TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: Should Britain leave the European Union?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES!...Must Brexit!

    20 33.33%
  • NO!...We Must Remain!

    32 53.33%
  • I have no idea what I want, yet I will vote anyway!

    8 13.33%
Page 29 of 40 FirstFirst ... 491419242526272829303132333439 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 725 of 980

Thread: BREXIT --->

  1. #701
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    So why did Labour ask its members to abstain from the vote to hold a second referendum? I don't understand that one.

  2. #702
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    So... if we have three votes, no May, no no-deal, and no second referendum, just by process of elimination that only leaves the EEA option (the Norway model) right?

    Somebody said it's not particularly what anyone wants, but it seems it wreaks the least amount of havoc while still handing the UK a big blue symbolic ribbon it can pin on its lapels "You're an big sovereign country now". All in all not the worst outcome.

  3. #703
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2000
    Location: Portreath Cornwall UK
    Whatever happens the right wing led by JRMog will keep the pressure on for a no deal.exit.
    In fact Jacob is hosting dinners for Boris Johnson with all sorts of people attending. When will he make his move?

  4. #704
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2003
    Location: Cambridgeshire UK
    Someone not happy with Parliament.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Guy Fawkes.JPG 
Views:	1 
Size:	54.7 KB 
ID:	2547

  5. #705
    SShock2.com
    Member

    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: The land of ever sideways rain
    Given how pathetic the situation is now, I doubt a Guy Fawkes style massive terror murder event would help. You may want to kill these incompetent fools, but it's not gonna solve anything, just make it worse on a much grander scale.

  6. #706
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Quote Originally Posted by ffox View Post
    Someone not happy with Parliament.
    Thank you freddy - that was exactly what I needed.

  7. #707
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    What's the current situation on the timetable for Brexit? I remember reading that the UK only has so many weeks left, and if terms aren't decided upon by that point, it's automatically no deal. Is that correct?

  8. #708
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Other than it being a complete mess? Well, now they are going to vote on May's deal for a third time. If that passes, somehow, the UK will start the transition process after a short extension period that's needed to sort out some stuff. If the deal only passes on the condition that it will be ratified by a referendum, there will be a need for a longer extension to organise the referendum.

    If the deal doesn't pass, they'll hold an indicative vote for the MPs to indicate what the hell they actually want. And Corbyn is sure to table a no-confidence vote. In any case, they will need an extension to figure out their options.

    That is, of course, if all of the EU countries agree to the extension (and Farage and buddies have apparently been lobbying some of the more eurosceptic countries to vote against it). If there's no extension, the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal.

  9. #709
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    I read even if they vote in favour of May's plan they'll still need an extension to put it into operation.

    As an aside, I find it kind of funny how May / her side would argue a second referendum isn't respecting democracy, you'd just be doing it until you get the answer you want, at the same time they're insisting that Parliament keep voting on her widely panned plan innumerable times apparently until they get the answer they want.

  10. #710
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    That is funny indeed, though of the 'screaming and banging your head against the wall' type of humour. It's even funnier that a second referendum would be fundamentally different from the first in terms of what exactly is voted about (at least the "Leave" side would have to be more clearly defined, e.g. May's deal or no deal), whereas the differences between May's various plans might as well be that they're the same text printed in different fonts. (Comic Sans, Papyrus, that sort of thing.)

  11. #711
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Landahn
    We all know the current agreement's been written in Wingdings.

  12. #712
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Or indeed:
    We all know the current agreement's been written in, by and for Wingdings.

  13. #713
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    I read even if they vote in favour of May's plan they'll still need an extension to put it into operation.
    Yeah, it's now apparently "physically impossible" to get May's plan through by the 29th.

    Funnily enough, my opinion of May has gone slightly up with this whole debacle. At least she has had more balls than Cameron, even if it's a particularly low bar to pass. And it's not like there are any really good options out there. To let a Tory MP sum it up:



    Also, a BBC article had this nice flowchart:

    Last edited by Starker; 18th Mar 2019 at 23:15.

  14. #714
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    I read the Speaker has now blocked a re-vote on the current deal, and I guess the ball is now in the EU's court. No extension = no deal Brexit, if that's what they really want, which seems unlikely.

    I think this deserves to go back to the people, either in a referendum or new elections. I think May's deal should be put to a referendum, and when it fails, revoke Article 50, step down, and call a new general election. Let the next government have a fresh shot rather than inheriting a crisis and deadline left over from the May government. Of course, that will never happen.

    I would be happy to see the EU members give the UK a more or less indefinite extension, but avoid renegotiation with any UK government whose position isn't backed by a majority, i.e. don't make a new deal unless you are certain the Parliament or people will support it. Using artificial deadlines and brinksmanship is a risky way to decide the future of the EU, and it isn't working.

    Also, I think there's a possibility that the EU could just wait out the current wave of nationalism. Even though the UK voted for Brexit, there is no Brexit option that will pass by majority, and if you put all the options on the table, a plurality would vote to remain. Why force the UK to act when doing nothing keep the status quo that you want?

  15. #715
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    I disagree with a number of things in your post, heywood.

    1) The ball is not just in the EU's court. It's also for May to renegotiate and find a way of substantially changing her deal. She won't find one, but in part that's because of the red lines she's established for herself.

    2) The EU, its countries and the various companies in the EU are also interested in some kind of decision, so they can adapt to it. Not knowing what will happen nor when isn't good for anyone, and the EU is wasting a hell of a lot of time with the UK and the government's shambolic handling of Brexit.

    3) The more the EU acts in ways that allow nationalists to lay all blame at its feet, the longer it'll take for the current wave of nationalism to decrease again. Brexit feeds nationalism in other European countries. While the EU is holding most cards with respect to the actual negotiations, they also have to think of their wider audience.

    4) If there was to be a second referendum (which I very much hope, and I think there's a very strong case for it), it couldn't present Brexit A, Brexit B, Brexit C and Remain as a single vote, because that would (and quite rightly) be seen as making even more of a joke of democracy, which in turn would feed all the anti-EU, anti-government sentiment even more. It'd have to be some kind of two-stage vote, e.g. Leave or Remain --> if Leave, May's deal or no deal? And while I hope that such a vote would end up in favour of Remain, I'm by no means certain that it actually would.

  16. #716
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    I read the Speaker has now blocked a re-vote on the current deal, and I guess the ball is now in the EU's court. No extension = no deal Brexit, if that's what they really want, which seems unlikely.
    I found someone talking about how the various EU nations would like to see Brexit play out:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odgegLM0dHU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dElHvAYoKk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG_jqQojAFM

    No Deal is overall very much not preferred, but some nations seem to be fine with using it as a threat and/or secondary option if the UK government & parliament doesn't get their shit together.

  17. #717
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    If Brexit goes through, kiss the Irish truce goodbye.

  18. #718
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    I agree that a second referendum is warranted, and I agree that it shouldn't be a Chinese dinner menu of multiple options of which none would win a majority. But I don't think it should repeat the simplistic choice of remain or leave either. The "leave" option has to be a real concrete option, otherwise you're repeating the mistake of the first referendum, which offered people the choice between a known quantity (remain) and whatever idealized outcome they could dream up (leave). If there is a second referendum, it shouldn't be an opinion poll, it should be a real choice. It would be better to see May's deal put to a simple up or down popular vote. If it fails, then her government has failed and she steps down and calls new elections.

    One point on which I disagree with many people is over deadlines. I get that a lot of people just want the drama to be over, but setting artificial deadlines for an agreement empowers the hard liners on both sides who want to play the brinksmanship game.

    Europeans who support the EU and are afraid of nationalism shouldn't be so quick to get rid of the UK. I think they may cut off their nose in spite of their face. Some on the EU side seem to be hoping for a hard Brexit after which an independent UK suffers badly, but what if it doesn't? What if a no-deal Brexit happens and the bureaucrats do their jobs and sort out the details such that there is no immediate shock? I'm sure there will be significant long term consequences, but if there's no overnight disaster then Eurosceptics elsewhere will be emboldened and doom sayers will be discredited.

  19. #719
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Maybe it's time the UK experienced ranked-choice voting.

  20. #720
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Pushing a rapid deadline is recipe for disaster. I've been reading up on the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the India-Pakistan partition, and both of them are among the most harrowing and intractable political problems in the world today, and both of them have their direct genesis in a British bureaucrat pushing for a quick deadline to wash their hands of it as soon as possible, hoping the brinkmanship tactic would get everyone to just agree & work everything out, to disastrous consequences.

    I mean, in some sense it'd only be karma for the UK to screw itself over as royally and permanently as it has other countries, but that's really not in anyone's best interest and somebody needs to be an adult in the room to slow things down and do it properly, since this decision will have consequences that will last for a long time.

    Edit: Alright, I mischaracterized the British role in the 1948 Arab-Israel War. Conflict had already broken out from the breakdown of the partition plan, and the UK was basically completely sidelined by the time of their withdrawal and under great domestic political pressure to withdrawal. They might not have had much choice to handle things otherwise. I really don't know the history well enough to say though. In the India-Pakistan Partition case though, according to a lot of sources the sped up deadline wasn't necessary at all and definitely exacerbated the situation.

    Edit2: Does anyone else get sucked into deep wells reading history? We're in the midst of history being made, where people are going to be looking back some day and wondering why these things had to happen, and we have all this past history as fodder to learn from, and still it's like watching a freight train approaching the terminus without hitting the breaks yet, and what can you do to stop it at this point...
    Last edited by demagogue; 20th Mar 2019 at 01:22.

  21. #721
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Concerning the rapid deadline: I think it's fair to tell May & Co to stop dawdling, because so far they've really done a crap job of, well, everything, and going to Brussels with what amounts to pretty much the same proposition repeatedly is just insulting. I think the EU is entitled to saying, and needs to say, that either May comes with some significant changes of some kind or she accepts that it was the UK that triggered Article 50 and they've had two years that they've pissed away. If May brings something new to the table, I expect the EU to agree to a delay, even a longer one. But an indefinite delay in the face of the UK government's endless dawdling isn't really in anyone's interest.

  22. #722
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    If it's put on indefinite hiatus that could be the ideal solution. The UK stays in the EU until either it gets a realistic plan with public support to get out, or it just sits in that position indefinitely while everybody reaps the benefits of continued EU membership and avoids the costs of Brexit without ever having to admit it, or at some point it's years later and all political will for Brexit has evaporated and it's there no real contest to a second referendum to legalize the obvious status quo.

    Sometimes indefinite delays have been the perfect way out of a pickle, like China & Taiwan have got along swimmingly agreeing they are both part of "one China" for the last 50 years, nevermind they never hammered out which "one China" they mean and don't have any intention of ever doing so.

  23. #723
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    ... while everybody reaps the benefits of continued EU membership and avoids the costs of Brexit...
    Brexit has already cost the UK billions, and it continues to do so, even before it's actually happened. Why do you think that this would change with an indefinite extension?

  24. #724
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    Brexit has already cost the UK billions, and it continues to do so, even before it's actually happened. Why do you think that this would change with an indefinite extension?
    Because it fits his narrative?

    That's generally why most of us believe in our own solutions.

  25. #725
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Anyone hoping that the UK suffers badly is a short-sighted idiot. But the potentially disastrous consequences of a sudden no-deal Brexit also cannot be understated. This is one of the reasons why everyone is so exasperated with the UK. Anything that's bad for the UK will be bad for the EU as well, because it's a two-way street.

    And there's good reason to think that the UK has nothing but lose from leaving, deal or no deal. If the UK stays close to EU, it will basically be replicating a crappier version of a pretty sweet deal it already had. If it moves away from the EU, it will lose easy access to one of the biggest marketplaces in the world. In any case, they will move from being the rule-makers to being the rule-takers. Is it "game over" for the UK? Of course not. It's just a matter of disrupting the economy for a while and having to negotiate new deals over the next decades from a diminished position.

    Are there people who have an urge to tell the UK "told you so"? Sure. But I think that has just a little bit to do with the UK's uncharacteristic optimism that leaving will be easy-peasy, that there will be no significant consequences, and that everyone will bend over backwards to cater to the UK, because "they need us more than we need them".

    Anyway, the feeling I get right now from people who work in EU institutions is that there's no sense in giving the UK a short deadline, because it would just mean listening to the UK complain some more until the new deadline runs out. What are they realistically going to figure out in a couple of months that they couldn't in two years, etc.
    Last edited by Starker; 20th Mar 2019 at 07:25.

Page 29 of 40 FirstFirst ... 491419242526272829303132333439 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •