What ? It's nearly 1am here so your going to have to spell it out
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I meant to say that the link that he made was senseless and that arrogance was a euphemism. Sorry for the poor syntax.
Oh right, no worries.
Edit - Just read the post again and my bad I get it now(I've very tired.)
Occupation during WWII versus hundreds and hundreds of years of systematic deliberate attempts to eradicate culture including elimination of the native language, giving the best land to foreign loyalists, starvation resulting in famine, and part of the island still being under control of the same occupier (with support from barely half the population, the other half still seeing them as occupiers).
I reckon occupation is not such an outlandish term when you look at it from certain viewpoints. And I say this fully cognisant of the fact that I posted Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution yesterday.
I reckon occupation is not such an outlandish term when you look at it from certain viewpoints. And I say this fully cognisant of the fact that I posted Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution yesterday.
Ah now your views on Brexit make more sense - British arrogance.
That, and the assurance of enjoying the safety of the continent while the brown stuff hits the rotary device on the other side of the canal....
Thanks for posting that link - The bit about unionists trying to stop an amendment to the constitution (giving them what they want) just in order to try and derail the GFA just shows you how some are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face in NI politics - That's what makes me so nervous about how brexit could affect things. There is no way to be sure how the DUP will react to anything once we get down to final negotiations.
Who are the occupiers in Northern Ireland? Ancestors of people who conquered hundreds of years ago?
That is a very simplistic outlook on a complex subject.
They are quite easy to predict actually as to be fair to them they have been pretty consistent throughout brexit (although their views are insane) - they want a no deal brexit - they want this without a hard border (probably impossible) but if is between having a hard border or a soft brexit they would take a hard border - they do not want to be treated differently from the rest of the UK even if that means that NI is hit the hardest by the outcome. In short, they view being part of the UK as more important than the views of people in NI (who voted remain), the economy and the welfare of their own people.
To say I detest the DUP is an understatement - what is particularly repulsive at the moment is that they are trying to turn brexit into an orange/green topic which is clearly bullshit but they want to convince people that a hard brexit/no deal is what Unionists should support and that 'them-un's' on the Republican side want to remain. This is nonsense of course but unfortunately it has been proven time and time again that this strategy does work here and I'd be worried that if another vote was to happen, specific to NI, people would believe that narrative and support the DUP.
Last edited:
You mean the French/Viking/Normans?
Isn't he referring to the descendants of the English and Scottish protestant settlers of the early 1600s?
We know who he is referring to but we are pointing out that there have been many 'occupiers' of Northern Ireland over the years.
What exactly is your point here?
Labour won't put 2nd Brexit referendum in manifesto if there's early election
According to Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...cts-mps-call-for-general-strike-politics-live
According to Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...cts-mps-call-for-general-strike-politics-live
I thought that was fairly obvious - talking about 'occupiers' is a very simplistic view of the history here - there have been many 'occupiers' here over the years all of which have impacted the culture of the place and the British are just one of a long list. There is no current occupier in Northern Ireland and to suggest there is I'm afraid is ignorance and/or midguided romanticism. This is getting wildly off-topic but sometimes when you read utter nonsense you need to challenge it.
At the same time, only one of those previous occupiers’ governments still exist and are still holding land on the island of Ireland.
I’d say that the Native Americans would still see the United States as occupiers of their land, even though a couple hundred years have passed since our government conquered it.
Also, when viewed in the context of how Brexit could affect the border between NI and the ROI, it makes sense to understand the cause of frustration about a possible change in that border’s status.
It is not an occupation though - if a border poll took place today nobody really knows what would happen - the Brits have gone from NI - that happened as part of the GFA.
The US Cavalry doesn’t roam the Great Plains anymore, either, but you’d have a hard time convincing the Lakota that the US flag and state governments under the US federal government aren’t symbols of their land being occupied by someone else.
Would the people in Lakota vote for their land to be returned to them? I say this because it is not clear that people in NI would vote for a United Ireland today.
You can't be serious.
So while Stormont effectively doesnt exist right now, where is NI being ruled from seeing as the Brits are gone?
So many posting on this thread from a position of ignorance but trying to pass themselves off as authority.
That is due to the complete incompetence of our politicians here - currently nobody effectively rules NI although the civil service in UK are able to make some decisions (although no big ones as due to GFA a local Minister needs to be in place to sign things off) they are choosing not to as they know the political repercussions if they did - there is no direct rule in place. Nothing is getting done here as a result. You can attack me all you want and call me ignorant but I live here and this is the situation, unfortunately for you your statement highlights a lack of understanding of the finer details of what is happening here.
Last edited:
So does that mean all the Irish in America are occupying someone else's land?
Of course they would, but your example here is the same as taking a vote in the ROI about getting NI back.
Taking a vote in NI about returning the land is the equivalent of asking the people of Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, etc. to vote on giving the land back to the Natives.
The whole country is...
Sorry but that just is not true - it WOULD have been true several hundred years ago but NOW you are talking about people on both sides who have lived in Northern Ireland for generations - many hundreds of years - many of the people in NI view themselves as 'Northern Irish' as well as 'British' or 'Irish' or both or all three. Making comments like that suggest that you view the people who live in Northern Ireland as not being Irish and not deserving of having a vote about the future status of the place they live and where generations of their familes have lived - that is a pretty biased and ignorant view of the situation here. When people try and simplify the situation here and compare it with other places and situations it never really works. Due to GFA there would be a vote in the ROI about getting NI back as well as a vote up North about the same thing - in both cases it is not clear how the vote would go due to a multitude of reasons.
This thread is going horribly off-topic with all this NI talk.
Last edited:
So... exactly what I said then about asking the citizens of Wyoming if the land should go back to the Lakota?
Considering Brexit stands to put the GFA at serious risk, I’d say talking about the complicated situation between the ROI and NI is very pertinent to the topic.
This is utterly derailing the thread but ok. What you would need to consider (if we are to try and make a comparison) would be if the Lakota people would vote to get their land back on the understanding that Wyoming would no longer be part of the United States and that all the citizens in the current state (including those who are not from a Lakota background) would have to accept the situation (and that they would no longer be American citizens) because I'm sure you would not advocate citizens not getting a vote on the status of the place they live within (or indeed their nationality) - or indeed you would not advocate the current citizens of Wyoming not from a Lakota background being removed from the state? Your comments suggest otherwise but I'm sure as an American (I'm assuming you are American so apologies if you are not) you would believe in democracy and would not agree with such actions.
I would never blame someone for voting what is the best for them, I have only ever voted for what was best for me or my family.
But if those people who were hard up voted for the Tories in 2015 so that they could have a EU referendum in 2016 and again for the Tories in 2017 is beyond all sanity to me.
My point all along is that I don't see how Brexit will benefit anyone in the UK other than people like Mogg.
People may think they have reached rock bottom but things can still get worse. There weren't 17.4 million sleeping rough.
I’m completely aware of the implications in the American example, that’s why I brought it up, in the hopes that you could see the ROI point of view if looking at the same issue from a different geographic location.
Guys, it's alright, I've thought of the perfect solution to Brexit. So a second referendum would be unfair despite all the lying and idiocy of the first one, I do partially agree with that. So, what we do instead is all people who voted for Brexit in the first place have to sign up to a register, like the sex offender's register, and all people who voted remain are signed up to a separate one. Then, if/when Brexit screws up our economy, the money lost by the people in the remain register (be it through loss of a job, increased import duties, increased travelling costs etc...) is paid for by the people on the leave register. The people who didn't vote don't have to pay, but don't get paid. For every person who doesn't register to their registers, a vote is taken from their side.
Everyone gets what they want then. Remainers don't have to gamble with their livelihood, brexiteers get their black passports and none voters get to remain on the fence in blissful ignorance.
I'll propose this to May next time I see her. Can anyone see any problems or improvements?
Everyone gets what they want then. Remainers don't have to gamble with their livelihood, brexiteers get their black passports and none voters get to remain on the fence in blissful ignorance.
I'll propose this to May next time I see her. Can anyone see any problems or improvements?
The pensioners will die quicker than they'll be able to offset any Brexit costs.
Valid point. We could include their pensions, savings and force them to take out some sort of Brexit insurance?
I do see the ROI point of view (although it is unclear how many people in ROI would actually vote for a united Ireland) but am also aware that they no longer have within their constitution a claim on NI and have accepted that a vote should take place on both sides of the border - all a result of GFA.
I tried to translate it into your American example to show you that it is not a straightforward issue.
Last edited:
Its the redcafe brexit forum I have to be simplistic. I do know where you are coming from on this and didnt mean any slight to your community but the fact remains this situation we find ourselves in is because of their empire building and occupation of Ireland.
You could also seize the assets of any Offshore legal entity created since Brexit that is currently linked to a UK entity so that people Like Jacob Rees Mogg don't get the benefit of offshoring their funds if the UK economy tanks due to Brexit.
Or make any pro brexit person surrender any funds they have in offshore accounts into a "taking back control" fund for the nation.
This can be used to pay for the thousands of Border Patrol guards that need hiring and the refugee repatriation and holding centres/ customs bonded warehouses / refrigerated storage sites for perishable foods and medicines that need building in around 3 months time.
All of these buildings will also need immediate planning consent and I'm sure that the most prominent Brexiteers will be happy to donate the land from their own personal land holdings as a patriotic gesture and proof positive that we can just "get on with it"
I agree with that generally and also think that is due to the legacy of empire and the inherent arrogance of certain high ranking Parliamentarians partly as a result of British history that is contributing to the complete balls up that is Brexit. That and the fact that the British are an island people and therefore tend to have a different and insular outlook compared to other Europeans.
Indeed, which is another reason any percieved threat to the GFA (or "alteration" as suggested a few pages ago) as put forward by the UK government would be viewed so negatively in the Republic. The Republic gave up its claim on NI for the sake of the principles of peace and self-determination in NI, which makes it a bit of a hard pill to swallow if the UK government unilaterally decides to undermine that agreement (expressly against the wishes of the people of NI) for it's own selfish reasons.
In fairness a lot of that has to with how N.I was intentionally setup to give a "safe" unionist majority while taking as much land as they could at the same time.
If a second referendum were to be held in late March 2019, it's plausible that a Remain vote would win even if nobody changed their minds.
The process below involve some large assumptions and some numbers are educated guesses, but it does paint a reasonable picture of the effect of shifting demographics.
In June 2016, the results were:
Leave: 17,410,742
Remain: 16,141,241
These numbers would naturally change for two reasons:
Roughly 600,000 people die each year, or 1,650,000 between the referendum and UK's leaving date (March 2019).
Life expectancy is 81.6. Reasonable estimates at this age range could put turnout at 85% and the Leave vote at 70%. So making that adjustment, using voter eligibility of 95%:
Leave: 17,410,742 - (1,650,000 * 0.95 * 0.85 * 0.70) = 16,478,080
Remain: 16,141,241 - (1,650,000 * 0.95 * 0.85 * 0.30) = 15,741,529
2.
Roughly 2,100,000 at the last referendum were younger than 18 but older than 15.25 (18 minus 2.75 years since the referendum)
Reasonable estimates put the turnout of 18-24 year olds to 64%, and the Leave vote at 25%. So making that further adjustment, using voter eligibility of 90%:
Leave: 16,428,992 + (1,650,000 * 0.90 * 0.64 * 0.25) = 16,780,480
Remain: 16,141,241 - (1,650,000 * 0.90 * 0.64 * 0.75) = 16,648,729
The exact %s are certainly open to debate, but the numbers here close the Leave-Remain gap from 1,269,501 down to 131,751, for a 90% reduction.
If there was a slight shift in the number of new voters turning out and their Leave vote %, it could flip the referendum result.
And that's only at March 2019, based on nobody changing their minds.
Imagine a longer-term view, or allowing voters aged 16+ (e.g. Scottish independence vote).
The process below involve some large assumptions and some numbers are educated guesses, but it does paint a reasonable picture of the effect of shifting demographics.
In June 2016, the results were:
Leave: 17,410,742
Remain: 16,141,241
These numbers would naturally change for two reasons:
- People no longer being eligible to vote (now deceased).
- People newly being eligible to vote (now 18+).
Roughly 600,000 people die each year, or 1,650,000 between the referendum and UK's leaving date (March 2019).
Life expectancy is 81.6. Reasonable estimates at this age range could put turnout at 85% and the Leave vote at 70%. So making that adjustment, using voter eligibility of 95%:
Leave: 17,410,742 - (1,650,000 * 0.95 * 0.85 * 0.70) = 16,478,080
Remain: 16,141,241 - (1,650,000 * 0.95 * 0.85 * 0.30) = 15,741,529
2.
Roughly 2,100,000 at the last referendum were younger than 18 but older than 15.25 (18 minus 2.75 years since the referendum)
Reasonable estimates put the turnout of 18-24 year olds to 64%, and the Leave vote at 25%. So making that further adjustment, using voter eligibility of 90%:
Leave: 16,428,992 + (1,650,000 * 0.90 * 0.64 * 0.25) = 16,780,480
Remain: 16,141,241 - (1,650,000 * 0.90 * 0.64 * 0.75) = 16,648,729
The exact %s are certainly open to debate, but the numbers here close the Leave-Remain gap from 1,269,501 down to 131,751, for a 90% reduction.
If there was a slight shift in the number of new voters turning out and their Leave vote %, it could flip the referendum result.
And that's only at March 2019, based on nobody changing their minds.
Imagine a longer-term view, or allowing voters aged 16+ (e.g. Scottish independence vote).
Mentioned this before but this would be an interesting (but slightly basic) poll
Did you:
Vote Leave and would still vote Leave
Vote Leave but would now vote Remain
Vote Leave or Remain but now undecided
Vote Leave or Remain but now can’t be arsed engaging with it anymore.
Vote Remain but would now vote Leave because you think it’s a good idea.
Vote Remain but would now vote Leave because despite still disagreeing with it you think the result should be respected.
Vote Remain and would still vote Remain.
Did you:
Vote Leave and would still vote Leave
Vote Leave but would now vote Remain
Vote Leave or Remain but now undecided
Vote Leave or Remain but now can’t be arsed engaging with it anymore.
Vote Remain but would now vote Leave because you think it’s a good idea.
Vote Remain but would now vote Leave because despite still disagreeing with it you think the result should be respected.
Vote Remain and would still vote Remain.
Vote Remain and would still vote Remain, and I'll make sure my brother and parents vote Remain too. (They didn't vote last time)