Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods
Beren wrote:Ian Blackford made a passionate quasi-secession speech and there was a heated debate between Scottish MPs. He also said that Scotland wouldn't be dragged out of the EU against its will. I wonder if how serious all that was.
After tonight’s series of votes in the Commons, all five of which were technically won by Theresa May, there are three possible outcomes. Let’s whizz through them all.
OPTION 1: BREXIT ON JUNE 30TH
Tonight’s final vote mandated the government to ask the EU for an Article 50 extension to June 30th in order to implement the Withdrawal Agreement if it passes in Parliament by next Wednesday.
We can’t see any chance of that happening, even if we assume the EU would grant it (which it probably would). 75 MPs would need to change their minds on the WA in the space of a week, and in so far as anything in the world makes sense any more, they’re not going to. We could be wrong, but it looks a total non-starter.
OPTION 2: MUCH LONGER DELAY
This is the second outcome provided for by the motion. It requires the UK to come up with a very good reason for the EU to grant a much longer extension – realistically, the only plausible ones are a second referendum or a general election. The Conservative Party would absolutely implode if either of those things came to pass, and public fury would be considerable.
Even if there were to be an election it probably wouldn’t solve anything anyway, but it’s what we’d do if we were the Tories, because it’d tear Labour in two as well. Be that as it may, though, we can’t see turkeys voting for this particular Christmas. The Tories would need a new leader and we doubt they fancy that battle right now, never mind the chance of losing their own seats.
So either the government will just fail to ask the EU for a long extension, or will do so cursorily, without a decent reason, forcing the EU to run out of patience and refuse.
OPTION 3: NO-DEAL BREXIT IN 15 DAYS
If that transpires, Brexit goes ahead on 29 March, as Theresa May has repeatedly and doggedly insisted that it would, but with no deal. The Tories will be able to blame the EU for refusing an extension, and much of the UK media will back them up.
Brexit will happen, however messily, so Theresa May won’t go down in history as the PM who failed to deliver the “will of the people”, which is the thing that terrifies her the most. Of three unpleasant options, no-deal is probably the one that does the least damage to the Tories, and they’ll appeal to the electorate to deploy the Blitz Spirit and get through these difficult times together, yada yada yada.
Option 1 is a dead duck. Option 2 rips the Conservative Party to shreds and requires the Tories to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Option 3 fulfils what they claim is their duty to enact the referendum result, with a hideous outcome but crucially one which can be blamed on someone else.
(Not just the EU but also opposition and rebel Tory MPs who didn’t vote for the WA.)
Based on what you know of this government, readers, which of those do you think is the most plausible? Yeah, us too.
Rich wrote:The EU has two great weaknesses in its negotiations with the UK: Eire and Spain. The EU could have used Scotland as a lever to break the UK, but Spain wouldn't tolerate it. If Scotland can be an independent country within the EU, then why can't Catalonia? Even if the UK were to leave the EU without a deal, I suspect that Spain's priority would still be blocking and sabotaging Scottish Independence. This will override both EU solidarity and getting back Gibraltar. Contry to the filthy lies of the Brexiteers the EU works very hard and is very respectful of its member states. If a member state has an overriding priority the EU will normally make great efforts to accomadate this.
The key here is priorities, Britain has had immense success in getting its priorities attended to. The problem is the British government's priorities are often things like the interests of the British banking or furthering the interests of Israel. The British government often does not want to own up to what its real priorities are, hence the Euro sceptics lies that Britain is always overruled. If the British government's priorities had been say reducing net contributions and the British fishing industry, then it could have got a much better deal on these things. But they weren't and so they haven't. Leaving will solve nothing, because the priorities of the British government in their negotiations as a non member will be no different from their priorities as a member.
There is no doubt that Europeans have become more pro Palestinian in recent years, so inevitably the EU reflects this trend. Because of this Jewish supremacists have come to dislike the EU, feeling they are entitled to grovelling subservience. They pretend to care about the member nations and support the break up of the EU. They are not to be trusted. They do not have our interests at heart.
Seeker8 wrote:Yea it's serious, the SNP have a mandate for a second referendum if we leave the E.U since the Scottish parliment voted for it. Polls show a strong win for independence if there's a no deal brexit.
If they just refuse i think it will increase support for independence since we are supposed to be a "union of equal nations" not a colony.
Ian Blackford's speeches keep getting cut off by the BBC BTW, just shows how scared they are.
Ter wrote:I used to have a Scottish bridge partner and I had problems understanding him even when he was not drunk.
Nonsense wrote:Your anti-semitism comes to the fore here,
Rich wrote:The EU has two great weaknesses in its negotiations with the UK: Eire and Spain. The EU could have used Scotland as a lever to break the UK, but Spain wouldn't tolerate it.
Firstly, the EU is not an empire and does not use the divide and rule tactics for promoting regime change that has been used for so long by the UK and the US.
Heisenberg wrote:Don't be absurd.
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Really? and what about Libya did you forgot that? it was the EU that have attacked Ghadaffi and made him getting executed not to mention the support for the rebels thought all of the civil war
Rich wrote:Funny I thought it was a NATO operation not an EU one. I hadn't realised that the United States had joined the EU, let alone taken part in EU military Union.
Zionist Nationalist wrote:EU is part of NATO
we all know that Sarkozy was the one who pushed for all of it probably out of personal financial interests
Obama was supporting this thinking toppling a dictator will be cool and will further improve his image
but turns out it was a mistake that he himself admitted later
Heisenberg wrote:Don't be absurd.
SolarCross wrote:The land belongs to Her Maj, she doesn't need to give it up without a fight regardless of what bits of paper one waves around. "Independence" without a fight would look something like Canada or Australia, independence of westminster but not of Her Maj.
Heisenberg wrote:In other words, the exact form that was proposed by the SNP last time around. They weren't going for a Scottish Republic in 2014, and I don't believe Sturgeon has said or implied anything different since.
Hindsite, your single avatar beneath your name re[…]
Roe v. Wade was argued based on Norma McCorvey's[…]
So what your claiming is when your nation refused[…]
Fess up. Are you a new Earther? :lol: