack time video. Fireworks from start to finish...
EDIT: Looks like Sekee got there first. Watch the vid Sekee linked.
watch the vid above. The MEP makes some good points about England and their history of trade.
Fuck the rules. She has bigger balls than the men folk
Heey UK guys, say bye bye to your airlines:
The Brits have two years to come up with a solution though. I guess Ireland will suddenly find itself with an abundance of airlines.
Here is a well thought out piece that offers a solution:
EU tells the UK that freedom of movement will stay. This blows UK thoughts of blocking refugees.
The video Sekee posted. He got there first and I removed the duplicate in my post. Sorry for the confusion.
Another well written piece on the subject at hand:
Fair point - or would be a fair point if I thought that all Leave voters were like that, which I don't. It's a small minority, but it's really worrying that they feel so empowered to show their far-right views in public.
Would depend on what EU membership deal they got, versus what deal Scotland would get as part of a non-EU UK.
Key questions for Scottish EU membership would be:
- what currency in Scotland? Pound or Euro or something else?
- who keeps all the oil money buried under the North Sea, Scotland or Rump UK, or how is it split?
- what proportion of the UK's debt would Scotland be landed with?
- as an EU member would Scotland contribute to the EU at the UK rate (special low bargain offer) or at the rate the other nations contribute at? I.e. would they get the same level of rebate as the UK currently gets?
Best possible deal for Scotland would be for it to keep a stable currency and keep its portion of the UK's rebate from EU contributions and also keep all the North Sea oil money but keep none of the UK's debt. Worst deal would be the opposite.
Or for Scotland remaining as part of the UK, would the Westminster government continue funding EU projects in Scotland? Or would they be defunded?
Nobody knows at the moment what the situation would be either for Scotland in the EU or for Scotland in a non-EU UK. It's utterly unclear.
Both of the two main political parties are now shopping for a new leader, and no-one really knows what any of their policies will be on anything, or who the Prime Minister will be, or whether there'll be a general election, or whether there'll be a second referendum, or whether the PM could or would trigger UK withdrawal from the EU by themselves versus needing Parliament to revoke the European Communities Act.
Nobody seems to have a plan or know anything at all about anything.
I suppose there's where the UK eventually will land, after the two major parties are don tearing themselves to pieces.
Seems like the least-bad option.
Have you noticed the title OP gave to this thread?
Considering there are a a number of areas in the EU seeking independence (Spain is constantly on the verge of
breaking up, Northern Italy is run by separatists too), the EU won't be able to reach a consensus that gives a break-away region an easy time of it. My guess (i.e. what I personally have pulled out of my ars) is that Scotland would have to accept the Euro. Also, in order not to rile up the Eastern countries and Greece going through tough austerity measures, Scotland would pay dearly for any UK debt they are left with. Big UK were able to bully the EU into rebates and special deals back before the EU were as built out as now, little Scotland won't have that kind of weight to throw around, and the EU has evolved considerably too.
The reason Nicola Sturgeon was smooching up to the EU ministers yesterday is because her best shot at getting a deal the Scot's will be willing to secede for, is if they somehow managed to remain a part of EU "as is", with all the special deals the UK currently enjoys. At the face of it it's not an impossible suggestion, but it seems the EU won't bite. My guess (again) is they are fed up with the British reservations, and will only take the Scots in if they are willing to commit fully (and who can blame them?).
That's just a legal hurdle, they'll find a way around it. The EU seems to think it's no problem, so I fail to see why this can't be solved.
They seem to be sending somewhat mixed messages:
I rest my case.
So calling 17.4M people retards is acceptable? Please explain.
It's the Anon way
The politicians can arguably be called retards, Cameron for using a referendum as a tool to outmanoeuvre the right wing of the party, Johnson/Gove to use it to stick it to Cameron (and ending up accidentally the British EU membership), the right wing of the Labour to start an internal rebellion right when their enemy was tearing themselves to bits, the LibDems for exploring a way to snub the Brits of their vote etc. The campaign has seen what is possibly the very worst we've ever seen of dishonest discourse from both sides, and now that the Brexiters got what they wanted, they don't know what to do with it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The British public voted to their ability to analyse what was going on through the din of incessant and self-serving propaganda. They voted after their own experience and situation. You can call it uninformed, but hardly retard, unless you find the very idea of asking the unwashed classes their opinion of anything (i.e. democracy) retarded.
OP is right, this is the biggest British fuckup since the Suez crisis. The UK as a nation is drooling into its porridge. We can no longer play the baddies in Hollywood movies because we're too fucking stupid (also because Alan Rickman is dead).
^ current mental status of Britain as a whole
It would be fair to say that the body politic as a whole has become extremely disjointed, i.e. "gone full retard". The country is a shitshow logjam, an omnishambles.
Scotland would probably go for EU membership on the same terms as existing countries (i.e. without the Thatcher rebate). London certainly would at this point.
If one wanted to make an argument that freedom of movement should be restricted - and I don't think the UK should make that argument, because the British economy benefits from immigration overall - but if one wanted to make that argument, it would make sense to point to the restrictions, e.g. on Polish immigration to Germany, which were in-place after the accession of new countries to the EU, and which the UK (under Tony Blair) didn't take part in (i.e. didn't restrict immigration from Poland when Germany was doing). So then one would say, well, you had a few years of restricted immigration from poorer countries, now it's our turn.
Possibly not. What's coming from the EU leaders right now is not very nuanced, they don't seem to have had time to take full legal advice - unprepared just like British politicians, because everyone thought Leave would win - e.g. for a while they were suggesting that the EU could treat the referendum itself as notification of leaving, which is contrary to the "constitutional requirements" section of part 1 of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Normally the UK government has a pretty wide latitude on what it can do in foreign affairs without consulting parliament, but they can't overrule existing legislation, and to take the UK out of the EU they would have to overrule the the 1972 Act which took the UK *in* to the EU.
Also, nobody wants to actually pull the trigger on Article 50, because at that point the EU has the better position in negotiations - because the EU can say to the UK, "we don't care if we don't reach an agreement, if we don't sign then you'll be leaving with nothing in 2 years time" whereas the UK desperately wants and needs continued access to the single market. A real hard-core nationalist like Farage would pull the trigger because they'd be willing to burn the UK to save the UK, but nobody else wants to.
This may be why Boris Johnson has just dropped out of the leadership race (i.e. dropped out of contention to be Prime Minister) - to an extent the role is a 'poisoned chalice' at the moment.
Right now it's looking like the sensible outcome - god knows if we'll get it - is for Theresa May to be next Tory leader and PM and for her to have a cosy chat with Angela Merkel which leaves the UK outside the EU but within the EEA (like Norway). That way the UK has almost all the cost and the regulation of being inside the EU with none of the influence, but it's looking like the least-worst option at the moment.
64.1m, there doesn't seem to be a working brain cell in the country at the moment.
Stephen Colbert nails the stupidity level here:
Bloody Huguenots, coming over here, questioning the eucharistic symbolism...
When you give people a yes/no question on something this massive... is their answer supposed to mean something more than "somewhat more of us hated picking that other answer a bit more than we hated picking this one"?
How much has the EU learned from all of this:
Guardian: Millions of voters didn't want Brexit. Why should they loose EU citizenship?
Apparently Westminster doesn't have any exclusive claim to slow learners.
Is Sturgeon empire building?
While that's true, one reason I think they're being cautious is that allowing EU countries to devolve into smaller countries has obvious disruptive implications for other areas where some of the population have historically had separatist ambitions e.g. Northern Ireland, the Basque region, Catalonia, etc....
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!