vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 27,892
Yes, good points, anyone with any sort of honour would have stepped down after reducing her majority and handing power to the DUP...…. sympathy now evaporated !
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
Yes, good points, anyone with any sort of honour would have stepped down after reducing her majority and handing power to the DUP...…. sympathy now evaporated !
Very interesting post. Your view is probably exactly the same as Corbyn's. I suppose a lot of this is about who we hang around with. I rarely discuss Brexit with people in my daily life, any more than (to pull up one of your analogies) the existence of god. I occasionally have a look at this thread. Regarding people talking bollocks on the thread and flouncing off and coming back days later with more of the same.....certainly there are several posters I have blocked who do this. All but one are Brexitters. So I am not sure that only Brexiters comprise of mild mannered reasonable non flouncing stout fellows, if that's what you were implying.
I am also a bit confused over whether you think Brexit is inevitable because it is the best thing, or that you can't see it going well because May and everyone else seem incapable of coming up with a deal acceptable to all. I somehow doubt that the majority of the population feel as you seem to, that it isn't worth worrying about, and we may as well have a no deal Brexit and move on. Maybe I'm wrong - the level of apathy and disengagement among the population is probably much higher than I care to imagine.
It strikes me that if, after 2 years, the leader (who is measured, lacking in a bit of political nous, but basically decent) cannot come up with a plan that can be supported by British Brexitters, as it seems, then how can she hope to secure a deal with the Europeans? It seems to me that a no deal Brexit, or some ghastly deal that Brexitters will call a sell-out, are inevitable. If that is the option it won't be just me calling for a second referendum (not that I am actually calling for one - I simply see it as inevitable). Her own MPs arelikely to do so. Plenty of them. Perhaps not enough without the support of labour (and that is probably the main area of uncertainty now - how will they jump?).
As for Brexitters winning hands down if here is an R2, well, you may be right, but I would actually be prepared to bet that Remain would win. Incidentally a few years ago I predicted on NSC that Brexit would win, and that Trump would be elected PM so this is not the beer talking (anyway, it is morningtime,
). I also predicted that Corbyn would become PM. None of these things I desired. So....I just can't see people like me, an unenthusiastic remainer, voting Brexit in R2 just because it would seem to be a betrayal of all those good people who previously voted leave to not do so. I'd like to say I have a huge amount of respect for leavers, especially the 'no deal' leavers like Mr one-sentence shouty on NSC, but.....I don't. I feel a bit sorry for Brexitters in that if they still can't see how mad it all is they must be mad themselves, but I don't feel enough loyalty to their sovereign referendum decision () to vote leave if given another chance.I would like to see if anyone reading this thread who voted remain would vote leave if there is another vote, out of respect for the 'will of the people' or however one might pharse it. Folks, step up and declare thyselves!
Last but not least, cheers for you polite and thoughtful reply
I know people have been hopping mad at Corbyn and his refusal to back a second referendum but I believe that his strategy is to leave with no deal. It would mean absolute economic disaster for the country and the worst effects would be felt autumn/winter 2021 - just before the next GE. The Tories would be wiped out (the economic fallout would be far,far worse than Black Wednesday and the 2008 crash) and Corbyn would have a completely free hand.
I'm convinced that's the Labour strategy but, of course, they can't say out loud that they're hoping for economic pain
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
Did we actually officially ask for it, though I recall outrage at the Belgian refusal to sell us ammunition, I think it was. That is not to say that NATO didn't back us. However, I think you will find that we received masses of intelligence help from the Americans. I hope that what you say will indeed be the case - but that depends on what is meant by the idea of a EU Army. If we have to "give" say 5000 troops to the EU Army, then we do of course keep the bulk of our Forces at our disposal. But I suspect that the arch-federalists would only want an institution whereby they have total control over all military units throughout the Block.
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
A referendum outcome cannot be gainsayed - if the outcome was what you wanted. Haven't you been keeping up with all the well-considered commentary on this thread from the 'yes I am still team Brexit; Brexit till I dye; come over here if you think you're hard enough' brigade?
You really are a waste of space.'come over here if you think you're hard enough'?From the thug who threatened to boot my arse into the sea?About time you got a ban.
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
I think you might find that the Falklands are in the South Atlantic,and the N in NATO means North,but nice try.
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
- Jul 10, 2003
- 25,809
[MENTION=27463]Tubby-McFat-Fuc[/MENTION]
Reading my post back, i'm sorry if it sounds patronising. It's just that I have been explaining the basics of 'no deal' to 'no deal' supporters constantly and it does get frustrating, even if I wasn't a grumpy old sod. Here's just a few examples
Here to Westdene Seagull
http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?343854-BrExit-the-countdown-to-11PM-GMT-on-Friday-29th-of-March-2019&p=8499772&viewfull=1#post8499772
Here to melias shoes
http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?343854-BrExit-the-countdown-to-11PM-GMT-on-Friday-29th-of-March-2019&p=8635277&highlight=#post8635277
Here to BigGully
http://www.northstandchat.com/showt...f-March-2019&p=8575131&viewfull=1#post8575131
Here to Two Profs
http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?343854-BrExit-the-countdown-to-11PM-GMT-on-Friday-29th-of-March-2019&p=8490467&viewfull=1#post8490467
I think the problem is that people are thinking that 'no deal' is a simple solution to the clusterf*** we now find ourselves in. If anything, it is far more complex, introducing more players to the negotiations (some more powerful than the EU) and requiring huge amounts of infrastructure. Even if we ignore all the WTO negotiations we still have
The NI/Ireland Border
The New customs posts
The new Lorry Parks at all ports
The design, building and testing of the new IT systems to run the WTO tariffs and rules (once agreed)
The recruitment and training of the new staff to run the new systems/rules etc
It certainly isn't going to happen in four and a half months and, from my experience of implementing projects with government departments I would guess in the region of 5-10 years (outside of the WTO negotiations).
Reading my post back, i'm sorry if it sounds patronising. It's just that I have been explaining the basics of 'no deal' to 'no deal' supporters constantly and it does get frustrating, even if I wasn't a grumpy old sod. Here's just a few examples
Here to Westdene Seagull
http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?343854-BrExit-the-countdown-to-11PM-GMT-on-Friday-29th-of-March-2019&p=8499772&viewfull=1#post8499772
Here to melias shoes
http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?343854-BrExit-the-countdown-to-11PM-GMT-on-Friday-29th-of-March-2019&p=8635277&highlight=#post8635277
Here to BigGully
http://www.northstandchat.com/showt...f-March-2019&p=8575131&viewfull=1#post8575131
Here to Two Profs
http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?343854-BrExit-the-countdown-to-11PM-GMT-on-Friday-29th-of-March-2019&p=8490467&viewfull=1#post8490467
I think the problem is that people are thinking that 'no deal' is a simple solution to the clusterf*** we now find ourselves in. If anything, it is far more complex, introducing more players to the negotiations (some more powerful than the EU) and requiring huge amounts of infrastructure. Even if we ignore all the WTO negotiations we still have
The NI/Ireland Border
The New customs posts
The new Lorry Parks at all ports
The design, building and testing of the new IT systems to run the WTO tariffs and rules (once agreed)
The recruitment and training of the new staff to run the new systems/rules etc
It certainly isn't going to happen in four and a half months and, from my experience of implementing projects with government departments I would guess in the region of 5-10 years (outside of the WTO negotiations).
Last edited:
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Economic disaster gives him a free hand - great plan. I think you are drifting into fantasy. Corbyn and Labour want a General Election as soon as possible. It is as simple as that. It would actually suit Corbyn to back a customs union deal that TM puts forward knowing it would split the Tories in 2. A scenario where Labour votes out weigh the government's own to get TM's motion through would see them in a positive political light as well as sitting back watching the implosion opposite. Corbyn might be a lot of things, but I don't think he is someone that would knowingly create economic hardship for political gain.
Maybe. But a country on its knees would suit him a lot more. He can't say this - which is why he talks about the Brexit vote being respected - but economic disaster would suit him.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 25,809
Normally I'm in broad agreement with a lot of the things you say on here, but I think you may be straying towards
and one or two posters on here already have that particular avenue sewn up
Normally I'm in broad agreement with a lot of the things you say on here, but I think you may be straying towards
View attachment 102068
and one or two posters on here already have that particular avenue sewn up
I think you're being a bit naive if you don't think opposition politicians don't relish governments cocking up. I was at uni during the winter of discontent and I knew some of the FCS guys. They were positively cheering every news story of rubbish piling up and the dead not being buried - they reckoned that every time such images were shown on the news, that was another couple of hundred votes for the Tories.
But, of course, Thatcher didn't go on TV and say that. She said what a terrible thing it was ... but I bet the strategists were cheering
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
...to which can be added that she pretended to be a Remain supporter when people thought Remain would win. Principle-free.
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
I tend not to bother with your repeat issues of toxic garbage,but this is so spectacularly stupid,and illustrative of your lack of any real knowledge,could not go unchallenged.Why would the ports shown on the map need any further lorry parks,customs posts,or indeed IT systems.They already deal with the rest of the World.It does exist outside the EU-perhaps you need to visit Specsavers.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,303
Labour's strategy isnt as looking as far ahead as that, they believe they can force an election in the next few months and will vote against the government regardless.
And the A means Atlantic - a majority of NATO members have no borders with the Atlantic. Regardless, the NATO pledge is to assist any member who is attacked - the Falklands were British ( and sill are ) and therefore, in theory, NATO should have assisted.
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Sorry,but I will have to disagree with you there.The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed basically to provide defence against the USSR blocking reinforcements crossing the North Atlantic from the USA/Canada in the event of a European conflict breaking out.Much the same scenario as when the Germans tried to block the North Atlantic with U-boats and commerce raiders.
Oh dear 2P. Did you really just suggest that NATO would not (or could not) respond to the Falkands invasion, simply because it is not IN the North Atlantic?
Do you have a special map that shows Korea, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Somalia in the North Atlantic?
You are absolutely my favourite poster on this thread. Truly a gift.
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Oh dear 2P. Did you really just suggest that NATO would not (or could not) respond to the Falkands invasion, simply because it is not IN the North Atlantic?
Do you have a special map that shows Korea, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Somalia in the North Atlantic?
You are absolutely my favourite poster on this thread. Truly a gift.
Perhaps you should try reading the treaty before spouting your usual inane guff,and then learn the difference between NATO and the United Nations.