BREXIT: the general forum (Second Thread)


hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
47,995
The fact that there were lies told in the referendum - and there were lies told by both sides, as in all referendums - is of no relevance now.
Despite the fact that one such lie goes to the heart of the current deadlock?
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
47,995
Its bizarre that the hardline Eurosceptics are the main obstacle to the passage of the May Brexit deal. Had they voted yes a few days ago it could have passed.
As I said earlier, there are Tory MPs who are making a career out of being anti-EU. They see it as much better to have something to fight against than actually winning.
 

Ó Ghabhainn

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
3,141
Very simple. What Brexit actually was, in terms of trade, freedom of movement etc, wasn't consistently specified in the referendum campaign. A series of different and often contradictory Brexits were put forward by the Leave side. Now that there's a single, clear version of Brexit that would by then (referendum time) had been passed by Parliament, why not let the people have a proper vote? If a majority want to leave, they'll still vote leave, while if, after seeing what Brexit actually means rather than the campaign bullshit, they'd rather remain, surely that majority view should also be heard?

Your view seems to be that because the people spoke once on Brexit, they must shut up and never say a word about it ever again.
There will be riots.

People have already forgotten about Jo Cox and, while we are beyond (I hope) the immigration issue that led to her death, the reality remains that a lot of these people are. not. reasonable.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
47,995
There will be riots.

People have already forgotten about Jo Cox and, while we are beyond (I hope) the immigration issue that led to her death, the reality remains that a lot of these people are. not. reasonable.
Sadly we're not beyond the immigration issue.
 

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
16,781
As someone who read the GFA from end to end in 1998, I dont recall any references in it to the UK or NI remaining in the EU.
The GFA resulted in an open border.

Brexit means the border becomes a major international frontier.

Brexiteers and their arse lickers do not have much concern about the consequences.

When Paddy points out the consequences Brexiteers and their arse lickers tell him to know his place and shut his gob.
 

caledhel

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Messages
1,906
As someone who read the GFA from end to end in 1998, I don't recall any references in it to the UK or NI remaining in the EU.
The European promise, that there would be a winding down of the conflict and the reasons for the conflict, was made in the early seventies with the ascension of Ireland and the UK to the EEC. The UK model was failing in the seventies and its failure in resolving the situation in the North was a symptom of this. This dysfunctional model has resurfaced and been laid bare by Brexit.

The GFA agreement was the culmination of the European promise and this was perfectly well understood by those involved. The promise provided an alternative to serious republicanism south of the border, persuading them to avoid rowing in, given the pressure the nationalist population was under, and a serious escalation happening. The gradualist view of finding a solution that provided for peace, liberty and opportunity was chosen instead.

Triumphalist Unionism recognise the frustration of their dominance that the European institutions insist. That's why they want out of European values and any recourse to the European Court. They want their racket back.

It's important to understand that an abrogation of this promise won't simply be some economic inconveniences. It will be a profound change in the underlying calculus. If there's a hard border in Ireland to preserve a sectarian state then decades of work towards its civilising will be forfeit. It was tried. The Backstop and the conservation of the GFA is utterly required. God forbid its loss.
 

Sailor

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
56,653
Very simple. What Brexit actually was, in terms of trade, freedom of movement etc, wasn't consistently specified in the referendum campaign. A series of different and often contradictory Brexits were put forward by the Leave side. Now that there's a single, clear version of Brexit that would by then (referendum time) had been passed by Parliament, why not let the people have a proper vote? If a majority want to leave, they'll still vote leave, while if, after seeing what Brexit actually means rather than the campaign bullshit, they'd rather remain, surely that majority view should also be heard?

Your view seems to be that because the people spoke once on Brexit, they must shut up and never say a word about it ever again.
My view is that in a democracy the govt. does not go back to the people in search of the ‘right result’, and furthermore doing so would very likely produce another close result. As I said earlier your only reason for advocating a second leave/remain vote is your hope that it might produce a different result. If you were to get the same result it would not advance the exit process one whit. It is far more appropriate that the electorate, having already voted to leave, should now be given a binary choice as to the form of their departure - May or No-deal.
 

Sailor

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
56,653
Please elaborate .... seriously, explain exactly what you mean and give a few examples please ?
Very simple - member states do not have freedom in how they invest their own money in, for example, infrastructure. That is just one example, there are many more, and if you are a fan of the EU you must be familiar with them because you are defending them!
 

Sailor

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
56,653
Is it not possible to have a serious debate on Brexit on this site anymore without endless conversing with that fool 'Sailor'
You are free to express disagreement with what I post, but if the best you can do is describe all non-europhiliac posters as fools then you are a very poor debater.
 

darkhorse4

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2018
Messages
2,664
What do people think on an extension - short or long?
My view is that an longer term extension would be damaging to the EU - having a member with voting power but committed to destroying the EU. Definitely not without a second referendum in favour of Remain.
 

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
16,781
Interesting quote from Conservative election manifesto when Thatcher was leader.

'The European Community is the world's largest trading group. It is by far our most important export market. Withdrawal would be a catastrophe for this country. As many as two million jobs would be at risk. We would lose the great export advantages and the attraction to overseas investors which membership now gives us. It would be a fateful step towards isolation, at which only the Soviet Union and her allies would rejoice.'

Puts Brexiteers in perspective.

Far too many people in Ireland are advocating that Paddy should grovel and join the London media in backing the Brexiteers against the EU.
 

Breanainn

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
2,827
What do people think on an extension - short or long?
My view is that an longer term extension would be damaging to the EU - having a member with voting power but committed to destroying the EU. Definitely not without a second referendum in favour of Remain.
if they don't approve the WA on Wednesday (they almost certainly won't), then hard to see three months being long enough to pursue an alternative, be it a CU, Norway, GE or second referendum.
 

darkhorse4

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2018
Messages
2,664
if they don't approve the WA on Wednesday (they almost certainly won't), then hard to see three months being long enough to pursue an alternative, be it a CU, Norway, GE or second referendum.
They have had 2 years plus already
Nothing will change in 2 months time
Let them leave, work it out and come back in a few years time when they know what they want
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
47,995
My view is that in a democracy the govt. does not go back to the people in search of the ‘right result’, and furthermore doing so would very likely produce another close result. As I said earlier your only reason for advocating a second leave/remain vote is your hope that it might produce a different result. If you were to get the same result it would not advance the exit process one whit. It is far more appropriate that the electorate, having already voted to leave, should now be given a binary choice as to the form of their departure - May or No-deal.
But by that logic, surely the right result is whatever result the people give in the referendum? Presented with a concrete, clear outline of what Brexit is, as distinct from all the contradictions of 2016, they either vote democratically to leave, or to stay. What can possibly be undemocratic about that?
 
Top