Just a thought - is there any way we could get Scotland and/or Ireland to invade the completely bonkers Little England? Just to bring us to our senses?
Some help from Cymrau and Kernow would be helpful, too, given that the Little English are just headless chickens, fit only to be boiled with the marrowbones, as Chaucer says.....
Some help from Cymrau and Kernow would be helpful, too, given that the Little English are just headless chickens, fit only to be boiled with the marrowbones, as Chaucer says.....
I don't think it would be so hard to inflict some serious damage onto England - there are only a few main routes from Cymru, Yr Alban and Cernyw into Lloegr.
The problem is determining how to do this in a way that would be more painful to England than to the Celtic nations.
The reason May's in such a fix is her obsession with immigration. She decided that the country shared that obsession and hence the absurd red lines. Without those there would be a lot more wiggle room.
Fudging the backstop, in order to look like progress was being made, was the key post-referendum strategic error.
We should have had the heinous row we’re having now, then. There would have been more time to either a) find a solution b) go back to the country in some form c) lay out plans for virtual techno border
That is the main problem because there was no real guidance or any kind of plan then everyone had their own idea about the meaning. Treeza has chosen an interpretation. She had to have something to put on the table at the EU conference.
That is the main problem because there was no real guidance or any kind of plan then everyone had their own idea about the meaning. Treeza has chosen an interpretation. She had to have something to put on the table at the EU conference.
Yes, but what sort of fool starts by telling the other party in a negotiation what your red lines are? That effectively means that you've already given away everything else.
She did it, I presume, to reassure the head-bangers in her own party that she'd look after their interests, thus adding stupidity to incompetence. Sprinkle a generous seasoning of dishonesty and serve with a side portion of xenophobia and Lo and Behold, you have Treeza.
Fudging the backstop, in order to look like progress was being made, was the key post-referendum strategic error.
We should have had the heinous row we’re having now, then. There would have been more time to either a) find a solution b) go back to the country in some form c) lay out plans for virtual techno border
Nope, it was triggering Article 50 too soon and without any thought into what they wanted from the future relationship or how the EU's own processes would shape what would be available. The slagging off 48% of the 2016 voter base was a bonus.
Norway also pays more per capita into the EU budget than the UK, raising questions about “substantially smaller” contributions promised. While the EEA does not cover agriculture or fisheries, existing EU red lines are unchanged, meaning if the UK wants tariff-free access for goods it will face demands that existing rights for EU fishing fleets are maintained.
Joining the EEA also means accepting the free movement of people, the reddest of May’s red lines. Norway-plus advocates have seized on the “emergency brake“ in the EEA agreement, which allows a country to take unilateral measures in the event of “serious, economic or societal difficulty”.
Fudging the backstop, in order to look like progress was being made, was the key post-referendum strategic error.
We should have had the heinous row we’re having now, then. There would have been more time to either a) find a solution b) go back to the country in some form c) lay out plans for virtual techno border
Nope, it was triggering Article 50 too soon and without any thought into what they wanted from the future relationship or how the EU's own processes would shape what would be available. The slagging off 48% of the 2016 voter base was a bonus.
But @Doublethink, you may like this article from Bloomberg about how the Irish managed to make the Irish question one of the key drivers of the Brexit process if you haven't read it before.
“This will either turn out to be an incredible diplomatic triumph by Ireland. Or a strategic mistake”
Is "the Brexit people voted for" not defined in the last Tory manifesto? If it is, I don't understand why that isn't an argument Mrs May is using towards the country and her colleagues. If not, I would think she has even less of a leg to stand on than appearances suggest.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Is "the Brexit people voted for" not defined in the last Tory manifesto? If it is, I don't understand why that isn't an argument Mrs May is using towards the country and her colleagues. If not, I would think she has even less of a leg to stand on than appearances suggest.
There are several reasons.
First, even though the election was called to strengthen the government hand in negotiating Brexit, several other policies were significant in the campaign and Brexit wasn't as prominent as one would expect.
Second, the Tory manifesto was quite vague about what sort of Brexit they would pursue - leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, and control of immigration ... and practically nothing more than that.
Finally, the people rejected even that sparse summary of Brexit. The Tories lost their majority and could only form a minority government. An argument could be made that the 2015 manifesto (the UK being a strong member of both Single Market and Customs Union) is a better reflection of the will of the people since on that basis the Tories formed a majority government.
I see that Treeza’s now been ranting against Tony Blair, accusing him of ‘insulting the office he once held’ by daring to suggest that another referendum would be a way out of the current Brexit impasse.
If anyone's insulting that office at the moment, I'd say it's her; and most of the rest of her cabinet colleagues are doing their level best to demean their own offices as well. What a miserable shower they are!
About the only difference is that Tony Blair has made high profile visits to Brussels in relation to a People's Vote - so instead of just calling for a referendum on the terms of leaving the EU (as per all other previous PMs with the exception of Cameron who's simply kept his craven head down and hidden himself away), he's been actively involved in determining what options would be available under EU law and what might be acceptable to politicians in the rest of Europe. If Parliament called a referendum (with or without the support of the government) before the end of March would there be sufficient support to extend A50 period while that was held? And, if A50 is extended do we also need to arrange an election in May? If the government stalls Parliamentary process so much that there isn't time for a referendum, what options are there if the people reject the government deal (or, no deal) in favour of EU membership? The government isn't asking those questions (as far as we know), and someone needs to, then Parliament can make an informed decision re: a proper referendum, and come the next general election the parties can put sensible options in their manifesto.
And, of course, May's statement about "subverting the democratic process" is a charge much more easily laid at members of her own party. David Cameron skipping the whole democratic process to hold an undefined referendum for the specific intent of resolving a long running disagreement within the Tory Party. The ERG. Mrs May calling a general election which didn't include a draft outline of the sort of Brexit the Tories wanted in their manifesto, so squandering the opportunity of allowing the public a say in the sort of Brexit they wanted, with the intent of strengthening her hand (by getting more MPs, not all of whom would be ERG headbangers ... instead removing the Tory majority entirely and leaving her choices even more restricted by the greater power of the ERG and reliance on the even nuttier DUP).
And, of course, May's statement about "subverting the democratic process" is a charge much more easily laid at members of her own party. David Cameron skipping the whole democratic process to hold an undefined referendum for the specific intent of resolving a long running disagreement within the Tory Party. The ERG. Mrs May calling a general election which didn't include a draft outline of the sort of Brexit the Tories wanted in their manifesto, so squandering the opportunity of allowing the public a say in the sort of Brexit they wanted, with the intent of strengthening her hand (by getting more MPs, not all of whom would be ERG headbangers ... instead removing the Tory majority entirely and leaving her choices even more restricted by the greater power of the ERG and reliance on the even nuttier DUP).
Which is the elephant in the room ...
May can't turn round and be honest with people that there will be a price for us all to pay for Brexit. Because the politicians who promised us all a British moon on a British stick are mostly Tory. She can't launch a proper investigation of the methods of the Leave campaign for the same reason.
However, what she's not admitting to anyone, possibly even to herself, is that the democratic process in the UK is fucked either way. Along with brand Tory.
Reality is going to hit at some point if they don't find a way out. People will start asking difficult question about who is responsible and why this was allowed to happen. The betrayal narrative - remainers and the EU - may deflect some of the blame but the Tories will carry the bulk of it. Some of the more sensible ones seem to have realised this already. The rest are too busy either drinking the Kool Aid or praying that something will turn up.
Every claim made by the Leave campaign has been debunked*
So, obviously, Mrs May says another referendum would 'break faith with the British People.'
I do love a well-reasoned argument
AFZ
*Off the top of my head:
Increased sovereignty
Easiest deal in history
German car companies queuing up to ensure we got a good deal
More money for the NHS
Turkey joining the EU at any moment
The fact she is saying this about a second referendum, suggests that it is gaining support, and she is alarmed. I love the argument that having a vote is undemocratic, but this is par for May.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I think it will take at least 5 months from announcement to result. Agreeing the wording of the referendum will not be easy, and I think the wording of the referendum is subject to some scrutiny process.
A referendum will clearly need EU agreement to a delay in the March date. I see no difficulty in getting that; the issue will be "how long"?
Will Labour jump on the referendum bandwagon? If they do, I think a majority may be built in the current House. MPs are going to have to choose which option they hate least. And soon now.
The irony that May's deal is being sunk by the ardent Brexiters is phenomenal, but maybe she hopes to scare them into supporting her, with a combination of threats of 2nd ref, and Corbyn, that monstrous Marxist. She can't threaten them with no deal, as some of them love the sound of it.
True the wording of any referendum would be very important. I suspect she would go for her deal or crash out of the EU. There may be little chance of staying in the EU being included.
here's the Economist article I mentioned a while back about the options for a second referendum (I think this is free to access if you haven't reached your article limit for the month).
A straight choice between three options, with the most popular declared the winner, would also be tricky. One option could win with just 34% of the vote, which might not seem a decisive [or "democratic"?] answer. If two options involved leaving the EU, Brexiteers might argue that the Leave vote was split (...) Crucially, the mechanism used can shape the response from voters. Theresa May’s deal, no deal or staying in the EU could all win, depending on the precise question put in a second referendum
Every claim made by the Leave campaign has been debunked*
So, obviously, Mrs May says another referendum would 'break faith with the British People.'
I do love a well-reasoned argument
AFZ
*Off the top of my head:
Increased sovereignty
Easiest deal in history
German car companies queuing up to ensure we got a good deal
More money for the NHS
Turkey joining the EU at any moment
We're beyond reason, aren't we? Every time I chat to a few Brexit supporters, they sound gripped by various fantasies, which are impenetrable to reason. One guy said to me, make a complete break, and I said, you mean close Dover as a port, and he said, we'll manage. It reminds me of war fever, and of course, in many comments columns, there is reference to Dunkirk, and amazingly, the Hun, as well of course, as EUSSR. Those whom the gods wish to destroy ...
So I just saw a clip of a caller to James O'Brien on LBC, arguing that the reason he voted for Brexit was to keep the three-pin plugs. Because in the EU, they use 2-pin. So staying in the EU is compromising our safety, apparently.
And this is not the only caller with no or stupid reasons. These are people who are prepared to talk in public about their views.
When that is the quality of the discussion from the leavers side, what hope is there?
(And for what its worth, I and others have, on twitter, asked for any leave supporter to give a good reason for leaving. I have seen none. I desperately want to hear good reasons, or positive results that it will produce. I have heard none - not a single one.)
Leave is the call of Thanatos, the death wish. It's pure shadow, pure dark, unheard longing for death, in the form of not having to try to understand that which is even a hair's breath beyond one's grandparents' experience.
Perhaps the caller is actually a Remoaner, and it's a clever ploy to make Leave supporters look stupid. It's certainly a more reasonable explanation than someone not noticing that after 40+ years of EU membership the UK has not adopted the two pin plugs used in some other parts of the EU, nor that this doesn't seem to be a problem for Ireland or Malta (both use the same plugs as the UK) or Denmark (which uses a different type of plug again). And, of course, plugs throughout the EU are grounded (exceptions for things like electric razors, but they're ungrounded two pins in the UK as well) and so are not less safe than UK plugs.
EU plugs may not be 3-pin, but for many years now most have had an earth terminal. The earth pin is in the wall socket as opposed to the plug. The French system looks like this.
If we crash out without a deal then the headbanging Brextremists will blame the EU for not giving us a deal.
I'm totally blaming the Tories. They called the Ref, led the official Leave campaign, negotiated with the EU and decided the UK would leave no matter what the cost.
Although Labour could - and should - have done more, this is pretty much a Tory show.
I and others have, on twitter, asked for any leave supporter to give a good reason for leaving. I have seen none. I desperately want to hear good reasons, or positive results that it will produce. I have heard none - not a single one.
Do you mean a reason that you consider good, or a reason the putative respondent considers good? If your priorities and definitions of “good” are different to theirs then it’s entirely predictable that none of the reasons they consider good would be considered as such by yourself.
But I’m sure you realise that they could most likely say exactly the same thing about your reasons for remaining. Does that mean there aren’t any good reasons to stay in the EU?
Comments
Napoleon Bonaparte's remark about not interrupting your enemy whilst he's making a mistake is just so sensible, no?
Some help from Cymrau and Kernow would be helpful, too, given that the Little English are just headless chickens, fit only to be boiled with the marrowbones, as Chaucer says.....
I often practice my Bristolian by intoning, "oh no, not another one", lashings of rhoticity.
I don't think it would be so hard to inflict some serious damage onto England - there are only a few main routes from Cymru, Yr Alban and Cernyw into Lloegr.
The problem is determining how to do this in a way that would be more painful to England than to the Celtic nations.
We should have had the heinous row we’re having now, then. There would have been more time to either a) find a solution b) go back to the country in some form c) lay out plans for virtual techno border
Yes, but what sort of fool starts by telling the other party in a negotiation what your red lines are? That effectively means that you've already given away everything else.
She did it, I presume, to reassure the head-bangers in her own party that she'd look after their interests, thus adding stupidity to incompetence. Sprinkle a generous seasoning of dishonesty and serve with a side portion of xenophobia and Lo and Behold, you have Treeza.
Nope, it was triggering Article 50 too soon and without any thought into what they wanted from the future relationship or how the EU's own processes would shape what would be available. The slagging off 48% of the 2016 voter base was a bonus.
ALT+132 on your numeric keypad = ä
<tangent>
But @Doublethink, you may like this article from Bloomberg about how the Irish managed to make the Irish question one of the key drivers of the Brexit process if you haven't read it before.
That Harald V seems a decent old chap to have as King, and we did have a couple of Kings Harold ourselves, way back when....
BTW, I rather hope the Irish triumph, as per Bloomberg, as I am likely to become a citizen of that fair Republic in the not-too-distant future.
Harold I (Harefoot) 1035-1040, and Harold II (Godwinson) 1066.....only a short time, alas, on account of that bl**dy Norman feller....
I need to get out more. Or drink more Irish WHISKEY (as it is speeled on the bottul).
First, even though the election was called to strengthen the government hand in negotiating Brexit, several other policies were significant in the campaign and Brexit wasn't as prominent as one would expect.
Second, the Tory manifesto was quite vague about what sort of Brexit they would pursue - leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, and control of immigration ... and practically nothing more than that.
Finally, the people rejected even that sparse summary of Brexit. The Tories lost their majority and could only form a minority government. An argument could be made that the 2015 manifesto (the UK being a strong member of both Single Market and Customs Union) is a better reflection of the will of the people since on that basis the Tories formed a majority government.
If anyone's insulting that office at the moment, I'd say it's her; and most of the rest of her cabinet colleagues are doing their level best to demean their own offices as well. What a miserable shower they are!
The problem is that people's lives are being affected, and, at a guess, probably the poor and vulnerable to the greatest extent.
Which is the elephant in the room ...
May can't turn round and be honest with people that there will be a price for us all to pay for Brexit. Because the politicians who promised us all a British moon on a British stick are mostly Tory. She can't launch a proper investigation of the methods of the Leave campaign for the same reason.
However, what she's not admitting to anyone, possibly even to herself, is that the democratic process in the UK is fucked either way. Along with brand Tory.
Reality is going to hit at some point if they don't find a way out. People will start asking difficult question about who is responsible and why this was allowed to happen. The betrayal narrative - remainers and the EU - may deflect some of the blame but the Tories will carry the bulk of it. Some of the more sensible ones seem to have realised this already. The rest are too busy either drinking the Kool Aid or praying that something will turn up.
- Leave won the 2016 vote whilst breaking the law.
- Every claim made by the Leave campaign has been debunked*
- So, obviously, Mrs May says another referendum would 'break faith with the British People.'
I do love a well-reasoned argumentAFZ
*Off the top of my head:
Increased sovereignty
Easiest deal in history
German car companies queuing up to ensure we got a good deal
More money for the NHS
Turkey joining the EU at any moment
A referendum will clearly need EU agreement to a delay in the March date. I see no difficulty in getting that; the issue will be "how long"?
Will Labour jump on the referendum bandwagon? If they do, I think a majority may be built in the current House. MPs are going to have to choose which option they hate least. And soon now.
We're beyond reason, aren't we? Every time I chat to a few Brexit supporters, they sound gripped by various fantasies, which are impenetrable to reason. One guy said to me, make a complete break, and I said, you mean close Dover as a port, and he said, we'll manage. It reminds me of war fever, and of course, in many comments columns, there is reference to Dunkirk, and amazingly, the Hun, as well of course, as EUSSR. Those whom the gods wish to destroy ...
But then the deeper, sadder truth is that the poor, elderly and weak will feel the full force of the stupidity. What can you do?
And this is not the only caller with no or stupid reasons. These are people who are prepared to talk in public about their views.
When that is the quality of the discussion from the leavers side, what hope is there?
(And for what its worth, I and others have, on twitter, asked for any leave supporter to give a good reason for leaving. I have seen none. I desperately want to hear good reasons, or positive results that it will produce. I have heard none - not a single one.)
Even though they are a different plug, though we have Tajikistan on our side, maybe the caller would like a union of the Triune plug countries.
You really cannot make such an argument as his up.
That was my thought this morning. We’re going to crash out and face the consequences.
I only hope it brings out the caring spirit in people, not a blame game.
Thats the thing - it is always someone elses fault. JRM blames the EU. TM blames parliament. JC blames TM.
None of them takes responsibility for the fuckup they are responsible for.
And Hameron called the referendum in the first place. The list goes on.
I'm totally blaming the Tories. They called the Ref, led the official Leave campaign, negotiated with the EU and decided the UK would leave no matter what the cost.
Although Labour could - and should - have done more, this is pretty much a Tory show.
We in the US use both - though modern equipment mostly uses 3-prong cables.
Do you mean a reason that you consider good, or a reason the putative respondent considers good? If your priorities and definitions of “good” are different to theirs then it’s entirely predictable that none of the reasons they consider good would be considered as such by yourself.
But I’m sure you realise that they could most likely say exactly the same thing about your reasons for remaining. Does that mean there aren’t any good reasons to stay in the EU?