wow shes a straight up witch
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.
She's 55? Feck off 
On any basis they like, really. Or no basis at all.
Would the EU even allow that or do they have a choice?
It sounds that the Government is definitely intending to put May's deal back to the House again. Hopefully tomorrow's motion will be amended creatively.
There'd be nothing stopping us doing it. That was confirmed in January.
It would really feck everybody off though.
Not heard that but there's an old docu called The Power of Nightmares about that, which is fantastic.
Think in the end Mays deal will go through, and that will be that.
As far as I remember (I might be wrong) the ECJ ruled that a member state could unilaterally withdraw from Article 50 at any point so while doing so might annoy them I don't think other EU members have any say at all.
There's a British/Dutch journo called Simon Kuper who writes some really good stuff on football for some Dutch magazines. Not sure if he's rated in England as well where he seems to be writing for the Financial Times, but one of his Brexit articles from 2016 got republished in Dutch recently and it sums up things quite well I thought (though presumably you guys are very much aware of this already of course and it might've been discussed countles of times so it could be just a pointless addition to this thread).
Still funny to see how that type elitism and fooling of the masses seems to work the same everywhere. He went to school with a whole load of Brexit figureheads:
https://www.ft.com/content/f4dedd92-43c7-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d
Brexit: a coup by one set of public schoolboys against another
"I went to university with both sets, and with hindsight I watched Brexit in the making. When I arrived at Oxford in 1988, David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove had just left the place. George Osborne and the future Brexiters Jacob Rees-Mogg and Daniel Hannan were all contemporaries of mine. I wasn’t close to them, because politically minded public schoolboys inhabited their own Oxford bubble. They had clubs like the Bullingdon that we middle-class twerps had never even heard of.
Their favourite hang-out was the Oxford Union, a kind of children’s parliament that organises witty debates. A sample topic: “That sex is good . . . but success is better”, in 1978, with Theresa May speaking against the motion. May is now running for Tory leader without the usual intermediate step of having been Union president, though her husband Philip, Gove and Johnson did all hold that post. (Beautifully, Gove campaigned for Johnson’s election in 1986.)
"The public schoolboys spent decades trying to get British voters angry about the EU. But as Gove admitted to me in 2005, ordinary voters never took much interest. Perhaps they didn’t care whether they were ruled by a faraway elite in Brussels or ditto in Westminster. And so the public schoolboys focused the Brexit campaign on an issue many ordinary Britons do care about: immigration. To people like Johnson, the campaign was an Oxford Union debate writ large."
May will like the interview with the Tory hard leaver on the beeb just now, he says the only choice is now between May's deal and no brexit.
What this guy, the EU Brextit negotiator, says for one:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...cle-50-extension-vote-deal-EU-guy-verhofstadt
There are also the right wing Italians who want to see us leave and are talking to Farage by all accounts.
I'm not good with politics, but can someone explain how today's vote and tomorrows vote is any different?
Today - vote between A) taking no off the table completely or B) leaving with no deal.
Tomorrow - vote between C) extension of article 50 or D) leaving with no deal.
Why offer an already rejected choice in tomorrows vote? They honestly might as well make option D) Eboue.
Today - vote between A) taking no off the table completely or B) leaving with no deal.
Tomorrow - vote between C) extension of article 50 or D) leaving with no deal.
Why offer an already rejected choice in tomorrows vote? They honestly might as well make option D) Eboue.
The song remains the same - May will put her deal back to parliament next week as the only means of delivering the great prize of Brexit. And she win probably win.
The lesson for me is not to laugh at disfunctional “democracies” in other parts of the world. Here, despite a growing majority for remain, we are being held to ransom by some awkward xenophobe who is somewhere on the Asperger’s spectrum and leading a party of 100,000 geriatrics and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
The lesson for me is not to laugh at disfunctional “democracies” in other parts of the world. Here, despite a growing majority for remain, we are being held to ransom by some awkward xenophobe who is somewhere on the Asperger’s spectrum and leading a party of 100,000 geriatrics and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
So a second referendum is unthinkable... but May’s deal can come back for a third vote after being rejected twice.
Presumably one or two of the countries might try to leverage their veto for some other purpose. But once the big players back it, I would imagine everyone will fall in line. The 27 have been very united (until now) on Brexit.
How can she genuinely get away with this? This is not democratic this is straight up a dictatorship.
Yeah the reason of this vote tonight was to show the ERG that the two options were May's deal or a softer deal. They now expect the ERG to vote for May's deal.
ITS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.
The SNP are doggedly keeping on with the questions, nearly everyone else has pushed off now.
Im in shock really. How can she do this? Can parliament not take control?
Can someone explain to me the logic behind this vote? Isn't NO DEAL something that inevitably will happen in the absence of an alternative? Why are they voting on this?
My understandig was that if you want NO DEAL you vote against any proposed deals or extensions, and if you wan't a deal then you have to vote for the single one available or for an extension to try and get another.
What am I missing?
My understandig was that if you want NO DEAL you vote against any proposed deals or extensions, and if you wan't a deal then you have to vote for the single one available or for an extension to try and get another.
What am I missing?
She should do the right thing and resign.
He deals been voted against twice, no deals been voted against. At this point, you need to pass on the responsibility to someone else. Atleast that should give just cause to an extension.
He deals been voted against twice, no deals been voted against. At this point, you need to pass on the responsibility to someone else. Atleast that should give just cause to an extension.
The exact thing they said was that you can do it as long as it does not involve an abusive practice. The revocation has to be in good faith; immediately triggering A50 again is obviously the very definirion of an abusive practice.
So no, the UK can't feck around like that, not even technically.
ERG deputy chairman has just said that they will not support it.
I thought the EU were the ones who keep running votes til they get the right answer?
This vote was largely about forcing the government towards alternatives, any respectable government would have taken action towards that but we don't have a respectable government
I think that is what she is hoping. To me she is flogging a dead horse but there is no talking to her.
They won't, so long as the default option is hard brexit, that's what the ERG want in the first place.
May's banking on Labout MPs switching when the only choice they have is hard brexit or her deal.
No, that's not possible. The ECJ ruling pretty explicitly ruled that out. The purpose of revoking A50 must be to confirm EU membership, in good faith and sincere cooperation.
This is the judgement:
Your point was the EU's opposition to it, but the court found against those arguments.
I think you might possibly be confusing it with the UK's ability to leave the backstop which did have a good faith element.
The world is laughing at us.
I knew that we could unilaterally revoke it but could we invoke it again say the next day for another 2 years of fun? Or would the EU have something to say about that.
http://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2018/1...-50-notification-can-be-unilaterally-revoked/
So no, I'm not mixing it up with anything. They just made it concrete what good faith means.
Edit: besides, the UK would never actually do it anyway. It would absolutely destroy any international credibility the country had, as well as making a No Deal exit certain - why would the EU even attempt to negotiate after this?
It's terrible really, watching May trying to manipulate Parliament like this. I think Bercow's interventions will be key over the next couple of weeks.
What are the chances that Brexit exposed how british politicians act and acted behind the scenes at EU level? I'm genuinely wondering if some of their public complains weren't a reflection of their own actions.