Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

BRITLAND

UK Politics & Current Affairs Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

DareYokel

All the best revelations about Russian spy activities seem to come from the Dutch. Aside from their latest tricks they hacked into the offices of the hackers behind the DNC hack and they provided crucial intel to Montenegro about Russian efforts to organize a coup in 2016 and topple the government. AIVD is really good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Yeah, I think they released a load of stuff on some of the other Russian hacking groups too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short Stay

Recall that MH17 was a flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur carrying a fair number of Dutch citizens. The Dutch government has publicly held Russia responsible for its being shot down by a missile. I would imagine they are still pretty sore about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip
On 9/23/2018 at 12:32 AM, AiraCobra said:

Genuine question....

You asked some questions a while back, but back then it wasn't easy to split quote boxes, but now it is!

 

Quote

What exactly would happen if the UK/EU can't agree on a deal before the March 29th deadline?

This is the so-called 'no deal' scenario.  Effectively, the UK will be recognised as a third country by 29 March.  Meaning that all laws, treaties, agreements, etc. from the European Economic Community and its successors (including the EU itself) would cease to be recognised.  Goods crossing the borders would be inspected as if they came from any country the EU doesn't have some sort of deal with.  For instance, the EU does have some arrangements with Russia and Ukraine, avoiding certain restrictions on certain cross border trade.  The UK would not even be able to get this.

 

That's assuming there are no agreements at all.  The EU and UK are for instance trying to get a fall back (or 'backstop') in case of no deal on certain issues; such as the Irish border.

 

The short answer to your question is that there will likely be chaos at the border and many other places, but it remains to be seen how long it would take before something could be solved.  There are such a myriad of interconnections between the UK and the EU that is hard to foresee exactly what's going to happen.  But 'chaos' will be the hallmark.

 

Quote

Can the UK Parlament revoke the referendum to remain in the EU despite voters voting to leave or can they put another referendum on the ballot to see if voters still want to leave or go?

Technically, a referendum under UK law is only a guideline, as it is not constitutionally recognised.  That is, Parliament and the government is not legally required to follow the result of a referendum.  Now, historically, all referendums in post-war UK have been followed[1] by Parliament, because -- well -- democracy and politics and all that.  It would simply be political suicide to ignore a referendum.

 

For the same reason, Parliament has the legal authority to call as many referendums as they like.  But again, the question is whether this is good politics.

 

Quote

Was it wrong when I read that the majority of voters to leave the EU were older residents ages 50 and up while the younger voters voted to stay within the EU or was it the other way around? I know I read somewhere that one demographic voted to stay while the other voted to leave just can't remember which one.

I think someone else answered this better; but in terms of age demographics, younger voters tended to vote Remain, while older voters tended to vote Leave.

 

Quote

Do you think if they would to hold another vote today would the turnout be the difference in people wanting to stay in after seeing everything that has been going on since the referendum?

The polling data is imprecise on this matter.  There is some suggestion that it has moved towards Remain.  But the move in percentage points isn't conclusive, and remains within the margin of error (in the same way that the actual result was within the margin of error of the opinion polls just up to the referendum).

 

I would imagine, however, that people who want to remain would be more energised than those wanting to leave given the chaos of the last two years.  And maybe it is voter turnout that will tip the balance rather than what everyone thinks if voting was mandatory.

 

Quote

If the Brexit deal does go on and the UK does meet the deadline and leave the EU by March 29th what happens to Scotland and Ireland? I kow they have their own PM and Paralment but are still part of the UK.

The United Kingdom is a strange beast, since it is not a federation, and it does not have devolution like Belgium.  (Indeed, I believe there was a report some months ago about civil servant letters to newly minted PM Tony Blair back in the 1990s about how he should avoid the same process as the Belgians had taken.)

 

So while Belgium and the United Kingdom are not true federations like say Germany or Switzerland, they do have some large local autonomy (which we also see in Spain).  What makes the UK stranger than its Belgian and Spanish counterparts is that England - the largest of the four kingdoms - does not have its own parliament and ministry, only Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales do.

 

Your question assumes a deal, but the question is the contents of that deal, because otherwise it is a difficult to answer what happens to the other countries of the UK.  Wales, for its part, will likely remain with England, regardless of where it goes.

 

Northern Ireland is a difficult one to deduce, but there is worry that The Troubles may boil up again, if the border between it and the Republic of Ireland closes down, and there is a renewed clamouring for unification with the rest of Ireland.  Whether such a possible revolt means unification with Ireland remains to be seen, but it could become dangerous times for the Irish again.

 

Scotland, on the other hand, does have a large portion of its electorate who wants to leave the United Kingdom.  With the UK leaving the EU, this may be the sticking point that finally tips over the balance.  The 2014 referendum was seen as uncomfortably close by those in London.  And the question in Scotland is whether staying within the EU is more important than staying in the UK.  Their First Minister has so far been dealing with this issue quite appropriately, but have been talking about a possible second referendum on Scottish independence following a 'bad' break from the EU, such as a 'no deal' scenario.

 

It's possible that these threats are used for political leverage rather than actual threats, but again it remains to be seen.  There are other parts of the UK that are also worth wondering about, such as Gibraltar, which is also part of the EU and enjoys free movement of goods, etc. into Spain.  What happens here?

 

Quote

Will they then become independence countries with their own choice of joining the EU? If they are still considered part of the UK but area autonomous would they be allowed to join the EU on their own accord even though their "Mother Country" has left? 

To join the EU, they would have to leave the United Kingdom.  Sub-national administrative territories cannot join the EU as per its rules.  Scotland would have to be truly independent of the United Kingdom in order to join the EU.  And in such a case, Scotland would have to re-apply for membership as any other third country.

 

If Scotland remains part of the UK, their EU status will be the same as the rest of the UK, regardless of what happens with Brexit.

 

[1] I say post-war, i.e. since the Second World War, because I don't know whether it hasn't been the case before then.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AiraCobra
On 10/12/2018 at 7:08 AM, Svip said:

You asked some questions a while back, but back then it wasn't easy to split quote boxes, but now it is!

 

This is the so-called 'no deal' scenario.  Effectively, the UK will be recognised as a third country by 29 March.  Meaning that all laws, treaties, agreements, etc. from the European Economic Community and its successors (including the EU itself) would cease to be recognised.  Goods crossing the borders would be inspected as if they came from any country the EU doesn't have some sort of deal with.  For instance, the EU does have some arrangements with Russia and Ukraine, avoiding certain restrictions on certain cross border trade.  The UK would not even be able to get this.

 

That's assuming there are no agreements at all.  The EU and UK are for instance trying to get a fall back (or 'backstop') in case of no deal on certain issues; such as the Irish border.

 

The short answer to your question is that there will likely be chaos at the border and many other places, but it remains to be seen how long it would take before something could be solved.  There are such a myriad of interconnections between the UK and the EU that is hard to foresee exactly what's going to happen.  But 'chaos' will be the hallmark.

 

Technically, a referendum under UK law is only a guideline, as it is not constitutionally recognised.  That is, Parliament and the government is not legally required to follow the result of a referendum.  Now, historically, all referendums in post-war UK have been followed[1] by Parliament, because -- well -- democracy and politics and all that.  It would simply be political suicide to ignore a referendum.

 

For the same reason, Parliament has the legal authority to call as many referendums as they like.  But again, the question is whether this is good politics.

 

I think someone else answered this better; but in terms of age demographics, younger voters tended to vote Remain, while older voters tended to vote Leave.

 

The polling data is imprecise on this matter.  There is some suggestion that it has moved towards Remain.  But the move in percentage points isn't conclusive, and remains within the margin of error (in the same way that the actual result was within the margin of error of the opinion polls just up to the referendum).

 

I would imagine, however, that people who want to remain would be more energised than those wanting to leave given the chaos of the last two years.  And maybe it is voter turnout that will tip the balance rather than what everyone thinks if voting was mandatory.

 

The United Kingdom is a strange beast, since it is not a federation, and it does not have devolution like Belgium.  (Indeed, I believe there was a report some months ago about civil servant letters to newly minted PM Tony Blair back in the 1990s about how he should avoid the same process as the Belgians had taken.)

 

So while Belgium and the United Kingdom are not true federations like say Germany or Switzerland, they do have some large local autonomy (which we also see in Spain).  What makes the UK stranger than its Belgian and Spanish counterparts is that England - the largest of the four kingdoms - does not have its own parliament and ministry, only Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales do.

 

Your question assumes a deal, but the question is the contents of that deal, because otherwise it is a difficult to answer what happens to the other countries of the UK.  Wales, for its part, will likely remain with England, regardless of where it goes.

 

Northern Ireland is a difficult one to deduce, but there is worry that The Troubles may boil up again, if the border between it and the Republic of Ireland closes down, and there is a renewed clamouring for unification with the rest of Ireland.  Whether such a possible revolt means unification with Ireland remains to be seen, but it could become dangerous times for the Irish again.

 

Scotland, on the other hand, does have a large portion of its electorate who wants to leave the United Kingdom.  With the UK leaving the EU, this may be the sticking point that finally tips over the balance.  The 2014 referendum was seen as uncomfortably close by those in London.  And the question in Scotland is whether staying within the EU is more important than staying in the UK.  Their First Minister has so far been dealing with this issue quite appropriately, but have been talking about a possible second referendum on Scottish independence following a 'bad' break from the EU, such as a 'no deal' scenario.

 

It's possible that these threats are used for political leverage rather than actual threats, but again it remains to be seen.  There are other parts of the UK that are also worth wondering about, such as Gibraltar, which is also part of the EU and enjoys free movement of goods, etc. into Spain.  What happens here?

 

To join the EU, they would have to leave the United Kingdom.  Sub-national administrative territories cannot join the EU as per its rules.  Scotland would have to be truly independent of the United Kingdom in order to join the EU.  And in such a case, Scotland would have to re-apply for membership as any other third country.

 

If Scotland remains part of the UK, their EU status will be the same as the rest of the UK, regardless of what happens with Brexit.

 

[1] I say post-war, i.e. since the Second World War, because I don't know whether it hasn't been the case before then.

Thank you, This is by far the best answer I have actually seen ANYWHERE that i've looked for them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crokey

 

On 9/22/2018 at 11:32 PM, AiraCobra said:

Was it wrong when I read that the majority of voters to leave the EU were older residents ages 50 and up while the younger voters voted to stay within the EU or was it the other way around? I know I read somewhere that one demographic voted to stay while the other voted to leave just can't remember which one.

 

You'd have to split it into different regions for a clear picture, but generally yes it was the older generation that voted to leave. 

 

To split it a little more, in Scotland it was a significant majority that voted to remain, and the demographic was fairly balanced with a slight leaning to older leaving and younger staying, but that wasn't in as stark a contrast as to England and Wales.  Overall, however in Scotland it was to remain with the ones voting more to leave were those affected more by EU rules and regulations predominantly in fishing, as fisheries and fishing rights have been a long standing issue throughout Europe.

 

England and Wales is where the biggest gulf in age demographics were as a lot of the older generation voted to leave and the younger generations voted to remain.  However, there is a caveat to this in that within major metropolitan areas such as London and Manchester the majority was to remain.  This is likely due to the vast diversity within the cities, and that this mix has largely been positive.  The vote was swung more by those in the provincial towns and cities, and mainly those in what are colloquially known as "The Shires", which are the counties mainly in the south and east of England. where a lot of the older generation who are in that retirement age who can afford to live in those areas, and fit into that demographic, reside. 

 

And excuse the bias here, but are mainly those who are that "they're taking our jobs" types, even though they're retired and those who aren't are in jobs that are not even remotely affected by migratory workers, because they're not in healthcare (which no-one should be concerned about foreign workers in that sectors as it's desperately needed), or doing agricultural work, which locals don't do.  Seriously, they don't do as employers in the sector have advertised constantly for local workforce and no-one applies, except migrant workers; and is the sector that's going to take the biggest hit if migratory workers from Eastern Europe can't come and work in that sector. 

 

Moving on to Northern Ireland, the demographic was more a sectarian split than age related, as those who consider themselves to be on the "Loyalist" side and are Unionists, voted to leave.  Those who consider themselves to be Nationalists and Republicans voted to remain, to in effect maintain the freer movement between Northern Ireland and the Republic, which currently exists.  How this is going to go as part of the negotiations is going to be the tricky bit, and could lead to a potential flare up in troubles again (perhaps Star Trek was correct in it's telling of history*), which generally speaking those who voted to remain elsewhere in the UK could see this would be sticking point a mile off, but those who wanted to leave didn't really think that bit through.

 

Overall I think the age demographic was more a reflection on human nature more than politics, because if it was politics then result would have been vastly different, but that's a fault in the education of citizens not knowing enough about politics and how national and European politics work.  As it is the result reflects more on people having rose tinted glasses on and not wanting to take them off.  For example there's a big 80's retro vibe thing that's been going on for the past couple of years, thinking that the 80s was the best thing ever... Trust me I was there in the 80s, it was sh*t, sure there was great telly, some decent tunes, couple of good movies here and there, but generally it was sh*t.  Job prospects were low, house prices started rise out of proportion (an issue still going on now and still hasn't been fixed and has infected the world), Trump was really making a name for himself, and look what the f*ck happened there.

 

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX8fRie2gvI

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Hey, @Crokey, maybe fix your quote so it doesn't look like I wrote it.  But regardless, you answered that question a lot better than I did.  Indeed, in a sense the real interesting aspect wasn't so much the age difference, but the geographical difference, in the vote.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crokey

*Fixed, damned fiddly reply boxes and their lack of options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AiraCobra

@Crokey @Svip

 

Thanks again guy, It cleared up a lot of questions I had and wasn't able to find in one place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric

If you want an idea of the current UK thinking, this is worth reading from end to end.  It describes the situation perfectly, in a few blog pages :

https://www.docdroid.net/m3YvOS5/brexit-truth-revised.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric

Strangely accurate for a front cover issued today....

46154433_1740421976069566_43964879877313

+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finite

So are we thinking some of the cabinet just lied to TM last night about supporting the deal so she'd let them go home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric

Nah, it was always going to be this way, think about it overnight, decide your stance tomorrow.  The only thing that was public was the fact 'several cabinet members,' were against the deal after the meeting.

Given Mogg has gone public with his letter to the 1922 Committee, the 48 letters, triggering a no-confidence vote, seems like a given, he's such an influential member among the Brexiter Loonies in the ERG.  But even they cannot flush Eeyore out without support from other wings of the party and those wings are terrified of the ERG seizing control.  It will not happen without a major shift in tactics.

 

However, no matter how much she tries to fluster about no second referendum, it looks like things are shifting behind her.  An unnamed Tory Minister tells the BBC’s Norman Smith that if the Brexiteers vote down Theresa May’s deal, him and other ministers will actively campaign for another vote - and to stay in the EU.  (A fiver says it's Gove, he'll do anything to seize the initiative in a run for power.  Maybe this is why he's really dithering about taking the, now vacant, Brexit Secretary post and using obvious delay tactics to not end up lumped with it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alvarez

Look what did Anonymous uncovered. Better hurry up and call them Russians.

 

https://www.cyberguerrilla.org/blog/operation-integrity-initiative-british-informational-war-against-all/

 

Maybe he should dig up deeper and tell us who really poisoned the Skripals. It becomes HIGHLY LIKELY that it wasn't of Slavic origin.

Edited by Alvarez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
41 minutes ago, Alvarez said:

Look what did Anonymous uncovered

Pretty unlikely to be Anonymous, given all the current reports of Russian groups targeting Western Think Tanks. Though "let's claim they're from Anonymous" is almost as sh*t a fake persona as Guccifer 2 was, given that Anonymous is a) basically defunct and b) wasn't ever really an organisation to begin with. And that's before we get onto the history of Russian threat groups intentionally tainting documents they leak in order to perpetuate Kremlin narratives.

 

41 minutes ago, Alvarez said:

Maybe he should dig up deeper and tell us who really poisoned the Skripals

You're like a dog with a bone on this, and just as clueless. I don't know why you think it's more likely that a British foreign intelligence agency with no remit to operate on UK soil poisoned a Russian dissident and incidentally killed one of their own citizens, than the only nation ever to weaponise the nerve agent that was used in the attack performing an assasination of a dissident like dozens of others they've performed all over the globe, but then again I'm not afflicted with the enormous cognitive dissonance you exhibit every time you seem to post on the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
Just now, Alvarez said:

Ah yes, the condescending attitude of a ideologist moderator

If your views weren't utterly incoherent bilge comprised solely of you trying desperately to fit scraps of evidence you don't understand to a set of preconceived cognitive biases, I'd probably talk to you like an adult rather than a child. That it took you exactly five minutes to apparently process my response, including citations, and pen your response, suggests you've got no interest in actual objective analysis of the documents, and their source, veracity and actual meaning, is totally superficial. As, for that matter, appears to be your understanding of the core concepts at play here- evidently clear from some of the utterly laughable nonsense you've posted- like asserting that MI6 run domestic operations when the UK has their own hugely well-resourced intelligence agency with the remit to do exactly that. But let's not like facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, shall we?

 

7 minutes ago, Alvarez said:

overtly sophisticated.ideologisms

Put the thesaurus down. It doesn't make you look clever; it makes you look foolish.

 

5 minutes ago, Alvarez said:

Have some more stuff to read.

I'm not sure what you think your point is here (other than you read Wired as an actual honest-to-God technically sound source of information) but if you think any of the content in this article strengthens, reinforces, or even really correlates with the first one you cited, you can add "evidently no basic understanding of the core concepts being discussed" to the growing list of things wrong with your contributions so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alvarez
27 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

If your views weren't utterly incoherent bilge comprised solely of you trying desperately to fit scraps of evidence you don't understand to a set of preconceived cognitive biases, I'd probably talk to you like an adult rather than a child. That it took you exactly five minutes to apparently process my response, including citations, and pen your response, suggests you've got no interest in actual objective analysis of the documents, and their source, veracity and actual meaning, is totally superficial. As, for that matter, appears to be your understanding of the core concepts at play here- evidently clear from some of the utterly laughable nonsense you've posted- like asserting that MI6 run domestic operations when the UK has their own hugely well-resourced intelligence agency with the remit to do exactly that. But let's not like facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, shall we?

 

Put the thesaurus down. It doesn't make you look clever; it makes you look foolish.

 

I'm not sure what you think your point is here (other than you read Wired as an actual honest-to-God technically sound source of information) but if you think any of the content in this article strengthens, reinforces, or even really correlates with the first one you cited, you can add "evidently no basic understanding of the core concepts being discussed" to the growing list of things wrong with your contributions so far.

Nice projecting. However, i'm done with you and your ignorance. I will post here more details about dismantling of the reign of UK lies later. Toodles.

 

Page 147 of http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/JW-v.-State-HRC-emails-00687-1.pdf?V=1

tPgVNND.png

 

Let's look at funding.

OgKXTty.png

Have you been received your portion of education?
ApSIPkb.png

How does it profit the UK propaganda machine? Find it out!
m9pxXZU.png

Edited by Alvarez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
41 minutes ago, Alvarez said:

However, i'm done with you and your ignorance

So you come into a bit of the forum entitled "Debates and Discussions" and entirely refuse to do either; won't respond to rebuttals or explain glaring holes in your statements; post a variety of out-of-context and frankly entirely banal documents from a couple of different sources, none of which you appear to understand, most of which appear to have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of your initial post and which might not even be released  in the first place; throw in a couple of pretty feeble hominems and then call it a night.

 

If, to you, that's a "victory" then Putin should probably look to hiring you as a propagandist.

 

 

 

I mean, what part of this has you shocked and surprised? That sovereign nation states use NGOs and foreign policy think tanks as a mechanism to promote domestic and international political ideals? That concern about Russian propaganda operations amongst many Western nations has become so significant that they're running active counter-operations? What next? You expressing your disgust that Radio Free Europe is run by the CIA?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alvarez

So you do allow the thought that Russia MAY be not involved in Skripal poisoning but the poisoning may be staged and used in a information campaign against it? If yes, i'd call it a night and let you do discuss whatever you want without comments from my side. There is no point of ruining nerves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
8 hours ago, Alvarez said:

So you do allow the thought that Russia MAY be not involved in Skripal poisoning but the poisoning may be staged

I'm happy to consider any theory backed up by empirical evidence. If this one were, then I'd certainly evaluate it (though it would have to be pretty compelling and revelatory for me to give it much in the way of consideration given the overwhelming weight of evidence from numerous sources supporting the official narrative), but as far as I can tell there's zero evidence supporting it and therefore it deserves no more consideration than the idea that a cabal of invisible pink unicorns poisoned the Skripals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric

These last few weeks have been a total shambles in Westminster and the mountain of Tory MP's lining up to vote against the deal is over 100 now.

But someone has taken the Leave campaign and done a mighty fine job of dissecting it.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

So after the BBC and ITV both failed to negotiate the terms of two remainers having a debate with each other, apparently Channel 4 have plans to host a debate. "'four high profile politicians' - one backing the PM's deal, one behind a softer Brexit, one for a harder Brexit and one supporting the People's Vote." So as per default with the MSM, it will be 3 v 1 in favour of remain (4 v 1 when you factor in a typical C4 "moderator").

 

Gotta love how the MSM represents a vote that goes against the establishment...

 

Btw, how's the globalist Macron's presidency fairing these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
17 minutes ago, John Smith said:

Gotta love how the MSM represents a vote that goes against the establishment...

It takes some serious mental gymnastics to turn the currently agreed Brexit deal- which is only one step away from a disorderly crashing out- into "remain". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

Well maybe that's because it IS a remain deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
8 hours ago, John Smith said:

Well maybe that's because it IS a remain deal.

How? The common market and customs arrangement is not the EU; even if we are stuck in a perpetual backdrop for the rest of eternity, we are a very long way from "remain". 

 

Can you explain precisely what part of the deal constitutes remaining in the EU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
4 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Can you explain precisely what part of the deal constitutes remaining in the EU?

There's 585 pages of the damn Deal and everyone hates them, the first time in 4 years the UK has managed to unite behind something political....

 

It's the ultimate expression of failure and it is neither Remain or Leave, it's truly among the worst examples of politics in history.

 

As for the backstop and the deals upto 20XX, well that just tells you we'll be trapped in perpetuality for what, 10 years as a minimum....

 

You can just tell she'll cancel the vote once she's back Monday, but time's almost up with March 2019 clearly in view and no chance of Leaving then.

 

We'll end up back at the polls with a 2nd Referendum (and I thought that for the first time on the 25th June, 2016).  But if Leavers are so sure they'll win again and with a larger majority, why do they fear that outcome? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I've seen all the furore from leavers about the notion of having "remain" still on the ballot for a second referendum. It's absolutely laughable.

 

The deal is f*cking awful, everyone can agree on that. It kicks the can down the road on pretty much every major issue and offers no certainty or vision of a future to speak of. It's better, albeit marginally, than most of the Leave alternative proposals in that it doesn't necessarily result in an immediate economic apocalypse.

 

Then again, I don't think there's consensus on any alternative. There's certainly not a majority for any kind of harder Brexit- that's got perhaps 50 or 60 MPs backing. You might, just, be able to squeeze a majority for a deal that included access to the customs area and possibly the common market, but obviously having to abide by the rules the EU lays out makes us a vassal state in the eyes of the Brexiteers.

 

Thing is, whatever outcome we end up with, it's always going to be tantamount to vassalage. Even an unceremonius crashing out still sees us having to conform to EU legislation and regulation, as it's the second largest economic bloc and single largest import and export market globally. The only way we retain any say in that is to remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
2 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Thing is, whatever outcome we end up with, it's always going to be tantamount to vassalage. Even an unceremonius crashing out still sees us having to conform to EU legislation and regulation, as it's the second largest economic bloc and single largest import and export market globally. The only way we retain any say in that is to remain.

On Tuesday, if she doesn't cancel the vote, they'll also vote on the Benn Amendment once her deal is given the boot.  If that passes then her deal is quoshed and MP's also have provided a mandate to ensure there is No-Deal or a crash out on the 29th March.  In effect they end the influence of the ERG and their ultra-Brexit wing of the Tories.

The only two options left after that are Remain or a Norway type deal.  The only way No-Deal would ever appear again is on a 2nd referendum voting slip, because the No-Confidence vote would not change the fact that they would get No-Deal if they got one of their cronies into Number 10.

I'm not sure if the Benn Amendment would pass, but it's possible given the Grieve Amendment passed with a decent majority.  If it does, the ERG will have to swallow the bitter pill of the Norway-Type deal, or go for broke and push for No-Deal through the 2nd referendum.  I'm not sure how they'll decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.