How likely is it that this actually happens?
Boris as PM and a no deal Brexit?
Boris as PM and a no deal Brexit?
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.
Whatever happens May has sealed her place in history as an idiot.
No one bar maybe the DUP wants a hard border, but the reality of it is its now a very real possibility.
The European Commission and the Secretary of State for NI have said there will need to be border controls put in place in Ireland in a scenario where the UK leave the EU with no deal.
Without a deal if the UK trades under WTO rules then eventually infrastructure will have to be put in place at the border to comply with the WTO MFN clause. And when that happens then the situation in Ireland could very easily and very quickly deteriorate again.
Depressingly, it will play pretty well with a lot of the older people I know including my Dad.
I wouldn't exactly say that.
It was a poison chalis of a job from the beginning. She took on the impossible, in fact, whoever took over from Cameron to negotiate Brexit was always going to be under fire from all sides, there are too many factions in parliament, forces pulling in different directions. No one deal from the EU would get through the house right now - it's too fragmented, too many different ideas and far too much party politics.
But the same would be said for whoever had done the negotiating.
...and under the circumstances, I feel sorry for her. On the one hand, she's got the EU telling her it's the only deal in town, and on the other, a parliament with a dozen factions, a divided party and very little public support - and it's literally because everybody has a different idea about what should happen next. It's not just that she can't please everybody, it's literally that she has to piss off everyone just to offer something up to the house.
I think she's done, and I think that's best for her. She's exhausted and despite her fortitude and tenacity, even she knows it's over for her deal. It's time somebody else took up the same poison challis, and probably they'll take us out with no deal.
Ugh, what you quoted is a 3-year EUR 2,5m (so nothing) research project aimed at tackling "emerging trends such as nationalism, regionalism and protectionism", if you believe that this serves you as a proof that the EU is "a project whose ultimate goal is to destroy sovereign countries" then I have little words.
You'll find similar research projects funded by various governments all around the world, not only among EU member states, also aimed at tackling nationalism, regionalism, protectionism or so. And I'm not sure you'd say they want to destroy sovereign countries
It would quickly lead to a border poll and will only escalate the one thing the DUP are completely opposed to. Unitedness
I think you are being far too generous with May. Inheriting a country split 50/50 down the middle, the sensible course would have been to start a consultation as to how to respond to the extremely vague mandate of the June 16 referendum. The result of that process would not (could not) have pleased everyone but, on the basis their concerns had at least been registered, most people would have agreed to live with it in the interests of moving on. Instead, trusting only her small circle of advisers like Nick Timothy, she set a course for hard Brexit with her arbitrary redlines and went out of her way to aggravate the half of the country who voted remain (“citizens of nowhere”, commemorative 50p coins etc).
When the hard Brexit plan encountered reality (the Irish Border problem and the firmness of the EU27 in resisting divide and rule tactics), she lost the Brexiteers as well, not helped by her inability to cajole and persuade and her appalling communication skills.
So three years later, she finds herself isolated and having built up a huge deficit in trust and goodwill.
I would agree that taking over from Cameron was not an easy job but it is hard to imagine anyone more unsuited to the job in terms of temperament, outlook and experience in dealing with the EU.
May is a feck up. She was a feck up at the Home Office and she only got the PM job by default because everyone else managed to shit the bed during their own campaigns. She thought this was her time to shine.
Does this Online petition ever works? In the past?
She made what was a bad situation incredibly toxic and fuelled the fires of division IMO due to her own inherent xenophobic and questionable traits which made her susceptible to wanting to satisfy the lunatic fringe elements of her party.
That has made her utterly incapable of looking for a practical way out of this issue and ignore party politics and just focus on what is best for the country (forget the fact referendum was won by leave - she needed to focus on whether or not it was feasible and if not just be honest instead of lying to the public it was still doable).
Her general responses to grenfall, knife crime, police numbers, the NHS, Islamophobia and that is just a highlights package has been nothing short of disgraceful. Quite frankly the most incompetent prime minister there has ever been which is saying something and utterly unfit for the situation she was handed. Even if she had walked into a more better political situation she’d have found a way to cock it up due to her limited mind and stubbornness.
Brexit could have been something which whilst it was a poisoned chalice, made a more competent politician a hero... someone who quelled the fires of division and brought some semblance of unity whilst keeping the xenophobic right wing elements of the U.K. at bay. Kept us in the EU but worked diligently with the EU to seek a solution to immigration and finding ways to practically understand people’s problems without destroying the entire economy and people’s livelihoods.
Imagine having a prime minister as indecisive and clueless in charge when say World War II was upon us, we’d all be doing Nazi salutes... well guess what we have someone in charge who has given those who are racist and brainless a much greater say in how this country is run and will be run in the foreseeable future. Yes Cameron was to blame for letting Brexit in but she’s been complicit in letting the stink continue for 3 years after the referendum.
It's interesting when you realise that this whole exercise has been about appeasing small minorities - first in the Conservatives by Cameron and now with the pressure groups in Parliament (and the DUP, who are also a small minority).
Mrs May should realise that there are better ways to spend your time when you're in your 60s and well-off.
Mrs May should realise that there are better ways to spend your time when you're in your 60s and well-off.
The nation state as a concept is barely even 200 years old. And during its existence we had two devastating world wars. You might say those had nothing to do with nation states but let's just say those wars did little to help the argument that nation states are the best way to manage politics.
The UK has never been a nation state. Ever. It was an empire. During the brief period after it had stopped being the empire but before joining the EEC it experienced an awful economic crisis. Because, well, being alone is a lot harder than being a global colonial power.
Freedom of movement allows for a lot of things. Governments can subsidise certain sectors, they can aim for creating certain types of jobs to make sure that most EU workers have the 'desired skills', whatever those might be. The only thing FoM prevents is turning away someone who is offered a job in the country.
We havent tried to leave the EU before.
Ok watch the documentary Dijsselbloem made in Greece, listen to his regret and how he believes the eu were too harsh with their austerity measures. And he was the finance minister. Look up the record of Wolfgang Schauble, first with east germany and then with eu. Both total wankers that got it wrong but hey, they followed the model you prefer.
He believes they were too harsh but that austerity was the right approach. He's said this countless times.
I don't know what Schauble said about regretting austerity and Google gives no answers, but i do know he implemented austerity and stuck with it and has been pretty stubborn in agreeing with it.
Anyway, this is the Brexit thread so we should end this line of conversation.
It was true then, that's exactly how it was sold to the public, the first of many lies, which were still being perpetuated up until now. Very few people (in the general population) then knew anything about the Treaty of Rome and what it entailed about closer unity, or indeed what we had signed up to. The primary advocate for not joining was Tony Benn, who warned "that once in we would never get out". Benn's left-wing views however were used by the press to discredit his views on the 'Common market'.
It is the basic premise that underlines all the current woes, we missed being able to shape the Treaty of Rome and hence for the majority of the UK population, we were like someone who jumps on a bus just as its pulling out, assuming its the right one, but without look at where the bus was going. Consistently from then onwards our politicians have failed to tell us the truth and in all honesty very few people took any notice of the change to the EU, until Maastricht. Then things started to come to light, which began to worry some people, and the furore over joining the Euro gave greater clarity, but even then the mass of the populace didn't really understand.
Cameron of course let the genie out of the lamp and there is no going back, even if A50 is revoked, the damage has been done.
May's deal is still the worst option, it hasn't really changed since December and the subsequent record defeat. May needs to go as well and it doesn't make the deal any better.
It looks like there isn't going to be anything better on offer, just even worse versions of the deal or things including the single market and / or the customs union. In which case, what is the point we're in a better situation than that already. Even if we did "leave" to one of these options, you can bet a big movement to fully rejoin would immediately kick off and would succeed pretty quickly.
Voting for an obviously inferior situation just to deliver "Brexit" would be moronic and unsustainable anyway.
The best option is to revoke, leavers should see what they wanted and what won the vote for leave in the 2016 vote isn't on offer, (no one was arguing for no deal in 2016 due to the economic risks) remainers should accept if we revoke it doesn't change the referendum result. Then we start again with a general election and the political parties have to figure out what to do next.
It looks like there isn't going to be anything better on offer, just even worse versions of the deal or things including the single market and / or the customs union. In which case, what is the point we're in a better situation than that already. Even if we did "leave" to one of these options, you can bet a big movement to fully rejoin would immediately kick off and would succeed pretty quickly.
Voting for an obviously inferior situation just to deliver "Brexit" would be moronic and unsustainable anyway.
The best option is to revoke, leavers should see what they wanted and what won the vote for leave in the 2016 vote isn't on offer, (no one was arguing for no deal in 2016 due to the economic risks) remainers should accept if we revoke it doesn't change the referendum result. Then we start again with a general election and the political parties have to figure out what to do next.
I doubt that simply due to the fact we'd have to take euro on which would be a massive no from pretty much everyone in the country.
As I've said before , when I voted in 1975 I didn't vote to stay so that British Leyland could sell its cars more easily to France. Freedom of movement, working and living in Europe and closer cultural unity and peace were the main reasons.
The same debates were on TV then with as you say Benn plus Barbara Castle, Michael Foot and others against the EEC/EU. But people are no more informed now than they were then , that is patently obvious.
The UK have not or never would have joined the Euro, they've opted out of all sorts of things, they get rebates.
Furthermore they can leave when they like - but they don't seem to like the consequences of leaving.
The benefits far outweigh any negativity.
Unfortunately they will only realise the benefits when it is too late.
I already have, a good deal' its a mixture of trade /political changes that suit our needs, but it won't happen, because the EU cannot respond on the political bit without shredding its four freedoms.
We all know they'd give us an exception again, what the EU really want is to make sure we're still in there economic sphere for trade, and don't go elsewhere, if / when we wanted to rejoin I'm certain they would facilitate it and bend the rules as required if they thought it was keeping us locked in.
Just as we saw with everyone going on about 29th being the "deadline", then suddenly it gets extended. I hadn't even realised that was possible, and indeed now it seems with a PM who doesn't want no deal, I now find it pretty hard to see how it that just won't keep happening.
Who are 'we all'? Not me for one.
I don't really get this, though I read it often. The Eurozone has 19 members out of 28 (18 out of 27 once the UK is out). Sweden and Denmark, for example, simply don't want it.
I was a bit too young to vote but my folks, who both voted Tory, felt the same.
As did Canada.
Current members have opt outs on all treaties that's why not everyone is in everything but future members are supposed to take the EU has a package, that's the default position. Now in practice and based on the TEU, every candidature is subject to a deal with current members and I'm not sure if there are actual limits to the content of that deal.
Ugh, what you quoted is a 3-year EUR 2,5m (so nothing) research project aimed at tackling "emerging trends such as nationalism, regionalism and protectionism", if you believe that this serves you as a proof that the EU is "a project whose ultimate goal is to destroy sovereign countries" then I have little words.
You'll find similar research projects funded by various governments all around the world, not only among EU member states, also aimed at tackling nationalism, regionalism, protectionism or so. And I'm not sure you'd say they want to destroy sovereign countries
There is nothing controversial in my post.
The ultimate goal of the European project is to create the United States of Europe but with more powers attributed to the Federal Government.
That's not exactly true for two reasons. First where the EU goes is totally reliant on what member states want, there is no actual ultimate goal other than being ever closer. Secondly mentioning a constitutional format is strange because of the first point, since you don't know how close member states will want to be in the future.
Never said it's controversial, I merely pointed out that what you think proves that the EU is "a project whose ultimate goal is to destroy sovereign countries" is a very small scale, minor research scheme, which has completely nothing to do with "the ultimate goal of the European project".
Not even that I'm against the "creation of the United States of Europe", but to talk about it as if it indeed was a vocally presented, dominant idea among European leaders is a strong exaggeration too. You won't find that many federalists in the meetings of the European Council, trust me on that.
Exactly, federalists exist but they are not dominant. Most leaders and politicians have absolutely no intention to share their local and national powers.
In other news, 1 + 1 = 2
Yeah but we’ve taken something back haven’t we?
They will no longer be able to look after our human rights for a start, that’ll show em!
Thoughts?
Massive oversimplification, guys. I haven't read about Canada, but Australia is not a good analogy. It had a healthier economy to start off with and a milder storm to weather.
Australia in 2008 (pre-Crisis) was debt-free and running surplus budgets on the back of the mining boom, so it was in a far better situation than pretty much all western economies. It was at record low unemployment going into it. On top of it, its financial sector had only an indirect exposure to the crisis. Its banks weren't directly involved in the underwriting of large volumes of US mortgage-backed securities, which went bust, unlike US and major European banks. So they didn't need large injections of cash to stay afloat, they simply shrunk. Therefore Aus could use the stimulus packages to help the general economy instead of just propping up banks.
Generally speaking, it's easier to "spend your way into growth" when you start off a healthy base. I don't think for example Greece and Italy who had debts over 100% of GDP and running budget deficits over 5% of GDP going into the recession, could spend their way out of trouble. No one would lend them for that to start off with.
Last edited:
Is it a coincidence both Australia and Canada benefited particularly from the commodities boom and super-cycle? As well as having a far smaller banking sector than the UK, which is what caused the problem in the first place. I'm sure there is an argument for increased public spending in times of recession, but I'm not swallowing Australia and Canada as the proof.
edit: although Mike put it better
