Cake and eating it also applies to the idea you can somehow have a hard border with Europe but not with Ireland, as if Ireland is not part of Europe. What everyone is at pains to explain to you is that no-deal will result on a border in Ireland and the break of the GFA. Something which every no-deal Brexiteer either completely ignores or sweeps it under the carpet with "no side wants to". No side might want to, but both sides will have to if they are to have border integrity. Otherwise every country that has a trade deal with the EU could use it as a backdoor of goods into the UK and vice versa.
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.
Cake and eating it also applies to the idea you can somehow have a hard border with Europe but not with Ireland, as if Ireland is not part of Europe. What everyone is at pains to explain to you is that no-deal will result on a border in Ireland and the break of the GFA. Something which every no-deal Brexiteer either completely ignores or sweeps it under the carpet with "no side wants to". No side might want to, but both sides will have to if they are to have border integrity. Otherwise every country that has a trade deal with the EU could use it as a backdoor of goods into the UK and vice versa.
she is literally a robot. Doesnt listen to anything anyone says, just deflects constantly
Her only reference to the march was a jab at Corbyn. I mean come on 1.4 million people marched
Her only reference to the march was a jab at Corbyn. I mean come on 1.4 million people marched
The UK aren't members of WTO at the moment but the problem is the same. Basically you can't discriminate countries unless if you have a trade/custom agreement between two markets. The EU cannot not control its borders outside of a deal otherwise they would have to grant that right to everyone else, for the UK there will be no point for other markets to seek trade deals because the british market will be open to everyone and all of that will only work on one way, other countries will have every right to put all the barriers they want.
Edit: I'm actually wrong about the first sentence, every EU members are also individual WTO members, so you most definitely have to respect it from day one.
Last edited:
So she's ruled out No Deal again? Or so the beeb is headlining things with.
But it is not possible. If you have an open border with Ireland then you have to have open border with all countries you do not have a trade agreement or customs union with. So you are open to all kinds of illegal goods, immigrants from worldwide, smuggling and could never have a trade agreement with any country because there would be no need as they could flood the UK with anything they like. (And this is only a small part of the problem)
Last edited:
But how are the British going to end freedom of movement (a big reason for Brexit for a lot of people) without either a border in Ireland or in the Irish Sea?
I think the government is going to collapse, we're going to end up with a temporary national coalition till Brexit is done, and then a GE in a few months.
May has totally lost the plot, deluded, maybe mad? take your pick, the DUP seem to be furious with May, even Tory backbenchers must be sitting in astonishment at what is happening. A confidence motion, defeat the government, then use the FTPA to form a national one is the only way forward.
May has totally lost the plot, deluded, maybe mad? take your pick, the DUP seem to be furious with May, even Tory backbenchers must be sitting in astonishment at what is happening. A confidence motion, defeat the government, then use the FTPA to form a national one is the only way forward.
Its ridiculous but has just become the norm when asked a difficult question.
As in the US, there's too much power and authority vested in the leader. May's holding Parliament and the nation hostage.
Amendments aren't due to be voted on til 10pm tonight. Should have voted whilst May regurgitated catch phrases
No it wasn't, you are misunderstanding and misusing the term. England may have become a nation at the point you mention, but not a nation state. The only controversy about this is whether nation states gradually emerged from the Treaty of Westphalia or arrived abruptly through the French revolution.
Hobsbawm's a good read on this.
And @Siorac was talking about the United Kingdom not England, it's a bit strange to reduce the conversation to England.
My reaction to most of this stuff now is a mixture of laughter, confusion and eventually it reaches the old faithful of...
yeeoo
yeeoo
You're wrong about England not being a nation state, it was pretty homogeneous with an agreed government before the Norman conquest, as @Steerpike says. Everyone, bar possibly the Cornish, spoke the same language, and that language wasn't spoken elsewhere. It's arguable GB or the UK isn't a nation state, but a group of nations, you may be getting confused with that.
The rest is about right, except it tends to apply to about half of the British, and not the other half, which is of course the problem in the first place.
You can get illegal and illicit goods now, especially those that are copies of top brands; illegal immigrants already get into the UK, some get caught, but not many especially with people trafficker's now in operation, and the smuggling of goods as been part of the UK's traditions, especially in many costal areas for hundreds of years, whole communities were involved in some cases; however I take your serious point about the absence of borders/deals etc. on such matters.
The point once again is that given the referendum result was to leave the EU, a "no deal' was a real option (in a binary choice) as the only chance of the UK Government exerting leverage, which might have come up with 'cake and eat it' result, or something much closer to it, than May's current 'deal.
The other real option was of course to remain, which will occur, unless May can dragoon her rebels MPs to get her over the line.
I am not saying that 'No deal' was preferable to remaining, but for those who wanted to leave it was the only logical option, even if it presented almost as many problems as it solved. That's why so many people are still agitating for this result. It started as a binary choice and it still is!
Him and millions of others I suspect.
It isn't May's deal though, it is just the withdrawal agreement to leave the EU which was the only one possible. It is just a stepping stone to the next phase.
On the ballot paper it only said the EU. It did not say the EEA or the customs union. You can still leave the EU and be in the CU and SM. So it was not exactly a binary choice, it was an interpretation - the negotiations have been conducted per the interpretation of Theresa May.
You would have no objection to Dover having no border then.
How does this stuff still surprise? Hope people aren't waiting for signs of sentience from her?
.
Last edited:
Good point about the Danes. England except for the Cornish and the Danes then. To be fair we twatted the Danes eventually but their cousin Norman the bastard sneaked in and we became foreign ruled and part of a foreign empire really, so it definitely becomes a bit dodgy then.
Pretty damn shameful:
'About half an hour ago Dominic Grieve, the Conservative pro-European, mentioned reports saying the cabinet has been taking Brexit decisions based on what is best for the Conservative party, not what is best for the country.
The Times columnist Rachel Sylvester has just published a column with more on this charge. Here is an extract.
I am told that the minutes of the cabinet meeting contain at least five references to the Tories’ narrow political concerns. According to the official account, written by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, ministers discussed how the government is “committed to delivering Brexit — not to do so would be damaging to the Conservative party”. And in a clear sign of the political nature of the discussion chaired by the prime minister, the minutes end with the words: “The Conservative party wants to stay in government and get councillors elected. The arguments in parliament could jeopardise that.”
It is extremely unusual for such language to creep into a civil service note — partisan debates are supposed to be limited to special political cabinet meetings from which officials are excluded. In fact the tone of the minutes was so extraordinary that the issue was raised at this morning’s cabinet meeting by ministers who stressed the importance of governing in the national rather than the party interest.
This was, however, part of a pattern. One Whitehall source says: “In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood.”'
'About half an hour ago Dominic Grieve, the Conservative pro-European, mentioned reports saying the cabinet has been taking Brexit decisions based on what is best for the Conservative party, not what is best for the country.
The Times columnist Rachel Sylvester has just published a column with more on this charge. Here is an extract.
I am told that the minutes of the cabinet meeting contain at least five references to the Tories’ narrow political concerns. According to the official account, written by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, ministers discussed how the government is “committed to delivering Brexit — not to do so would be damaging to the Conservative party”. And in a clear sign of the political nature of the discussion chaired by the prime minister, the minutes end with the words: “The Conservative party wants to stay in government and get councillors elected. The arguments in parliament could jeopardise that.”
It is extremely unusual for such language to creep into a civil service note — partisan debates are supposed to be limited to special political cabinet meetings from which officials are excluded. In fact the tone of the minutes was so extraordinary that the issue was raised at this morning’s cabinet meeting by ministers who stressed the importance of governing in the national rather than the party interest.
This was, however, part of a pattern. One Whitehall source says: “In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood.”'
Kier Starmer in the HoC currently talking on behalf of the proposed Indicative Vote ammendment.
Speaking well and making sensible points.
The Indicative Vote process seems to me to be just about the only hope of a breaking the current log jam.
Unsurprisingly TM has said that the government will vote against the ammendment.
Speaking well and making sensible points.
The Indicative Vote process seems to me to be just about the only hope of a breaking the current log jam.
Unsurprisingly TM has said that the government will vote against the ammendment.
Shameful indeed. This has been clear looking in from the outside, but good to see civil servants making sure it is all on record.
Ken Clarke talking about having a single transferable vote on the indicative votes. Makes perfect sense, they have to be considered simultaneously or else the order of the votes becomes very significant.
I didn't write it, mate.
He's tried to introduce this before as an amendment to May's deal bills, but the speaker didn't select it. Although now the EU have shown willingness to extend then it could be put to the public instead of MPs, but whether parliament or people single transferable vote is the best way forward for me.
My mistake. I cannot remember who did but it remains a fair question.
Maybe its just me, but if i had been frontstabbed by my colleagues in the ERG multiple times i would be tempted to just say "feck the lot of you" and push for soft Brexit or Remain. Just to spite them.
For what it's worth.
The Danelaw had fallen to Athelstan king of the Anglo Saxon's of Wessex and Mercia at the time. Which is the point of citing it as the first time England as an entity existed.
Following the failed attempt to defeat him at the battle of Brunanburh he ruled as king of the English from 927 until he died in 939.
Guys, you're saying the quiet bit loud again.
Where’s that from? I miss Billy Connelly.My reaction to most of this stuff now is a mixture of laughter, confusion and eventually it reaches the old faithful of...
yeeoo
Yes. Although only 17 million of the 67 million population didn't want it. Compulsory voting really should be a thing.
Fecking hell...
So @Steerpike is saying that we are a group of nation states, that should leave a larger grouping of nation states, remaining as part of this smallet group of nation states, because being part of a group of nation states prevents us from functioning as a nation state? Glad we cleared that one up.
Last edited:
Can't remember when it is but I think it's from the same bit where he talks about yelling at wildebeests on the tv.