There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
The UK will be literally extinct if Northern Ireland goes.
You have zero credibility.
Your strategy is simply to say the EU is the only answer to whatever one posts about.
Loon.
Try to engage with the substance. I asked a question yesterday which I think bears some examination: Why are people whose primary identity British more likely to be Remainers than people whose primary identity is English? I think the answer might not please you.
-erode public trust -harden social divides -pour gasoline on populism
Matthew Goodwin added, Edward Luce Verified account @EdwardGLuce Increasingly clear that if U.K. can somehow reverse Brexit, it would be hammer blow to western populist-nationalism in general. Not just Britain’s future at stake. 12:24 AM - 31 Jul 2018 "
Really? You don't think it would be the biggest spur to "fuck all the current politicians" that the Establishment could ever deliver?
What better way for the electorate to fuck with the politicians than vote for Brexit, spend two years watching them run around like headless chickens and then tell them to forget it?
I’d have criticised the somewhat misleading use of a second order differential: most people can’t really cope with the idea of rates of change as it is.
It's the '-0' that offends me.
Why ? It literally takes away nothing from the tweet.
-erode public trust -harden social divides -pour gasoline on populism
Matthew Goodwin added, Edward Luce Verified account @EdwardGLuce Increasingly clear that if U.K. can somehow reverse Brexit, it would be hammer blow to western populist-nationalism in general. Not just Britain’s future at stake. 12:24 AM - 31 Jul 2018 "
Really? You don't think it would be the biggest spur to "fuck all the current politicians" that the Establishment could ever deliver?
What better way for the electorate to fuck with the politicians than vote for Brexit, spend two years watching them run around like headless chickens and then tell them to forget it?
It isn't your age Mike, as a child of the 80s*, I remember the IRA terror campaign of the 80s and 90s.
From this part of the UK it seems what might push the Northern Ireland into the arms of the Republic is a very disorderly Brexit.
The DUP then can't blame anyone else for the mess, they were actively supporting and encouraging a no deal Brexit, they can't credibly blame Westminster.
Will it be enough for the DUP to be replaced by some other party?
*Well late 1978 which means I turn 40 in a few weeks time, which really terrifies me.
It's a tough one. Of all my birthdays 40 was the one that hit me the hardest, even although it was quite a lot of years ago now.
In the 1970s my father did 2 tours of NI with the British army, one in Belfast and one in Derry. In Derry some of the men did not come home and one of them was the father of a school friend of mine. I have in all honesty been pretty ambivalent about NI ever since, not least because my dad assured me that if anything the "unionists" were worse than the IRA to deal with.
They are both bad enough.
The mistake people who say we shouldn't be dictated to by terrorists are making is not understanding the unique situation and history of the Province.
Society was riven and the peace wall not a figment of someone's dystopian imagination. The vast majority of people there do not want a return to those days. But a significant enough minority are still fighting the war. They want a united Ireland on the one side and those on the other side will fight as vigorously to remain under the Crown.
The Belfast agreement manages to balance all sides' desires and it works. Or has worked.
Saying it is a bunch of terrorists who we should not be giving in to is not seeing the wood for the trees.
Even in the 1970s the priority on both sides was making money out of drugs, smuggling and keeping power over their own communities for extortion and protection. Like the mafia on a really bad day. I don't think much has changed other than the power is diminished somewhat, which is a good thing obviously.
It is a convenient distraction to say it was all about money. It wasn't. Plenty of people making money, hoondootedly. Plenty of people who were in your father's day, and still are working towards a united Ireland by any means.
-erode public trust -harden social divides -pour gasoline on populism
Matthew Goodwin added, Edward Luce Verified account @EdwardGLuce Increasingly clear that if U.K. can somehow reverse Brexit, it would be hammer blow to western populist-nationalism in general. Not just Britain’s future at stake. 12:24 AM - 31 Jul 2018 "
Really? You don't think it would be the biggest spur to "fuck all the current politicians" that the Establishment could ever deliver?
What better way for the electorate to fuck with the politicians than vote for Brexit, spend two years watching them run around like headless chickens and then tell them to forget it?
There's a case for saying that the real terrorists Ulster were those protestants who refused to accept the 1912 Act on the whole of Ireland being separated from the UK. What sparked off decades of troubles was the British government going back on that.
It's a shame that so few people understand that in the summer of 1914 the UK was on the verge of civil war.
For the purposes of impeachment, the US constitution helpfully fails to define "high crimes and misdemeanors" which means, practically, it's whatever the US Senate decides they are.
It's whatever both the House *and* the Senate think they are. The House would need to agree that there's a case worth sending for trial before the Senate gets to hear it.
It isn't your age Mike, as a child of the 80s*, I remember the IRA terror campaign of the 80s and 90s.
From this part of the UK it seems what might push the Northern Ireland into the arms of the Republic is a very disorderly Brexit.
The DUP then can't blame anyone else for the mess, they were actively supporting and encouraging a no deal Brexit, they can't credibly blame Westminster.
Will it be enough for the DUP to be replaced by some other party?
*Well late 1978 which means I turn 40 in a few weeks time, which really terrifies me.
It's a tough one. Of all my birthdays 40 was the one that hit me the hardest, even although it was quite a lot of years ago now.
In the 1970s my father did 2 tours of NI with the British army, one in Belfast and one in Derry. In Derry some of the men did not come home and one of them was the father of a school friend of mine. I have in all honesty been pretty ambivalent about NI ever since, not least because my dad assured me that if anything the "unionists" were worse than the IRA to deal with.
They are both bad enough.
The mistake people who say we shouldn't be dictated to by terrorists are making is not understanding the unique situation and history of the Province.
Society was riven and the peace wall not a figment of someone's dystopian imagination. The vast majority of people there do not want a return to those days. But a significant enough minority are still fighting the war. They want a united Ireland on the one side and those on the other side will fight as vigorously to remain under the Crown.
The Belfast agreement manages to balance all sides' desires and it works. Or has worked.
Saying it is a bunch of terrorists who we should not be giving in to is not seeing the wood for the trees.
Agreed. No-one who remembers the Troubles should be sanguine about a possible return to those times.
Regardless of whether the question is badly phrased, there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
1. It is far easier to stop something happening in the EU than to make anything happen. Changing the wrong course the EU oil tanker is set upon is very difficult because it has grown so large, which is why it is a failing institution whose national economies are falling further and further behind the rest of the world.
Look instead at figures that take account of growth relative to an economy's relative size, put them in terms of PPP (which alone tells a very different story), take out of the equation the post Soviet recovery in E Europe, and most importantly come up with up to date figures based on the last 10 years post the 2008 crash.
Or do you think that the only answer is world governance because the world clearly contributed 100% of economic growth which clearly dwarfs that of any individual country by miles?
What any meaningful comparison of recent times reveals is just how appalling was the EU's recovery from the post 2008 crash that reflects by and large the baleful influence of the Euro and a model wedded to austerity that prolonged the influence of the crash far longer than in other comparable economies.
I think that you are rather over egging the refusal to talk to terrorists angle. We have done so innumerable times in our history, including in Ireland, Africa, Middle East and Asia. Indeed at risk of re-awakening the interminable Palestine discussion over the last week, that is precisely how we got out of the place in 1948.
"Jaw, Jaw is better than war, war" - W.S. Churchill
We get more solutions by talking than by trying to wipe the opposition from the face of the planet.
My father-in-law was living in Dublin in 1916 and used to claim that the rebels had little sympathy from the Dubliners until the British army began executing the ringleaders. That brought out the patriotic verses with a vengeance.
Funny how what seemed a minor issue when the British army was embroiled in the trenches reverberated almost forever in Ireland.
Some of us did warn that Vote Leave's plans would lead to all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland.
As Emperor Kahless the Unforgetable said
'Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a war to save an empire is no defeat'
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
For the purposes of impeachment, the US constitution helpfully fails to define "high crimes and misdemeanors" which means, practically, it's whatever the US Senate decides they are.
It's whatever both the House *and* the Senate think they are. The House would need to agree that there's a case worth sending for trial before the Senate gets to hear it.
Yes, if the House passes articles of impeachment, the trial goes ahead under the purview of the Chief Justice. Certainly the Senate can't refuse to try even if it feels there's no case to answer. It could refuse to convict, of course, but then the whole process would look ridiculous, as it did with Bill Clinton's acquittal.
One hopes(!) the business managers of both houses have learned from history, are in frequent contact and would likely discuss the process before deciding to embark on it.
Mrs May will be expected to commit to the "divorce bill" payment and a "backstop" for Northern Ireland, in return for only a few vague statements about the future EU-UK relationship.
Mrs May will be expected to commit to the "divorce bill" payment and a "backstop" for Northern Ireland, in return for only a few vague statements about the future EU-UK relationship.
Actually that might not be a bad thing. More room for fudge.
Some of us did warn that Vote Leave's plans would lead to all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland.
As Emperor Kahless the Unforgetable said
'Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a war to save an empire is no defeat'
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
World War II didn't kill the Empire our own contradictions did that.
We were fighting to liberate Europe and Asia from evil empire builders yet had our own empire.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
The UK will be literally extinct if Northern Ireland goes.
You have zero credibility.
Your strategy is simply to say the EU is the only answer to whatever one posts about.
Loon.
Try to engage with the substance. I asked a question yesterday which I think bears some examination: Why are people whose primary identity British more likely to be Remainers than people whose primary identity is English? I think the answer might not please you.
Since your answers are ones that please you, and are not evidence based, i’m remarkably sanguine about it actually.
Mrs May will be expected to commit to the "divorce bill" payment and a "backstop" for Northern Ireland, in return for only a few vague statements about the future EU-UK relationship.
Actually that might not be a bad thing. More room for fudge.
For the record, these three issues:
The divorce bill Northern Ireland Status of EU nationals
Were, according to the UK Government's timetable agreed in March 2017, due to have been finalised in June 2017, as part an agreement to start trade negotiations.
As the UK has, 14 months after its own deadline, only agreed 1 out of the 3 things, it should be no surprise the EU is unwilling to start trade talks.
1. It is far easier to stop something happening in the EU than to make anything happen. Changing the wrong course the EU oil tanker is set upon is very difficult because it has grown so large, which is why it is a failing institution whose national economies are falling further and further behind the rest of the world.
Look instead at figures that take account of growth relative to an economy's relative size, put them in terms of PPP (which alone tells a very different story), take out of the equation the post Soviet recovery in E Europe, and most importantly come up with up to date figures based on the last 10 years post the 2008 crash.
Or do you think that the only answer is world governance because the world clearly contributed 100% of economic growth which clearly dwarfs that of any individual country by miles?
What any meaningful comparison of recent times reveals is just how appalling was the EU's recovery from the post 2008 crash that reflects by and large the baleful influence of the Euro and a model wedded to austerity that prolonged the influence of the crash far longer than in other comparable economies.
I think it perfectly valid to point out that 1% growth in a mature economy of $40 000 per capita is worth the same as 10% growth in an economy of $4 000 per capita GDP, though one does need to allow a little for compounding. It is also likely that our higher end products and services are more in demand in the former too.
Talking of borders, can I admit my ignorance of the eighteen foot high wall separating Mexico from Arizona until Reginald D Hunter's documentary recently. Even more surprising, it was built by Bill Clinton. That Trump, he knows nothing.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
One response to that is to argue the Leavers are mad (as the EU and many Remainers often do) another is to ask why 52% of the electorate, or 41% on no-deal, if you prefer, feel that strongly about it and what the EU might have done to drive those feelings.
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
I disagree with your assumption. It's pretty clear that 30% are indeed unhinged nutters who would rather trash the country than see it associated with something that they regard as akin to the whore of Babylon. The appropriate response is more psychiatric than political.
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
Some of us did warn that Vote Leave's plans would lead to all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland.
As Emperor Kahless the Unforgetable said
'Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a war to save an empire is no defeat'
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
Britain had no choice but to fight WW2. Brexit is entirely self-inflicted.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
One response to that is to argue the Leavers are mad (as the EU and many Remainers often do) another is to ask why 52% of the electorate, or 41% on no-deal, if you prefer, feel that strongly about it and what the EU might have done to drive those feelings.
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
The EU itself has done very little - most of the enmity has been whipped up by the right wing tabloid press, whose owners’ financial interests are aligned with leaving. Plus the influence of Putin and other bad actors.
Despite admitting my ignorance, no one seems to want to answer my question. I understand that leaving the EU will cause all sorts of horrific consequences and we'll all die in a cataclysm, but how does the process of leaving cause Northern Ireland to dissolve into factional infighting?
I can understand the attraction of the phlogiston theory and why it took so long to disprove, but this one seems stickier.
The border.
Previously, at no stage has the UK and Ireland not been in the EC/EU at the same time, so what happened prior to 1973 doesn't apply.
Now if we want to leave the customs union and single market there's going to have be checks at the border in most circumstances that honour the referendum.
Now some of your fellow Leavers say there won't be any checks at the border, nor will we put a customs check between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Now if you're a savvy EU immigrant wanting to get into Britain you know what the obvious solution is. Head to the Republic, cross the border into the Northern Ireland, then catch the ferry to Britain.
A lot of Leavers campaigned about reducing EU immigration, so it is going to be hard to reconcile all of that.
So as this poll shows, Leavers are prepared to say goodbye to Northern Ireland to ensure an orderly Brexit.
Now the Unionists will not go quietly into the night, heck read Sammy Wilson's views from the 1990s to get an idea.
Joining the EU by uniting Ireland will seem like a good idea if FUK* is struggling post Brexit.
But your hardcore Unionist/OO would sooner trap their penises in a door than do that, and well the loyalists might come back.
According to the rozzers the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland is severe, which is the same for GB with relation to far right/Islamist terrorism.
The terrorists haven't gone away you know.
*The Former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
One response to that is to argue the Leavers are mad (as the EU and many Remainers often do) another is to ask why 52% of the electorate, or 41% on no-deal, if you prefer, feel that strongly about it and what the EU might have done to drive those feelings.
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
I disagree with your assumption. It's pretty clear that 30% are indeed unhinged nutters who would rather trash the country than see it associated with something that they regard as akin to the whore of Babylon. The appropriate response is more psychiatric than political.
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
It is lunacy to risk the outbreak of violence, still less to regard it as an acceptable trade-off, for what is essentially a second order matter. Rather than waste time trying to peer deep into their foetid brains, just call it what it is: lunacy.
No mention of Kent being turned into a lorry park indefinitely post-Brexit?
That wouldn’t happen either.
It might for the first 6 months, but the invisible hand of the market would soon ensure alternative suppliers trade routes, ports and airports would be sought out and developed where delays were far less. Changed consumer behaviour and pricing would also have an effect.
It might take a few years for the infrastructure and customs systems to get up to scratch, but it certainly wouldn’t be indefinite.
... there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
That is a reasonable question. Sadly, the zealots of Brexit are not really listening to reason. Their own insecurities trump everything else... and besides, we cannot have Johnny Foreigner in charge - not the done thing you know!
Now if you're a savvy EU immigrant wanting to get into Britain you know what the obvious solution is. Head to the Republic, cross the border into the Northern Ireland, then catch the ferry to Britain.
A lot of Leavers campaigned about reducing EU immigration, so it is going to be hard to reconcile all of that.
Any such immigrant wouldn't be able to work (legally). I don't think many Leavers were expecting inbound tourism to cease.
Mrs May will be expected to commit to the "divorce bill" payment and a "backstop" for Northern Ireland, in return for only a few vague statements about the future EU-UK relationship.
Actually that might not be a bad thing. More room for fudge.
For the record, these three issues:
The divorce bill Northern Ireland Status of EU nationals
Were, according to the UK Government's timetable agreed in March 2017, due to have been finalised in June 2017, as part an agreement to start trade negotiations.
As the UK has, 14 months after its own deadline, only agreed 1 out of the 3 things, it should be no surprise the EU is unwilling to start trade talks.
No surprise? Maybe not, given the EU's position. However, as any fule 'no, it would have made far more sense to have agreed the outline trade deal first, since all three of the issues you mention can't be sensibly discussed without knowing what the final relationship is going to be.
Some of us did warn that Vote Leave's plans would lead to all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland.
As Emperor Kahless the Unforgetable said
'Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a war to save an empire is no defeat'
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
Thing is, Remainers want to prove to Leavers that they won a Pyrrhic victory.
But for Leavers the war was to be won any any cost and their aim was to fight and not to heed the wounds.
In the war of words now they just talk past each other.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
The UK will be literally extinct if Northern Ireland goes.
You have zero credibility.
Your strategy is simply to say the EU is the only answer to whatever one posts about.
Loon.
Try to engage with the substance. I asked a question yesterday which I think bears some examination: Why are people whose primary identity British more likely to be Remainers than people whose primary identity is English? I think the answer might not please you.
Since your answers are ones that please you, and are not evidence based, i’m remarkably sanguine about it actually.
It’s just a waste of my time.
You started arguing that the EU inspired enmity because it is making the UK meaningfully extinct, but the voters who support it see Britishness as secondary to Englishness. Arguably it's actually a collapse in British identity that has led to Brexit rather than a reassertion of it.
It's certainly not a waste of your time to consider why Brexit is going so badly wrong.
No mention of Kent being turned into a lorry park indefinitely post-Brexit?
That wouldn’t happen either.
It might for the first 6 months, but the invisible hand of the market would soon ensure alternative suppliers trade routes, ports and airports would be sought out and developed where delays were far less. Changed consumer behaviour and pricing would also have an effect.
It might take a few years for the infrastructure and customs systems to get up to scratch, but it certainly wouldn’t be indefinite.
Temporary measures have a habit of becoming permanent.
Mrs May will be expected to commit to the "divorce bill" payment and a "backstop" for Northern Ireland, in return for only a few vague statements about the future EU-UK relationship.
Actually that might not be a bad thing. More room for fudge.
For the record, these three issues:
The divorce bill Northern Ireland Status of EU nationals
Were, according to the UK Government's timetable agreed in March 2017, due to have been finalised in June 2017, as part an agreement to start trade negotiations.
As the UK has, 14 months after its own deadline, only agreed 1 out of the 3 things, it should be no surprise the EU is unwilling to start trade talks.
No surprise? Maybe not, given the EU's position. However, as any fule 'no, it would have made far more sense to have agreed the outline trade deal first, since all three of the issues you mention can't be sensibly discussed without knowing what the final relationship is going to be.
A frictionless border cannot be delivered within the framework of a trade agreement. It's nothing but gaslighting to pretend otherwise.
Mr. Eagles, I also approve of Martok but you'll recall he was very much an outsider and someone like him becoming emperor was a huge break with tradition.
Mrs May will be expected to commit to the "divorce bill" payment and a "backstop" for Northern Ireland, in return for only a few vague statements about the future EU-UK relationship.
Actually that might not be a bad thing. More room for fudge.
For the record, these three issues:
The divorce bill Northern Ireland Status of EU nationals
Were, according to the UK Government's timetable agreed in March 2017, due to have been finalised in June 2017, as part an agreement to start trade negotiations.
As the UK has, 14 months after its own deadline, only agreed 1 out of the 3 things, it should be no surprise the EU is unwilling to start trade talks.
No surprise? Maybe not, given the EU's position. However, as any fule 'no, it would have made far more sense to have agreed the outline trade deal first, since all three of the issues you mention can't be sensibly discussed without knowing what the final relationship is going to be.
A frictionless border cannot be delivered within the framework of a trade agreement. It's nothing but gaslighting to pretend otherwise.
I don't think you're right (although that might be because I've no idea what 'gaslighting' means), but, if you are, there's nothing to discuss on the Irish border, so we shouldn't waste time on it or let it hold up other matters.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
s.
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
I disagree with your assumption. It's pretty clear that 30% are indeed unhinged nutters who would rather trash the country than see it associated with something that they regard as akin to the whore of Babylon. The appropriate response is more psychiatric than political.
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
It is lunacy to risk the outbreak of violence, still less to regard it as an acceptable trade-off, for what is essentially a second order matter. Rather than waste time trying to peer deep into their foetid brains, just call it what it is: lunacy.
Most Leavers will have rightly sniffed out that this question was intended to be used against them as a weapon by the ultra-Remainers. They will have noticed that it’s a ridiculous forced choice (they are far more intelligent than you give them credit for) to suggest that the threats of violent terrorists should have a veto on democracy expressed through the UK ballot box. You are wrong on this, and a number of moderate and respected posters disagreeing with you down thread should make you pause for thought.
For what it’s worth, I might well have replied the same to this question to an opinion pollster, even though I care passionately about peace and absolutely want both.
To do otherwise would have resulted in polling numbers on a macro level would have been to play their game and give HMG extra evidence to pursue the softest of Brexits.
"Previously, at no stage has the UK and Ireland not been in the EC/EU at the same time, so what happened prior to 1973 doesn't apply."
Correct.
"Now if you're a savvy EU immigrant wanting to get into Britain you know what the obvious solution is. Head to the Republic, cross the border into the Northern Ireland, then catch the ferry to Britain."
As always. I'm not sure why that doesn't apply now. You can even cross from Rosslare on that pleasant ferry.
You then jump to a poll which will make the UDA re-merge. One of my nephews married an Ulster Proddy and they bussed us into Ulster from across the border. They even opened the bar early as they assumed we like a drink. In their own way, they were very welcoming, and that's where my little brain falters.
No mention of Kent being turned into a lorry park indefinitely post-Brexit?
That wouldn’t happen either.
It might for the first 6 months, but the invisible hand of the market would soon ensure alternative suppliers trade routes, ports and airports would be sought out and developed where delays were far less. Changed consumer behaviour and pricing would also have an effect.
It might take a few years for the infrastructure and customs systems to get up to scratch, but it certainly wouldn’t be indefinite.
Temporary measures have a habit of becoming permanent.
Kent: the carpark of England.
It has a ring to it.
Convenient, without pickers and CAP subsidies, Garden of England may become somewhat redundant.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
The UK will be literally extinct if Northern Ireland goes.
You have zero credibility.
Your strategy is simply to say the EU is the only answer to whatever one posts about.
Loon.
Try to engage with the substance. I asked a question yesterday which I think bears some examination: Why are people whose primary identity British more likely to be Remainers than people whose primary identity is English? I think the answer might not please you.
Since your answers are ones that please you, and are not evidence based, i’m remarkably sanguine about it actually.
It’s just a waste of my time.
You started arguing that the EU inspired enmity because it is making the UK meaningfully extinct, but the voters who support it see Britishness as secondary to Englishness. Arguably it's actually a collapse in British identity that has led to Brexit rather than a reassertion of it.
It's certainly not a waste of your time to consider why Brexit is going so badly wrong.
That doesn’t follow. If British identity was even stronger it wouldn't imply we would be more in favour of the EU, or more European integration.
Mrs May will be expected to commit to the "divorce bill" payment and a "backstop" for Northern Ireland, in return for only a few vague statements about the future EU-UK relationship.
Actually that might not be a bad thing. More room for fudge.
For the record, these three issues:
The divorce bill Northern Ireland Status of EU nationals
Were, according to the UK Government's timetable agreed in March 2017, due to have been finalised in June 2017, as part an agreement to start trade negotiations.
As the UK has, 14 months after its own deadline, only agreed 1 out of the 3 things, it should be no surprise the EU is unwilling to start trade talks.
No surprise? Maybe not, given the EU's position. However, as any fule 'no, it would have made far more sense to have agreed the outline trade deal first, since all three of the issues you mention can't be sensibly discussed without knowing what the final relationship is going to be.
A frictionless border cannot be delivered within the framework of a trade agreement. It's nothing but gaslighting to pretend otherwise.
I don't think you're right (although that might be because I've no idea what 'gaslighting' means), but, if you are, there's nothing to discuss on the Irish border, so we shouldn't waste time on it or let it hold up other matters.
gaslight ˈɡaslʌɪt/ verb gerund or present participle: gaslighting
manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity.
I disagree with your assumption. It's pretty clear that 30% are indeed unhinged nutters who would rather trash the country than see it associated with something that they regard as akin to the whore of Babylon. The appropriate response is more psychiatric than political.
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
It is lunacy to risk the outbreak of violence, still less to regard it as an acceptable trade-off, for what is essentially a second order matter. Rather than waste time trying to peer deep into their foetid brains, just call it what it is: lunacy.
Most Leavers will have rightly sniffed out that this question was intended to be used against them as a weapon by the ultra-Remainers. They will have noticed that it’s a ridiculous forced choice (they are far more intelligent than you give them credit for) to suggest that the threats of violent terrorists should have a veto on democracy expressed through the UK ballot box. You are wrong on this, and a number of moderate and respected posters disagreeing with you down thread should make you pause for thought.
For what it’s worth, I might well have replied the same to this question to an opinion pollster, even though I care passionately about peace and absolutely want both.
To do otherwise would have resulted in polling numbers on a macro level would have been to play their game and give HMG extra evidence to pursue the softest of Brexits.
If your line is that Leavers don't REALLY prefer violence in Northern Ireland to abandoning Brexit, I'm afraid there isn't the slightest scintilla of evidence for that. Leavers have to be assumed to be batshit mental.
It's a shame that it's as high as 30%, but there you go. These are the crazed times we live in.
Some of us did warn that Vote Leave's plans would lead to all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland.
As Emperor Kahless the Unforgetable said
'Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a war to save an empire is no defeat'
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
Thing is, Remainers want to prove to Leavers that they won a Pyrrhic victory.
But for Leavers the war was to be won any any cost and their aim was to fight and not to heed the wounds.
In the war of words now they just talk past each other.
Leavers felt it had to be won at any cost because they might never be given the chance again, and the EU had a history of ignoring votes and mandates anyway.
Leave behaviour was entirely rational given past evidence and the array of forces against it.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
One response to that is to argue the Leavers are mad (as the EU and many Remainers often do) another is to ask why 52% of the electorate, or 41% on no-deal, if you prefer, feel that strongly about it and what the EU might have done to drive those feelings.
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
I disagree with your assumption. It's pretty clear that 30% are indeed unhinged nutters who would rather trash the country than see it associated with something that they regard as akin to the whore of Babylon. The appropriate response is more psychiatric than political.
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
It is lunacy to risk the outbreak of violence, still less to regard it as an acceptable trade-off, for what is essentially a second order matter. Rather than waste time trying to peer deep into their foetid brains, just call it what it is: lunacy.
So twenty unreconstructed terrorists with some buried weapons (weapons they should have handed over under the sacred Good Friday Agreement) who we think might be threatening to dig them up and use them, they can top trump the UK's democratically expressed will?
Some of us did warn that Vote Leave's plans would lead to all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland.
As Emperor Kahless the Unforgetable said
'Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a war to save an empire is no defeat'
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
Britain had no choice but to fight WW2. Brexit is entirely self-inflicted.
Of course it had a choice. Lots of countries chose to enter WWII; lots chose to stay out, from Ireland to Spain to Sweden to Switzerland to the USA (to a greater or lesser extent, pre-Dec 1941).
Britain could, had it so wanted, opted to abandon the continent, either in 1939 or 1940. Whether that would have been a wise decision isn't the question here. The question is whether it would have been a viable decision.
Now, it may be true that Britain couldn't have avoided war with Japan, which was prompted largely by the US-Japan-China relationships, so perhaps, in that sense, Britain might not have avoided the war in general and - given Hitler's insane decision to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour - might not have avoided the European war either. That said, Hitler's decision was made in no small part because of the scale of assistance the US was giving Britain. Were Britain not in the war, would the US have been involved in the Atlantic at all? And if not, would Hitler have prompted war with the two neutral superpower democracies?
To have sat out WW2 in Europe would have been disreputable but it was certainly possible.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
The UK will be literally extinct if Northern Ireland goes.
You have zero credibility.
Your strategy is simply to say the EU is the only answer to whatever one posts about.
Loon.
Try to engage with the substance. I asked a question yesterday which I think bears some examination: Why are people whose primary identity British more likely to be Remainers than people whose primary identity is English? I think the answer might not please you.
Since your answers are ones that please you, and are not evidence based, i’m remarkably sanguine about it actually.
It’s just a waste of my time.
You started arguing that the EU inspired enmity because it is making the UK meaningfully extinct, but the voters who support it see Britishness as secondary to Englishness. Arguably it's actually a collapse in British identity that has led to Brexit rather than a reassertion of it.
It's certainly not a waste of your time to consider why Brexit is going so badly wrong.
That doesn’t follow. If British identity was even stronger it wouldn't imply we would be more in favour of the EU, or more European integration.
Far from it.
If only people who identified as British had voted in the referendum, Remain would have won.
No mention of Kent being turned into a lorry park indefinitely post-Brexit?
That wouldn’t happen either.
It might for the first 6 months, but the invisible hand of the market would soon ensure alternative suppliers trade routes, ports and airports would be sought out and developed where delays were far less. Changed consumer behaviour and pricing would also have an effect.
It might take a few years for the infrastructure and customs systems to get up to scratch, but it certainly wouldn’t be indefinite.
I don’t remember exactly how long the fuel crisis in Blair’s first term took to reduce the country to panic and destroy Labour’s position in the polls, but it was rather less than 6 months and definitely not a few years. Rather faster than the invisible hand was able to sort it out. Would it be any different in this case?
... there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
That is a reasonable question. Sadly, the zealots of Brexit are not really listening to reason. Their own insecurities trump everything else... and besides, we cannot have Johnny Foreigner in charge - not the done thing you know!
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
No surprise? Maybe not, given the EU's position. However, as any fule 'no, it would have made far more sense to have agreed the outline trade deal first, since all three of the issues you mention can't be sensibly discussed without knowing what the final relationship is going to be.
An interesting counterfactual doesn't seem to be borne out by what's happened though. The government's failure to agree has *nothing* to do with not knowing what the final relationship will be and everything to do with May's idiot red lines painting herself into a corner with landmines.
This entire question is deeply offensive and was posed so smug Remain ultras who have absolutely no interest in NI other than as a weapon against Brexit can laugh at Leave voters. Tactics like this genuinely push me towards sympathy for Brexit.
They are overplaying their hand and would lose again for the same reasons as last time.
They have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.
The whole concept is offensive. We mustn't upset the IRA or their off shoots in case they decide to blow us up? The argument that any sort of border between two Democratic nations - which existed in customs terms anyway from 1922 to 1992 - is an excuse to commit acts of terrorism so we can't deliver the Brexit we wish isn't really cricket or indeed hurling!
... there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
That is a reasonable question. Sadly, the zealots of Brexit are not really listening to reason. Their own insecurities trump everything else... and besides, we cannot have Johnny Foreigner in charge - not the done thing you know!
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
No surprise? Maybe not, given the EU's position. However, as any fule 'no, it would have made far more sense to have agreed the outline trade deal first, since all three of the issues you mention can't be sensibly discussed without knowing what the final relationship is going to be.
An interesting counterfactual doesn't seem to be borne out by what's happened though. The government's failure to agree has *nothing* to do with not knowing what the final relationship will be and everything to do with May's idiot red lines painting herself into a corner with landmines.
That's partly true, but that in turn is largely the direct result of the EU's approach, which has been to invite 'red lines', and set up their own, in a public negotiation by position paper. Inevitably anything that is said by either side in such an approach becomes a red line. It was and is a barmy way to do things, instead the two sides should have been horse-trading in smoke-free rooms. But the EU insisted on their rules-based approach, without ever explaining where their rules came from, and ignoring the only rule which should apply: the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union..
Leavers felt it had to be won at any cost because they might never be given the chance again, and the EU had a history of ignoring votes and mandates anyway.
Leave behaviour was entirely rational given past evidence and the array of forces against it.
And they badly underestimated the resilience of British democracy and the strength of conviction of millions of people who refuse to allow such tactics to prevail. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall never surrender.
"Previously, at no stage has the UK and Ireland not been in the EC/EU at the same time, so what happened prior to 1973 doesn't apply."
Correct.
"Now if you're a savvy EU immigrant wanting to get into Britain you know what the obvious solution is. Head to the Republic, cross the border into the Northern Ireland, then catch the ferry to Britain."
As always. I'm not sure why that doesn't apply now. You can even cross from Rosslare on that pleasant ferry.
You then jump to a poll which will make the UDA re-merge. One of my nephews married an Ulster Proddy and they bussed us into Ulster from across the border. They even opened the bar early as they assumed we like a drink. In their own way, they were very welcoming, and that's where my little brain falters.
But thanks for bearing with me.
As you say freedom of movement is not the same as freedom to travel for tourism visa free. A Nicaraguan or Costa Rican national has visa free travel for tourism in the common travel area and Schengen - the point is they cannot work legally or claim welfare or free health care etc etc.
No one is seriously suggesting we will make Spaniards get a tourist visa to come to London for the weekend when we will still let Nicaraguans come here for up to 6 months without a visa for a holiday.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
One response to that is to argue the Leavers are mad (as the EU and many Remainers often do) another is to ask why 52% of the electorate, or 41% on no-deal, if you prefer, feel that strongly about it and what the EU might have done to drive those feelings.
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
I disagree with your assumption. It's pretty clear that 30% are indeed unhinged nutters who would rather trash the country than see it associated with something that they regard as akin to the whore of Babylon. The appropriate response is more psychiatric than political.
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
It is lunacy to risk the outbreak of violence, still less to regard it as an acceptable trade-off, for what is essentially a second order matter. Rather than waste time trying to peer deep into their foetid brains, just call it what it is: lunacy.
What if it wasn't Brexit (for which read the consequences of democracy) that might prompt terrorism. What if, say, it was LGBT rights. Would that then be acceptable Danegeld to bribe the terrorists?
Despite admitting my ignorance, no one seems to want to answer my question. I understand that leaving the EU will cause all sorts of horrific consequences and we'll all die in a cataclysm, but how does the process of leaving cause Northern Ireland to dissolve into factional infighting?
I can understand the attraction of the phlogiston theory and why it took so long to disprove, but this one seems stickier.
The border.
Previously, at no stage has the UK and Ireland not been in the EC/EU at the same time, so what happened prior to 1973 doesn't apply.
Now if we want to leave the customs union and single market there's going to have be checks at the border in most circumstances that honour the referendum.
Now some of your fellow Leavers say there won't be any checks at the border, nor will we put a customs check between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Now if you're a savvy EU immigrant wanting to get into Britain you know what the obvious solution is. Head to the Republic, cross the border into the Northern Ireland, then catch the ferry to Britain.
A lot of Leavers campaigned about reducing EU immigration, so it is going to be hard to reconcile all of that.
So as this poll shows, Leavers are prepared to say goodbye to Northern Ireland to ensure an orderly Brexit.
Now the Unionists will not go quietly into the night, heck read Sammy Wilson's views from the 1990s to get an idea.
Joining the EU by uniting Ireland will seem like a good idea if FUK* is struggling post Brexit.
But your hardcore Unionist/OO would sooner trap their penises in a door than do that, and well the loyalists might come back.
According to the rozzers the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland is severe, which is the same for GB with relation to far right/Islamist terrorism.
The terrorists haven't gone away you know.
*The Former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
That line about immigration is balls. FoM is not about entry - pretty much anyone can enter the UK legally. It’s about right to benefits.
... there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
That is a reasonable question. Sadly, the zealots of Brexit are not really listening to reason. Their own insecurities trump everything else... and besides, we cannot have Johnny Foreigner in charge - not the done thing you know!
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
I am not at all a fan of the EU. Far from it. But if we can’t agree what to do it raises legitimate doubts in my mind about leaving until we have come up with a coherent and workable plan for how to leave.
As the only Prod in the village (almost), who voted remain, you would expect me to be horrified by this poll. But I'm not going to slag off people for refusing to have their ambitions for their own country changed by unknown threats from unknown masked gunmen.
If you allow you politics to be dictated by terrorists you let them win. In this case, you let them win by virtue of terrorism from past decades. Those sickening Terror fests SF arrange will be all the more relevant.
So stop this false narrative that Brexit makes the Belfast Agreement redundant. What is doing that is SF and DUP failing to deliver. Putting NI peace into Theresa May's hands takes it out of the two women who are really failing us.
This entire question is deeply offensive and was posed so smug Remain ultras who have absolutely no interest in NI other than as a weapon against Brexit can laugh at Leave voters. Tactics like this genuinely push me towards sympathy for Brexit.
No mention of Kent being turned into a lorry park indefinitely post-Brexit?
That wouldn’t happen either.
It might for the first 6 months, but the invisible hand of the market would soon ensure alternative suppliers trade routes, ports and airports would be sought out and developed where delays were far less. Changed consumer behaviour and pricing would also have an effect.
It might take a few years for the infrastructure and customs systems to get up to scratch, but it certainly wouldn’t be indefinite.
I don’t remember exactly how long the fuel crisis in Blair’s first term took to reduce the country to panic and destroy Labour’s position in the polls, but it was rather less than 6 months and definitely not a few years. Rather faster than the invisible hand was able to sort it out. Would it be any different in this case?
You might also remember that polling collapse was very fleeting, and he subsequently went on to win a landslide.
I don’t doubt that disruption is unpopular. But it won’t be permanent and neither will it be as bad as advertised.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
The UK will be literally extinct if Northern Ireland goes.
You have zero credibility.
Your strategy is simply to say the EU is the only answer to whatever one posts about.
Loon.
Try to engage with the substance. I asked a question yesterday which I think bears some examination: Why are people whose primary identity British more likely to be Remainers than people whose primary identity is English? I think the answer might not please you.
Since your answers are ones that please you, and are not evidence based, i’m remarkably sanguine about it actually.
It’s just a waste of my time.
You started arguing that the EU inspired enmity because it is making the UK meaningfully extinct, but the voters who support it see Britishness as secondary to Englishness. Arguably it's actually a collapse in British identity that has led to Brexit rather than a reassertion of it.
It's certainly not a waste of your time to consider why Brexit is going so badly wrong.
That doesn’t follow. If British identity was even stronger it wouldn't imply we would be more in favour of the EU, or more European integration.
Far from it.
If only people who identified as British had voted in the referendum, Remain would have won.
Remain would have won if there was no purdah period, or if the question had been phrased differently, or if the Conservative Party had not been neutral, or if EU citizens and 16 years olds could have voted, or if Cameron had got something on free movement, or if postal voting had been banned.
In other news, if my Auntie had bollocks, she’d be my uncle.
if the EU demand a hard border, then it's up to the EU to install it in the EU. They'll have to ask Mr Varadkar to make the plans. I'm not up-to-date with Fine Gael politics, but he may demur on that.
No mention of Kent being turned into a lorry park indefinitely post-Brexit?
That wouldn’t happen either.
It might for the first 6 months, but the invisible hand of the market would soon ensure alternative suppliers trade routes, ports and airports would be sought out and developed where delays were far less. Changed consumer behaviour and pricing would also have an effect.
It might take a few years for the infrastructure and customs systems to get up to scratch, but it certainly wouldn’t be indefinite.
I don’t remember exactly how long the fuel crisis in Blair’s first term took to reduce the country to panic and destroy Labour’s position in the polls, but it was rather less than 6 months and definitely not a few years. Rather faster than the invisible hand was able to sort it out. Would it be any different in this case?
You might also remember that polling collapse was very fleeting, and he subsequently went on to win a landslide.
I don’t doubt that disruption is unpopular. But it won’t be permanent and neither will it be as bad as advertised.
When do you think would be the appropriate time for a unification referendum after No Deal?
This entire question is deeply offensive and was posed so smug Remain ultras who have absolutely no interest in NI other than as a weapon against Brexit can laugh at Leave voters. Tactics like this genuinely push me towards sympathy for Brexit.
Mrs May will be expected to commit to the "divorce bill" payment and a "backstop" for Northern Ireland, in return for only a few vague statements about the future EU-UK relationship.
Actually that might not be a bad thing. More room for fudge.
Mrs May will be expected to commit to the "divorce bill" payment and a "backstop" for Northern Ireland, in return for only a few vague statements about the future EU-UK relationship.
Actually that might not be a bad thing. More room for fudge.
I would have thought May would welcome a short fudgy statement that would enable her to get over the line.
Some of us did warn that Vote Leave's plans would lead to all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland.
As Emperor Kahless the Unforgetable said
'Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a war to save an empire is no defeat'
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
Britain had no choice but to fight WW2. Brexit is entirely self-inflicted.
Of course it had a choice. Lots of countries chose to enter WWII; lots chose to stay out, from Ireland to Spain to Sweden to Switzerland to the USA (to a greater or lesser extent, pre-Dec 1941).
Britain could, had it so wanted, opted to abandon the continent, either in 1939 or 1940. Whether that would have been a wise decision isn't the question here. The question is whether it would have been a viable decision.
Now, it may be true that Britain couldn't have avoided war with Japan, which was prompted largely by the US-Japan-China relationships, so perhaps, in that sense, Britain might not have avoided the war in general and - given Hitler's insane decision to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour - might not have avoided the European war either. That said, Hitler's decision was made in no small part because of the scale of assistance the US was giving Britain. Were Britain not in the war, would the US have been involved in the Atlantic at all? And if not, would Hitler have prompted war with the two neutral superpower democracies?
To have sat out WW2 in Europe would have been disreputable but it was certainly possible.
I’m never quite sure if the Soviets could have won if they’d had zero help from the US and UK and Germany focussed all its resources on that conflict alone.
I disagree with your assumption. It's pretty clear that 30% are indeed unhinged nutters who would rather trash the country than see it associated with something that they regard as akin to the whore of Babylon. The appropriate response is more psychiatric than political.
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
It is lunacy to risk the outbreak of violence, still less to regard it as an acceptable trade-off, for what is essentially a second order matter. Rather than waste time trying to peer deep into their foetid brains, just call it what it is: lunacy.
Most Leavers will have rightly sniffed out that this question was intended to be used against them as a weapon by the ultra-Remainers. They will have noticed that it’s a ridiculous forced choice (they are far more intelligent than you give them credit for) to suggest that the threats of violent terrorists should have a veto on democracy expressed through the UK ballot box. You are wrong on this, and a number of moderate and respected posters disagreeing with you down thread should make you pause for thought.
For what it’s worth, I might well have replied the same to this question to an opinion pollster, even though I care passionately about peace and absolutely want both.
To do otherwise would have resulted in polling numbers on a macro level would have been to play their game and give HMG extra evidence to pursue the softest of Brexits.
If your line is that Leavers don't REALLY prefer violence in Northern Ireland to abandoning Brexit, I'm afraid there isn't the slightest scintilla of evidence for that. Leavers have to be assumed to be batshit mental.
It's a shame that it's as high as 30%, but there you go. These are the crazed times we live in.
Have you spoken to any?
I haven’t met a single leaver who wants violence in Northern Ireland.
For the purposes of impeachment, the US constitution helpfully fails to define "high crimes and misdemeanors" which means, practically, it's whatever the US Senate decides they are.
It's whatever both the House *and* the Senate think they are. The House would need to agree that there's a case worth sending for trial before the Senate gets to hear it.
Yes, if the House passes articles of impeachment, the trial goes ahead under the purview of the Chief Justice. Certainly the Senate can't refuse to try even if it feels there's no case to answer. It could refuse to convict, of course, but then the whole process would look ridiculous, as it did with Bill Clinton's acquittal.
One hopes(!) the business managers of both houses have learned from history, are in frequent contact and would likely discuss the process before deciding to embark on it.
The Senate did once refuse to hear an impeachment: that of one of its own members, William Blount, in 1797. It expelled him instead.
Of the other eighteen impeachments brought by the House since 1789, only eight have been convicted. A further three who resigned before the Senate reached a decision. Seven were acquitted, including both presidents impeached.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
The UK will be literally extinct if Northern Ireland goes.
You have zero credibility.
Your strategy is simply to say the EU is the only answer to whatever one posts about.
Loon.
Try to engage with the substance. I asked a question yesterday which I think bears some examination: Why are people whose primary identity British more likely to be Remainers than people whose primary identity is English? I think the answer might not please you.
Since your answers are ones that please you, and are not evidence based, i’m remarkably sanguine about it actually.
It’s just a waste of my time.
You started arguing that the EU inspired enmity because it is making the UK meaningfully extinct, but the voters who support it see Britishness as secondary to Englishness. Arguably it's actually a collapse in British identity that has led to Brexit rather than a reassertion of it.
It's certainly not a waste of your time to consider why Brexit is going so badly wrong.
That doesn’t follow. If British identity was even stronger it wouldn't imply we would be more in favour of the EU, or more European integration.
Far from it.
If only people who identified as British had voted in the referendum, Remain would have won.
Remain would have won if there was no purdah period, or if the question had been phrased differently, or if the Conservative Party had not been neutral, or if EU citizens and 16 years olds could have voted, or if Cameron had got something on free movement, or if postal voting had been banned.
In other news, if my Auntie had bollocks, she’d be my uncle.
And Cameron probably wouldn't have won a majority in 2015 if it hadn't been for the SNP and there wouldn't have been a referendum in the first place. So the SNP - and Nicola Sturgeon with Ed in her pocket - are in fact to blame for Brexit. And if Nick Clegg hadn't debate Farage UKIP would never have surged in the polls - so Cameron wouldn't have given his referendum pledge. So it's Clegg's fault.
This entire question is deeply offensive and was posed so smug Remain ultras who have absolutely no interest in NI other than as a weapon against Brexit can laugh at Leave voters. Tactics like this genuinely push me towards sympathy for Brexit.
I’d have criticised the somewhat misleading use of a second order differential: most people can’t really cope with the idea of rates of change as it is.
It's the '-0' that offends me.
Why ? It literally takes away nothing from the tweet.
I find the size of the French 1% difficult to comprehend when compared to Canadas 2% and other 1%. I suspect a LibDem drew the barchart.
... there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
That is a reasonable question. Sadly, the zealots of Brexit are not really listening to reason. Their own insecurities trump everything else... and besides, we cannot have Johnny Foreigner in charge - not the done thing you know!
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
Permanent Limbo Brexit Transition is one of the options, and perhaps not the worst ones, while we collectively navel gaze.
No mention of Kent being turned into a lorry park indefinitely post-Brexit?
That wouldn’t happen either.
It might for the first 6 months, but the invisible hand of the market would soon ensure alternative suppliers trade routes, ports and airports would be sought out and developed where delays were far less. Changed consumer behaviour and pricing would also have an effect.
It might take a few years for the infrastructure and customs systems to get up to scratch, but it certainly wouldn’t be indefinite.
Temporary measures have a habit of becoming permanent.
Kent: the carpark of England.
It has a ring to it.
Makes a nice meme. And it wouldn’t happen.
“No Deal” is a vote for a mild recession, and major disruption for 6 months to 5-6 years, of a progressively diminishing level.
I think the political fallout would be immense - on both sides of the channel - but it wouldn’t be terminal or the end of life as we know it.
This starvation and super-gonorrhea nonsense is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.
I’d have criticised the somewhat misleading use of a second order differential: most people can’t really cope with the idea of rates of change as it is.
It's the '-0' that offends me.
Why ? It literally takes away nothing from the tweet.
I find the size of the French 1% difficult to comprehend when compared to Canadas 2% and other 1%....
Some of us did warn that Vote Leave's plans would lead to all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland.
As Emperor Kahless the Unforgetable said
'Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a war to save an empire is no defeat'
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
Britain had no choice but to fight WW2. Brexit is entirely self-inflicted.
Of course it had a choice. Lots of countries chose to enter WWII; lots chose to stay out, from Ireland to Spain to Sweden to Switzerland to the USA (to a greater or lesser extent, pre-Dec 1941).
Britain could, had it so wanted, opted to abandon the continent, either in 1939 or 1940. Whether that would have been a wise decision isn't the question here. The question is whether it would have been a viable decision.
Now, it may be true that Britain couldn't have avoided war with Japan, which was prompted largely by the US-Japan-China relationships, so perhaps, in that sense, Britain might not have avoided the war in general and - given Hitler's insane decision to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour - might not have avoided the European war either. That said, Hitler's decision was made in no small part because of the scale of assistance the US was giving Britain. Were Britain not in the war, would the US have been involved in the Atlantic at all? And if not, would Hitler have prompted war with the two neutral superpower democracies?
To have sat out WW2 in Europe would have been disreputable but it was certainly possible.
I’m never quite sure if the Soviets could have won if they’d had zero help from the US and UK and Germany focussed all its resources on that conflict alone.
I've played wargames for years, and, based on that dubious experience of many different scenarios, Moscow would have fallen (though it's an open question whether it would have ended the war) if Germany hadn't had to intervene in the Balkans and they'd spent less time reducing the Kiev pocket. In 1941. I'd guess that Stalin had Richard Sorge to thank more than lend-lease.
You elected Corbyn, that’s what happened. It’s not as if you weren’t warned. So stop feeling sorry for yourself and your party. You did this to yourselves.
You wanted to widen the debate. And you have. The precise definition of anti-semitism is now the focus of intense daily debate, in a way last seen in 1930’s Germany or in the Lipstadt/David Irving libel trial.
the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union..
It's almost enough to make one wish to Leave.
The sticking point here is the (Republic of) Ireland. Varadkar has always made it clear that Ireland had no intention of allowing trade talks to begin until a way was found to ensure no hard border. A solemn declaration of faith from all sides that nobody wants a hard border could have been enough, but for internal political reasons he decided not to soft-pedal it.
I do think Varadkar has been somewhat unreasonable here. He could have progressed in good faith that some fudge would eventually be found to ensure no hard border. One presumes that he has calculated that his intransigence is likely to accelerate the reunion of Ireland? It's the only thing that explains his behaviour.
The divorce bill was, amazingly, relatively uncontroversial.
The status of EU citizens in the UK could (and should) have been an easy matter to resolve, and this is unambiguously an area where May's intemperate laying down of stupid red lines to impress the Daily Mail has come back and bitten her on the arse.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
One response to that is to argue the Leavers are mad (as the EU and many Remainers often do) another is to ask why 52% of the electorate, or 41% on no-deal, if you prefer, feel that strongly about it and what the EU might have done to drive those feelings.
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
I disagree with your assumption. It's pretty clear that 30% are indeed unhinged nutters who would rather trash the country than see it associated with something that they regard as akin to the whore of Babylon. The appropriate response is more psychiatric than political.
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
It is lunacy to risk the outbreak of violence, still less to regard it as an acceptable trade-off, for what is essentially a second order matter. Rather than waste time trying to peer deep into their foetid brains, just call it what it is: lunacy.
What if it wasn't Brexit (for which read the consequences of democracy) that might prompt terrorism. What if, say, it was LGBT rights. Would that then be acceptable Danegeld to bribe the terrorists?
Well it's not really anything to do with the threat of terrorism or LGBT rights. 61% of English Leavers would be happy to see the back of Scotland to secure Brexit:
... there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
That is a reasonable question. Sadly, the zealots of Brexit are not really listening to reason. Their own insecurities trump everything else... and besides, we cannot have Johnny Foreigner in charge - not the done thing you know!
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
... there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
That is a reasonable question. Sadly, the zealots of Brexit are not really listening to reason. Their own insecurities trump everything else... and besides, we cannot have Johnny Foreigner in charge - not the done thing you know!
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
I am not at all a fan of the EU. Far from it. But if we can’t agree what to do it raises legitimate doubts in my mind about leaving until we have come up with a coherent and workable plan for how to leave.
This is not a game.
We will never agree how to Leave in a way that satisfies everyone over the status quo.
But, I believe the Chequers Deal is an acceptable compromise.
... there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
That is a reasonable question. Sadly, the zealots of Brexit are not really listening to reason. Their own insecurities trump everything else... and besides, we cannot have Johnny Foreigner in charge - not the done thing you know!
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
As someone once said about the threat of asking the public, you're frit, and it's not a good look.
We will never agree how to Leave in a way that satisfies everyone over the status quo.
But, I believe the Chequers Deal is an acceptable compromise.
Acceptable to _whom_, precisely?
Acceptable to those not on the fringes. ie for most leave voters it will be an improvement on being inside the EU and for most remain voters it'll be better than a no deal Brexit.
Comments
It literally takes away nothing from the tweet.
"The border."
Oh? I remember it being there before 1975. And being pretty porous.
Regardless of whether the question is badly phrased, there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
Well, yes.
Look instead at figures that take account of growth relative to an economy's relative size, put them in terms of PPP (which alone tells a very different story), take out of the equation the post Soviet recovery in E Europe, and most importantly come up with up to date figures based on the last 10 years post the 2008 crash.
Or do you think that the only answer is world governance because the world clearly contributed 100% of economic growth which clearly dwarfs that of any individual country by miles?
What any meaningful comparison of recent times reveals is just how appalling was the EU's recovery from the post 2008 crash that reflects by and large the baleful influence of the Euro and a model wedded to austerity that prolonged the influence of the crash far longer than in other comparable economies.
We get more solutions by talking than by trying to wipe the opposition from the face of the planet.
Funny how what seemed a minor issue when the British army was embroiled in the trenches reverberated almost forever in Ireland.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
One hopes(!) the business managers of both houses have learned from history, are in frequent contact and would likely discuss the process before deciding to embark on it.
EU's Brexit declaration could be just 'four or five pages' long
Senior EU official says document setting out ‘future framework’ of relationship with UK is unlikely to be as detailed as Britain hopes
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/31/eus-brexit-declaration-could-be-just-four-or-five-pages-long
Mrs May will be expected to commit to the "divorce bill" payment and a "backstop" for Northern Ireland, in return for only a few vague statements about the future EU-UK relationship.
We didn't know the Klingons too well then.
We were fighting to liberate Europe and Asia from evil empire builders yet had our own empire.
It’s just a waste of my time.
The divorce bill
Northern Ireland
Status of EU nationals
Were, according to the UK Government's timetable agreed in March 2017, due to have been finalised in June 2017, as part an agreement to start trade negotiations.
As the UK has, 14 months after its own deadline, only agreed 1 out of the 3 things, it should be no surprise the EU is unwilling to start trade talks.
Previously, at no stage has the UK and Ireland not been in the EC/EU at the same time, so what happened prior to 1973 doesn't apply.
Now if we want to leave the customs union and single market there's going to have be checks at the border in most circumstances that honour the referendum.
Now some of your fellow Leavers say there won't be any checks at the border, nor will we put a customs check between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Now if you're a savvy EU immigrant wanting to get into Britain you know what the obvious solution is. Head to the Republic, cross the border into the Northern Ireland, then catch the ferry to Britain.
A lot of Leavers campaigned about reducing EU immigration, so it is going to be hard to reconcile all of that.
So as this poll shows, Leavers are prepared to say goodbye to Northern Ireland to ensure an orderly Brexit.
Now the Unionists will not go quietly into the night, heck read Sammy Wilson's views from the 1990s to get an idea.
Joining the EU by uniting Ireland will seem like a good idea if FUK* is struggling post Brexit.
But your hardcore Unionist/OO would sooner trap their penises in a door than do that, and well the loyalists might come back.
According to the rozzers the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland is severe, which is the same for GB with relation to far right/Islamist terrorism.
The terrorists haven't gone away you know.
*The Former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
It might for the first 6 months, but the invisible hand of the market would soon ensure alternative suppliers trade routes, ports and airports would be sought out and developed where delays were far less. Changed consumer behaviour and pricing would also have an effect.
It might take a few years for the infrastructure and customs systems to get up to scratch, but it certainly wouldn’t be indefinite.
Emperor Martok rocked.
Best thing Worf ever did was to assassinate Gowron.
I hope I'm wrong but I fear Rashid is going to get smashed out of Edgbaston this week.
But for Leavers the war was to be won any any cost and their aim was to fight and not to heed the wounds.
In the war of words now they just talk past each other.
It's certainly not a waste of your time to consider why Brexit is going so badly wrong.
Solar power generating nearly 20% of energy in the UK.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Kent: the carpark of England.
It has a ring to it.
For what it’s worth, I might well have replied the same to this question to an opinion pollster, even though I care passionately about peace and absolutely want both.
To do otherwise would have resulted in polling numbers on a macro level would have been to play their game and give HMG extra evidence to pursue the softest of Brexits.
"Previously, at no stage has the UK and Ireland not been in the EC/EU at the same time, so what happened prior to 1973 doesn't apply."
Correct.
"Now if you're a savvy EU immigrant wanting to get into Britain you know what the obvious solution is. Head to the Republic, cross the border into the Northern Ireland, then catch the ferry to Britain."
As always. I'm not sure why that doesn't apply now. You can even cross from Rosslare on that pleasant ferry.
You then jump to a poll which will make the UDA re-merge. One of my nephews married an Ulster Proddy and they bussed us into Ulster from across the border. They even opened the bar early as they assumed we like a drink. In their own way, they were very welcoming, and that's where my little brain falters.
But thanks for bearing with me.
Far from it.
ˈɡaslʌɪt/
verb
gerund or present participle: gaslighting
manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity.
It's a shame that it's as high as 30%, but there you go. These are the crazed times we live in.
Leave behaviour was entirely rational given past evidence and the array of forces against it.
Britain could, had it so wanted, opted to abandon the continent, either in 1939 or 1940. Whether that would have been a wise decision isn't the question here. The question is whether it would have been a viable decision.
Now, it may be true that Britain couldn't have avoided war with Japan, which was prompted largely by the US-Japan-China relationships, so perhaps, in that sense, Britain might not have avoided the war in general and - given Hitler's insane decision to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour - might not have avoided the European war either. That said, Hitler's decision was made in no small part because of the scale of assistance the US was giving Britain. Were Britain not in the war, would the US have been involved in the Atlantic at all? And if not, would Hitler have prompted war with the two neutral superpower democracies?
To have sat out WW2 in Europe would have been disreputable but it was certainly possible.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
It's almost enough to make one wish to Leave.
No one is seriously suggesting we will make Spaniards get a tourist visa to come to London for the weekend when we will still let Nicaraguans come here for up to 6 months without a visa for a holiday.
This is not a game.
https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1024263961464725504
I don’t doubt that disruption is unpopular. But it won’t be permanent and neither will it be as bad as advertised.
In other news, if my Auntie had bollocks, she’d be my uncle.
I haven’t met a single leaver who wants violence in Northern Ireland.
Come on Alastair.
Of the other eighteen impeachments brought by the House since 1789, only eight have been convicted. A further three who resigned before the Senate reached a decision. Seven were acquitted, including both presidents impeached.
Cause and effect has many angles.
I suspect a LibDem drew the barchart.
“No Deal” is a vote for a mild recession, and major disruption for 6 months to 5-6 years, of a progressively diminishing level.
I think the political fallout would be immense - on both sides of the channel - but it wouldn’t be terminal or the end of life as we know it.
This starvation and super-gonorrhea nonsense is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.
You wanted to widen the debate. And you have. The precise definition of anti-semitism is now the focus of intense daily debate, in a way last seen in 1930’s Germany or in the Lipstadt/David Irving libel trial.
If the answer is no, how would the UK government act to prevent it?
If the answer is yes, what do you think the results would be?
I do think Varadkar has been somewhat unreasonable here. He could have progressed in good faith that some fudge would eventually be found to ensure no hard border. One presumes that he has calculated that his intransigence is likely to accelerate the reunion of Ireland? It's the only thing that explains his behaviour.
The divorce bill was, amazingly, relatively uncontroversial.
The status of EU citizens in the UK could (and should) have been an easy matter to resolve, and this is unambiguously an area where May's intemperate laying down of stupid red lines to impress the Daily Mail has come back and bitten her on the arse.
https://www.drg.global/wp-content/uploads/F12183-Wings-over-Scotland-English-Voters-Poll-for-publication-220518.pdf
These fruitcakes just want out and to hell with the destruction it might unleash.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
But, I believe the Chequers Deal is an acceptable compromise.