Beren wrote:How was it a question?
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods
Presvias wrote:I have to admit, I did a double take myself, but apparently this used to happen in the past too.
(Just in case you doubt the authenticity of my claim:
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... fer-corbyn
As for Labour fellow travellers, not decided on Corbyn or Labour themselves. The last time Labour had a genuinely brilliant leader was prob Clement Attlee, ditto for the Tories with Churchill. Neither party is fit for purpose.
Even with Brexit, a Norway+ option seems ok enough. Equally, revoking art 50 or holding a second ref could be okay.
..... It's just no deal and suspension of parliament that seems wrong.
Atlantis wrote:Let's just take British polls out off the equation. A subject cannot see itself objectively. The point is that Brexit has been seen as a total and complete shitshow by almost the entire world. Remember, I belong to a generation of continentals to whom everything British was good. Remember also the tremendous softpower the UK used to have by virtue of the international Anglophone media (and people like you and me discussing in English). In view of that, the loss of softpower and the negative view of today's UK represents a staggering decline.
Instead of being the first domino for the breakup of the EU, as Farage had intended it to be, Brexit has become the strongest force to weld Europe together. There is nothing like a weak and fumbling antagonist to achieve unity.
Even most of Europe's right-wing populists have abandoned plans to leave the EU or the Euro because Brexit serves as such a strong and irrefutable negative example.
JohnRawls wrote:I am pretty wary of this map actually. Correlation is not causation. I do not think only Brexit contributed to this but it certainly played a part. What is more important:
1) Greek crysis is more or less resolved at least for now.
2) Economic conditions improved a bit compared to the recession and greek crysis.
3) Rise of radical left and right parties put a strain on the EU to actually express its point of view instead of being silent all the time. (Remember, EU didn't campaign during the referendum)
How much of an impact did Brexit have compared to everything else? UKs polls suggest that it is far from the most important factors. Although the polls did shift a bit in the UK.
Nonsense wrote:'No deal' is fine,as is suspension of parliament.
People voted leave, they never voted on any 'deal' & the behaviour of MP's, although not the reason for suspension, would have been justified on that basis,if that reason was given,but much of the blame lies with the Speaker himself & remain MP's who do not have a clue what democracy means.
I would favour, what Guy Verhofstadt calls, an 'Association Agreement' between the U.K-EU.
Theresa MAY said that, "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". well, nothing is agreed, nothing is ratified, unlike the E.U position & it's 'strange' that they can ignore that fact.
In addition to stating that they do not have to do anything,despite the fact that half of Ireland will remain in the E.U, they do have to reach an agreed position on the border question out of their own interest, which is why I favour a 'soft' border resolution.
Revoking A50 will simply not happen-period, as for a second referendum, the nonsense by CORBYN is ridiculous, he wants one too, with a 'leave' & 'remain' option included.
Take it from me, he has lost the plot, he is delusional, we had had a referendum in which them options were offered, CORBYN is rejecting the result of that with contempt for the voters & democracy.
No one would ever trust Labour to deliver the result,even if they did, the Lib Dems would do for Labour what they are doing to the Tories, as would the SNP.
As for the Norway choice, we would pay, but have no say with the E.U decisions, it will never happen.
Theresa MAY screwed up from day one, there will not be an outcome that satisfies everyone & europe is now at the point of facing up to the reality that we can make an awful lot of problems for them, were we to remain in the E.U.
The feelings are now generally mutual between the realist in the E.U-U.K, that ofefrs the best of the infitessimally small chance of a 'deal', the kind that I mentioned above.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Some people are at least honest:
I think it's unwise to solely rely on MPs doing the right thing in times like this when tensions run high and a central government policy leads to an impasse. The resolution has always been for the government to say, ok, let's take it to the public, but this course of action has been blocked by the Fixed Term Parliament Act which has essentially thrown a wrench into the constitution. Another side effect of the FTPA is that it has empowered a partisan speaker and MPs like Nick Bole who has no problem denying people a vote as long as there's a risk of them voting for something he doesn't like. He doesn't even seem to realise what an astonishing admission that is.
The FTPA is an ill-conceived piece of legislation that is incompatible with how the UK political system is supposed to work and transfers influence from the public to the most odious people. It should not surprise then that it has been one of the very few legacies of the LibDems.
Agreed. They seem to be quite keen for parliament to become nothing but a regional assembly.
Presvias wrote:Well I can agree with this : "Theresa MAY screwed up from day one."
^ That's why we're in the current mess.
I also reluctantly agree with this..
"there will not be an outcome that satisfies everyone & europe is now at the point of facing up to the reality that we can make an awful lot of problems for them, were we to remain in the E.U." << It's not a good thing.
And I agree that an association agreement would've been fine too.
However, it is simply wrong to suggest that no one on the Leave side voted for a deal.
Clearly you have done your homework, so you will no doubt be aware that vote leave, grassroots out and leave.eu all very explicitly stated that we'd leave with a deal, as did all leaver politicians I can think of.
Even Sajid Javid on Marr was FORCED to concede that no deal would be the 'worst outcome' when pressed by Marr. (shrugs)
Even BJ can't openly tell us that he's affecting for a no deal; that'd be suicide because every single shred of proof (unless you can find me some to the contrary) very explicitly says that no deal Brexit will be damaging to the economy.
What can you say? I would have no problem with no deal if everything wasn't telling me that it's wrong.
No disrespect to pro-no dealers; but they seem to have very few arguments in support of their position IMHO. This mess resides largely with May's inability to negotiate (and to add insult injury, Maybot goes and gives honours to those utterly incompetent prats that fecked Brexit up for us...just to spite the whole country one last time..).
snapdragon wrote:You have conveniently forgotten all the unicorns the leave campaigners promised before the referendum:
https://infacts.org/cut-keep-list-top-1 ... -promises/
lol, Singapore-on-Thames I like the sound of that.
Nonsense wrote:Yes, to cap it, she also thinks that the U.K will be an economic threat to the E.U because she belives we will be what Singapore is recognised as, a dynamic successful economy that will be more successful than europe.
Nonsense wrote:These trade blocs only sustain their position in the global market by acting like cartels, instead of being genuinely open market places in the global village & erecting strict rules is their hallmark protection against 'outsiders'.
Nonsense wrote:^ Rancid tripe.
Beren wrote:She's actually concerned about a race to the bottom, and the Brits are wrong to believe they could trigger such a race without consequences.
lol, Singapore-on-Thames I like the sound of that.
JohnRawls wrote:As i said before, this a doable option. The problem with that is how you convince the UK people to slash half if not most government programs like Rail, NHS, subsidies for food and homes etc. Basically this goes heavily against the premise of Brexit that was promised. This is not how Brexit was advertised. Singapoore on Thames means austerity and tax cuts basically.
Do you really think the people of UK will allow anybody to destroy NHS and replace it with private healthcare for example? Removing all subsidies from business? Removing all subsidies for Home purchases? Removing all subsidies for food/basic needs?
This is a suicide plan as it stands right now. Not because it is not doable but because the people will revolt and chop everyone heads off like in the French Revolution just British style.
On top of that fact that we already warned Britain that if it will try to transform itself in to a tax haven of sorts then we will put punitive tariffs. It has always been a no brainer that you will need to cut taxes and spending to stay competitive. This is technically okay if you don't do it too much.
Atlantis wrote:The problem is not the presence of 5 parties. The problem is the two-party system that normally results from the FPTP election system because:
1) it polarizes politics and society and makes it impossible to arrive at a cross-party national consensus
2) it suppresses new political movements and generates anti-establishment currents that enter politics via the backdoor (Tory backbenchers in this case) from one day to the other without having had the opportunity to adjust to the practical business of politics (that's why the Brexitters didn't have a plan).
So. according to you @Hindsite , anyone who is a[…]
Yes. However, climate change was originally intro[…]
Earth/humans were anti-money, but not all aliens w[…]
Communist China refuses to pay the imperial bonds[…]