Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Spindler said:

Depends if you have an ear for languages...bloke was shocked i could tell he was austrian from his german.....i can tell polish from russian and i dont speak any of them...and come on 10-1 in the uk if youre unsure.....theyre polish....if youre wrong theyre another eastern european....we dont have hordes of russians here

10/10

I don't speak either Russian or Polish, but find it simple to distinguish between them from listening.

As you say, location is another identifier - Polish people are nice, hardworking people that you find in every corner of the UK - a bit like a UK plumber would be in Poland if (s)he was on the home equivalent of £100k a year.

It's easy to spot Russians:

* Normal Russians: I've had a couple of them couchsurfing with me - hand to mouth, nice, earnest people. On a shoestring. Struggle to pay for parking in the village.

* Minor kleptocrat Russians: Visit PCL, or almost-luxury holiday destinations, from Crans Montana for skiing to Hurgada for kitesurfing - chavvy gold chains, and a female-in-tow 20 years younger than them.

* Major kleptocrat Russians: Chelsea Football Club

[Arpeggio]

20 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Jesus wept. Oh look everyone it's a circular building. It must mean the coming of the NWO. Hold on while I double check the tin rating of my hat. 

What exactly am I supposed to have said beyond what the EU already made no secret of?

It’s very simple. It was an EU poster, clearly based on an artwork of the Tower of Babel........as in the EU made  / approved the poster.

[rollover]

Quote

A friend sent me a BBC Scotland video of Jay Lafferty, a Scottish comedian, summing up the Brexit situation almost three years after Britain voted to leave the European Union:

“So the way I understand it is that Parliament have said no to Theresa’s deal,” she says, referring to Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain. “And they’ve said no to no deal, but some of them said yes to no deal but no to Theresa’s deal, but not as many that said no to no deal and no to Theresa’s deal, but they don’t actually have a deal of their own, which is a big deal because without a deal then no deal is more likely to be the deal that’s dealt, and the people who want the deal can’t be dealing with that.”

nytimes

Put in a nutshell.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, rollover said:

Put in a nutshell.

What is your Vested Interest in Brexit, Rollover?

[Arpeggio]

13 hours ago, crouch said:

I'm beginning to think you're right.

Behind the UK monumental incompetence and the "notional" A50 procedure there's a definite obstructionism on the part of the EU; they want to make leaving not just difficult but very, very disadvantageous. By disadvantageous I don't just mean acting in their understandable interest but punitive pour encourager les autres.

The irony of course is that, if true, and it certainly can be construed that way, then this in itself may be regarded as some proof of the Leave case; that the EU is overbearing and anti democratic and rides roughshod over the wishes of members even when they activate rules in treaties as they are entitled to do.

May had a general election in 2017 so she could push the next one back another 2 years before serving a sh## sandwich.

The MO of saying how bad no deal will be, is to lay the groundwork for a 2nd ref with the options of remain or Brino.

On 30th Oct 2019 there will be another extension or A50 will be withdrawn, if May is still in power and hasn’t got anything through.

Like Cameron, T May is politically expendable, she’s knows it and doesn’t mind.

EU skepticism was on the rise so they felt they had to have a 2016 referendum a.s.a.p. before Leave would win. Remain was supposed to win. It didn’t, instead of a mandate for more integration they got a big hot democracy potato.

The reason people voted leave in the first place is confirmed.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Arpeggio

[thecrashingisles]

12 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

EU skepticism was on the rise so they felt they had to have a 2016 referendum a.s.a.p. before Leave would win. Remain was supposed to win. It didn’t, instead of a mandate for more integration they got a big hot democracy potato.

That's revisionism.  Leave had bigger poll leads in 2014 than it did in 2016, and Cameron's deal would have stalled further integration.

[pig]

3 hours ago, crouch said:

Maybe but I doubt they are the majority.

As to Orwell his is one particular view, widely criticised. An example of such criticism is here:

https://www.eurozine.com/george-orwell-the-anatomy-of-fanaticism-and-hatred/

In fact his views have been very much criticised and really don't form a reference point for any discussion on this subject.

Thanks for this really interesting read.

However I’d already caveated Orwells definitions and couldn’t disagree more with your assertion - not least because this very article clearly admires Orwell’s insight and ‘genius’ and sees his views as a critical  reference point for  discussion on this subject. That is in fact the whole point of the article.

However probably not by coincidence  his key criticism is over ‘terminology’, that there is a more complex landscape  to the word ‘Nationalism’: specifically he cites ‘liberal’ nationalism - spoiler alert, this has little to do with Brexits manifestations whether it be complaining about Somalian rapists, @GrizzlyDave’s veggie burgers (followed by Orwell lol!) or incessant warped/tendentious appraisals of the EU and our relation to it. In fact - it goes a long way to diagnosing where all the madness of Brexit is coming from.

Similarly, he’s not fond of Orwell’s use of ‘patriotism’, although with his liberal nationalism he’s still basically following the basic pattern of ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ attachment to your country.

Perhaps a more profound idea is that somehow without the ground support of a ‘liberal nationalism’ people might be vulnerable to many of the aberrations we’re seeing now - and as somebody whose been banging on about the bizarre wilful credulity of many Leavers reading his explanations was a kind of relief !

[Arpeggio]

1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

That's revisionism.  Leave had bigger poll leads in 2014 than it did in 2016, and Cameron's deal would have stalled further integration. 

Where did I refer to polls?

I had Farage's electoral history in mind for one things. Also events in the EU. I don't rely on polls exclusively but sometimes see them as part of a bigger picture while relying on things more concrete. Government are also cleverer than to rely only on polls too (apart from when trying to persuade others of something). Cameron's decision to hold a referendum was not done light heartedly.

As you brought up the subject, different polls can say different things, while longer time frames can show longer term trends that shorter ones won't.

[thecrashingisles]

3 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

Where did I refer to polls?

I had Farage's electoral history in mind for one things. Also events in the EU. I don't rely on polls exclusively but sometimes see them as part of a bigger picture while relying on things more concrete. Government are also cleverer than to rely only on polls too (apart from when trying to persuade others of something). Cameron's decision to hold a referendum was not done light heartedly.

As you brought up the subject, different polls can say different things, while longer time frames can show longer term trends that shorter ones won't.

If you look at the bigger picture, 2015/16 was the worst time to hold a referendum because of the temporary factors like the migration crisis and hangover from the financial crisis.  If he'd waited until 2017 he'd have had a better chance of winning.

[Confounded]

6 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

 

If you don’t have the stamina for the full video here’s the best bit:

 

 

Very interesting, thanks for posting. Seems the same tactics were used then to scare people into the EU as are being no now to keep us in. 

If as the Ted Heath speach eluded to the political union was to prevent France and Germany every fighting again, I would say we are safe from that now... Job done move on.

[Confounded]

28 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

If you look at the bigger picture, 2015/16 was the worst time to hold a referendum because of the temporary factors like the migration crisis and hangover from the financial crisis.  If he'd waited until 2017 he'd have had a better chance of winning.

Wonderful, another list of reasons why the stupid people voted leave, nothing to do with 40 years of experience in the EU, a clue as to why the older generations voted leave....

The arrogance of the pious remain nerds is what made me turn very rapidly from remain to leave. 

[Peter Hun]

10 hours ago, GrizzlyDave said:

I understand Schrodinger’s Border well enough.

A tax, fuel, alchohol, tobacco, fireworks, medicine, explosives, and firearms border which is invisible; and yet policed and regulated.

Irish border issue is nothing to do with any of that. 

[crouch]

10 hours ago, pig said:

Thanks for this really interesting read.

However I’d already caveated Orwells definitions and couldn’t disagree more with your assertion - not least because this very article clearly admires Orwell’s insight and ‘genius’ and sees his views as a critical  reference point for  discussion on this subject. That is in fact the whole point of the article.

However probably not by coincidence  his key criticism is over ‘terminology’, that there is a more complex landscape  to the word ‘Nationalism’: specifically he cites ‘liberal’ nationalism - spoiler alert, this has little to do with Brexits manifestations whether it be complaining about Somalian rapists, @GrizzlyDave’s veggie burgers (followed by Orwell lol!) or incessant warped/tendentious appraisals of the EU and our relation to it. In fact - it goes a long way to diagnosing where all the madness of Brexit is coming from.

Similarly, he’s not fond of Orwell’s use of ‘patriotism’, although with his liberal nationalism he’s still basically following the basic pattern of ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ attachment to your country.

Perhaps a more profound idea is that somehow without the ground support of a ‘liberal nationalism’ people might be vulnerable to many of the aberrations we’re seeing now - and as somebody whose been banging on about the bizarre wilful credulity of many Leavers reading his explanations was a kind of relief !

The problem is that there is an inherent difficulty in the type of theory that Orwell puts forward as so much depends on how circumstances develop as to which direction you take. The problem with Orwells analysis is that he puts it across as a choice made when it is not.

A small example. If we had been invaded and conquered by Germany in 1940 would we have gone the same way as the French? Many in this country would say no! never! I say emphatically yes; we would have had many collaborators and our destiny would have been quite different also as we would no longer be the aircraft carrier for the US. The Soviets would have won eventually and we would probably have ended up a province of the Soviet Union.

An interesting book on fateful choices is:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fateful-Choices-Decisions-Changed-1940-1941/dp/0141014180/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=ten+decisions&qid=1555139714&s=gateway&sr=8-1

 

[crouch]

8 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

If you look at the bigger picture, 2015/16 was the worst time to hold a referendum because of the temporary factors like the migration crisis and hangover from the financial crisis.  If he'd waited until 2017 he'd have had a better chance of winning.

And for those who want a "Peoples Vote" 2019 gives a better chance of winning a referendum with Remain on the ballot paper. Never! It's because circumstances have changed not because we stand a better chance than in 2016 - and because we want one anyway because we deserve it! How dare you suggest such a thing!

Edited April 13, 2019 by crouch

[moneyfornothing]

8 hours ago, Confounded said:

Very interesting, thanks for posting. Seems the same tactics were used then to scare people into the EU as are being no now to keep us in. 

If as the Ted Heath speach eluded to the political union was to prevent France and Germany every fighting again, I would say we are safe from that now... Job done move on.

I am surprised that the average leaver at the time showed the maturity to accept the result and not ask for more referenda.. almost like they did believe that a majority decision needed to be respected in spite of strongly held views.. or that misinformation on any side didn’t matter as they trusted people to be mature enough to come to their own decisions..

[moneyfornothing]

8 minutes ago, crouch said:

And for those who want a "Peoples Vote" 2019 gives a better chance of winning a referendum with Remain on the ballot paper. Never! It's because circumstances have changed not because we stand a better chance than in 2016 - and because we want one anyway because we deserve it! How dare you suggest such a thing!

David Cameron and the remain team did manage to have the Jo Cox televised memorial on the day before the referendum with all of the mainstream media in full flow ganging up against leave on the actions of one deranged person.. as if that was the fault of the leave campaign .. I have no doubt that a referendum now would crush remain .. but the principle of these being generational needs to be maintained to give future referenda any validity or trust in the system 

Edited April 13, 2019 by moneyfornothing

[crouch]

3 minutes ago, moneyfornothing said:

I am surprised that the average leaver at the time showed the maturity to accept the result and not ask for more referenda.. almost like they did believe that a majority decision needed to be respected in spite of strongly held views.. or that misinformation on any side didn’t matter as they trusted people to be mature enough to come to their own decisions..

The result was much more decisive: two thirds stay to one third leave. We'd only been members for two years and, in some ways, the referendum was pointless - unlike the current one where we have 45 years' experience.

I think that partly explains the relative calm of the result; the EEC itself was only 15 years' ols and had not developed to anywhere near the extent it has today and passions had not developed.

[pig]

4 minutes ago, crouch said:

And for those who want a "Peoples Vote" 2019 gives a better chance of winning a referendum with Remain on the ballot paper. Never! It's because circumstances have changed not because we stand a better chance than in 2016. How dare you suggest such a thing!

Because the truth about leaving is clearer and Leaver ******** has been exposed ?

In those ‘circumstances’ there is  may be a ‘better chance’  of Remain but you aren’t really saying anything here other than apparently wanting to swerve democratic accountability with an informed electorate.

[crouch]

13 minutes ago, moneyfornothing said:

David Cameron and the remain team did manage to have the Jo Cox televised memorial on the day before the referendum with all of the mainstream media in full flow ganging up against leave on the actions of one deranged person.. as if that was the fault of the leave campaign .. I have no doubt that a referendum now would crush remain .. but the principle of these being generational needs to be maintained to give future referenda any validity or trust in the system 

I believe the result would still be close; the remainers think remain is a shoe in: it isn't.

Edited April 13, 2019 by crouch

[moneyfornothing]

2 minutes ago, crouch said:

I believe the result would still be close; the remianers think remain is a shoe in: it isn't.

If you knew that a first referendum didn’t matter because there would be a second one ... what do you think would happen to participation in future referenda ?

[crouch]

12 minutes ago, pig said:

Because the truth about leaving is clearer and Leaver ******** has been exposed ?

In those ‘circumstances’ there is  may be a ‘better chance’  of Remain but you aren’t really saying anything here other than apparently wanting to swerve democratic accountability with an informed electorate.

But is it clearer? As you have said the second - would be - referendum is just about leaving and no more (ballot paper: remain; May's deal: no deal?).

But leaving isn't that important; it's the long term relationship that is important and that has yet to be negotiated or even defined. What would such a referendum be about? It can't be about the experience of leaving because we haven't left so just what is a second referendum about?

Edited April 13, 2019 by crouch

[crouch]

4 minutes ago, moneyfornothing said:

If you knew that a first referendum didn’t matter because there would be a second one ... what do you think would happen to participation in future referenda ?

I quite agree but what is far more likely is that referenda will be ditched altogether.

[moneyfornothing]

1 minute ago, crouch said:

I quite agree but what is far more likely is that referenda will be ditched altogether.

Correct ... that is in reality the likely after effect of a second referendum ... no more referenda ever ... that people are willing to sacrifice this is what gets me..

[crouch]

5 minutes ago, moneyfornothing said:

Correct ... that is in reality the likely after effect of a second referendum ... no more referenda ever ... that people are willing to sacrifice this is what gets me..

Well it is a possibility that we'll get some realignment of the political system and a move towards more coalition type government which might give more confidence in the responsiveness of the system. However, I wouldn't hold my breath on that; when this blows over we'll probably go back to sleep.

[GrizzlyDave]

8 hours ago, Confounded said:

Very interesting, thanks for posting. Seems the same tactics were used then to scare people into the EU as are being no now to keep us in. 

If as the Ted Heath speach eluded to the political union was to prevent France and Germany every fighting again, I would say we are safe from that now... Job done move on.

It’s without doubt the most articulate anti EU speech and his words still resonate today. Tony Benn is also good.