Politics Brexit: not inevitable

My policy regarding migrants from Syria would be to accept all female applicants and all children under sixteen. Adult males would have to stay and fight to protect their homeland. Simple I know... but what else is there?

(If Sweden and Germany had tried my approach they would both be more content with their respective conditions.)

But it happened the oposite,
If I was not married i would go there for mariage,
there Women fight and men runaway to Europe,
ΡΙΨΑΣΠΙΔΕΣ,
 
This chit-chat about a new referendum is starting to look like the irish vote of many years ago, when the irish said no to the EU and the EU kept having referendum until they ( the EU ) got their want

As I said, the EU is a Feudal system, where the people do not count , but are simply serfs to their masters!
 
What if Conservative party will decide not to implement conclusion of referendum, not to leave, argumenting that this is not in line with their party vision and policy? They can declare that this matter will be left for next elected government/party to decide.

That would solve nothing LeBrok, it will only suppress the reality. Its been highly debated, the question was straight forward influential institutions warned and advised of consequences. Some 30% did not even bother to place a ballot, 52% said I want to leave confident that they can do better out of the EU and all the warnings are simple scare mongering, so what is the point in keeping them in?. It was easy and clear. In or Out, no tricky questions. There is lots to learn from this. There are always a + out of a negative situation and always some kind of - out of a positive situation. Things just have to take their course. History is full of such situations.
 
I think the next chalenge is FRANCE
if Le pen manage to gather a big % at elections of 2017
she might ask for a referendum to exit EU

I do not believe that Spain and Italy would dare such a thing.
If Brussels (EU, not Belgium) did not act fast in many many subjects, until April 2017,
we might see another exit,
 
That would solve nothing LeBrok, it will only suppress the reality. Its been highly debated, the question was straight forward influential institutions warned and advised of consequences. Some 30% did not even bother to place a ballot, 52% said I want to leave confident that they can do better out of the EU and all the warnings are simple scare mongering, so what is the point in keeping them in?. It was easy and clear. In or Out, no tricky questions. There is lots to learn from this. There are always a + out of a negative situation and always some kind of - out of a positive situation. Things just have to take their course. History is full of such situations.
Wouldn't it be wise for GB to first negotiate new trade deals and people movement deals with other countries before asking for separation from EU? This process is usually long and takes years to accomplish. Conservative party government might chose to "drag their legs" due to this process, thinking that situation and people sentiment might change with time.
 
Wouldn't it be wise for GB to first negotiate new trade deals and people movement deals with other countries before asking for separation from EU? This process is usually long and takes years to accomplish. Conservative party government might chose to "drag their legs" due to this process, thinking that situation and people sentiment might change with time.

Let us face it, the UK already had much more concessions then any other country within the EU. Did not join Euro and neither Schengen, Cameron has won further concessions recently not to further integrate politically and on removing social benefits for migrants who are claiming without having worked. Irrelevant of all this there was still a vote to pull out. My question is why an effort to stay in? I think its fair to say that the UK has been the most difficult country when it comes to conduct EU affairs as in chronic and often insultive (as in Farage who lost no time to pass his point through by right out ridicule and insults while getting paid by the EU institutions) Should there be a limit? Of course I say yes. The only concession I would have with England and Wales (I augur Scotland to join and N. Ireland to join the South) is with programmes that benefit the youths as in Education and Research and exchange programs. Otherwise Out is Out. It was clear all the way. Boris Johnson (who's Great Grand father was Turkish Ali Kemal and the surname changed to Johnson) seems very calm and has to live up to the voters expectations. Now we all wait and see how this is going to happen. Forcing England and Wales to stay in the EU is highly undemocratic. If the conservative government drags its feet indefinitely that it would be one of the greatest disservices ever recorded in British History, because thats not what the English and Welsh voted for. Johnson will be hoping for a Trump win, then it put him in a much better position in negotiations both of them would pull Russia in the Picture ;). Interesting times ahead.
 
On the farcial events of the past days, I have to say this: in the referendum, the United Kingdom did not vote to leave the European Union, but to exit its own union, that is the Union of England and Scotland (1707). At least, that's the most likely result at this point, and buffoons like Nigel Farage are still celebrating this as their victory. In the meantime, rating agencies have downgraded the UK, Gibraltar is discussing about staying with Scotland after its independence, and even Wales is discussing independence (despite the fact that they majorly voted "out").

I have to say, David Cameron now makes the blunders of one Neville Chamberlain look pale in comparison.
 
Yikes, Taranis, you're not usually prone to hyperbole like this. Point by point:

  • They did vote to leave the EU.
  • There will still be the UK without Scotland, and there's nothing wrong with the Scots leaving if they so choose. Just like Brexit, Scottish independence is a workable situation.
  • Current downgrades are due to uncertainty, not due to Brexit itself, since Brexit hasn't even happened yet. The UK could implement long-term policies that make it keep an even more solid hold on a AAA credit rating than they had in the EU. (Although, I admit that I don't necessarily trust them to do this.)
  • Wales has been discussing independence for hundreds of years, let them have their referendum that will probably lose.
  • Cameron's actions allowed the people of his country to determine their sovereign status. Chamberlain's actions--at least according to popular history--allowed Hitler run amok and threaten the sovereignty of other countries without their consent. How is this comparison remotely apt?
 
I think that UK is the first casualty of European Federalism. Migrants Problem is just a side argument. The main argument is the feeling that Bruxelles want to decide for the European Peoples, I heard this argument quite often from Brexit peoples. Euro money leads us to a Federalism system at the end. Federalism is much more coercive than a simple commercial Union of free nations. The European Peoples view it more as a trap. Next, Frexit is getting likely IMO.
 
I agree with Taranis that Brexit will be the end of the UK. There cannot be a United Kingdom without Scotland. The UK was created by the Act of the Union between England and Scotland. England already ruled over Wales and Ireland for many centuries before that, since Norman times, but there was never a United Kingdom before Scotland, just England and its dominions.

Sent from my LG-D620 using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
I heard in the news that there were storms in heavy rain in southern England the day of the referendum and that prevented a lot of pro remain voters from going out and casting their vote. If the weather had been better or the storm had been in Northern England the results of the referendum would have been different. Can you really dismantle a country or leave the EU just because of bad weather?

Sent from my LG-D620 using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
Next, Frexit is getting likely IMO.

I believe they are the second who would dare to do such,

France at spring of 2017,
 
So, votes should be invalidated because "leave" people are made of hardier stuffy than "stay" people, or cared more about the outcome? I've voted in rain storms before, and depending on the part of the country you may have to go out in the middle of a snowstorm as well.

That's the way it goes. It's why you're supposed to energize your base.

One thing I know: all of this hysteria in the press will guarantee at least a short term negative economic impact for Britain. As for Scotland, as I've said before, the smartest move would be to hold their fire and not be hasty; this may be the start of a fire sale for the EU.

That said, some of the stories coming out about Polish migrants being harassed are more than unfortunate. The troglodytes always come out at times like this.
 
I agree with Taranis that Brexit will be the end of the UK. There cannot be a United Kingdom without Scotland. The UK was created by the Act of the Union between England and Scotland. England already ruled over Wales and Ireland for many centuries before that, since Norman times, but there was never a United Kingdom before Scotland, just England and its dominions.

Sent from my LG-D620 using Eupedia Forum mobile app

The history here isn't quite correct. Although "United Kingdom" was sometimes used colloquially after union with Scotland, the official name from 1707-1800 was "Great Britain." "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" became official after official union with Ireland in 1801. Prior to that, Ireland had been a client state of England, not part of the UK. So, if Scotland leaves, the UK will still exist by virtue of England being united with Northern Ireland and Wales (since Wales is now devolved).
 
Last edited:
The history here isn't quite correct. Although "United Kingdom" was sometimes used colloquially after union with Scotland, the official name from 1707-1800 was "Great Britain." "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" became official after official union with Ireland in 1801. Prior to that, Ireland had been a client state of England, not part of the UK. So, if Scotland leaves, the UK will still exist by virtue of England being united with Northern Ireland and Wales (since Wales is now devolved).
Except that Northern Ireland will quit the UK too. They voted to remain in the EU and that's a good opportunity to finally reunify Ireland.

Sent from my LG-D620 using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
Yikes, Taranis, you're not usually prone to hyperbole like this. Point by point:

Sparkey, I have to respectfully say that, although my assessment may come about as sensationalist, I do think my conclusion is indeed well-founded. The reasons are the following:

  • They did vote to leave the EU.

This is true, but what about the implementation? The way I see it, there is no good option here.

  • There will still be the UK without Scotland, and there's nothing wrong with the Scots leaving if they so choose. Just like Brexit, Scottish independence is a workable situation.

As I said, if Scotland leaves the Union, by what token would they still call themselves "United Kingdom"? As Angus Robertson put it earlier, "what really matters is that we live in an outward-looking country, and not a diminished Little Britain." As regards your point of the term "United Kingdom" being used officially only from 1801, if Northern Ireland leaves too (not implausible, given the majority support for remaining in the referendum), then it will literally be only England and Wales. The way I see it, the way Brexit is (not) implemented, the situation is everything but workable.

  • Current downgrades are due to uncertainty, not due to Brexit itself, since Brexit hasn't even happened yet. The UK could implement long-term policies that make it keep an even more solid hold on a AAA credit rating than they had in the EU. (Although, I admit that I don't necessarily trust them to do this.)

I for one do not think that the downgrades are due to uncertainty, or let me say, not only. The real problem is: the United Kingdom literally has no exit strategy (which is one of the reasons they are so hesitant now). One reason is, they did not genuinely think that the referendum would actually result in a 'leave' - even the ardent supporters of the Brexit were genuinely surprised by the outcome. If they had prepared, they would have issued article 50 already. This is why I said the situation is "farcial".

  • Wales has been discussing independence for hundreds of years, let them have their referendum that will probably lose.

This is true, and I for one would agree that the referendum has slim chances of succeeding, but the fact that this even on the table now is in itself alarming.

  • Cameron's actions allowed the people of his country to determine their sovereign status.

The way I see it, Cameron could have forseen that depending on the outcome of the referendum (i.e. Britain as a whole voting in favour of leaving, but Scotland in particular voting unanimously in favour of remaining), the bid for Scottish independence would be back on the table. In my opinion, even risking this is an incredible blunder.

  • Chamberlain's actions--at least according to popular history--allowed Hitler run amok and threaten the sovereignty of other countries without their consent. How is this comparison remotely apt?

The comparison is apt because both David Cameron and Neville Chamberlain gambled hard (with very high stakes) and lost, and resigned afterwards. You can ask yourself, which one is worse? Delaying - at that point (1938-1939) - the inevitable, that is war with Germany. Or destroying a 309 years old union between two countries on the whim of a referendum?
 
I wonder with all these historical dates,
which are very interesting I must say, and show the historical back of UK
I wonder when the ghost of Mary Stuart arise?
before midnight or after?

anyway, I still believe at quick action of article 50 of EU,
and a referendum for Scotland and N Ireland, before it is ended,
Britain will face tremendous changes, and probably will keep her 'colours' but will not be the same,

Anyway I was reading today that Mayor of London is puting more obstacles, asking aytonomy of London,
that will make England a confedarate country,
the demands that London mayor is asking are very dangerous, and might create even civil troubles,
making London an autonomy city inside England,
I smell troubles there,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-their-own-independence-after-brexit-result/


it seems that 1948 symbolical year of colonial policy ending will return to Europe as oposite.
and the lady that stayed at london at WW2 is too old,
and the prince is too young to handlle the inner civilian crisis.


<<A petition asking for Mayor Sadiq Khan to .declare London independent has drawn more than 175,000 signatures "London is an international city, and we want to remain at the heart of Europe," the petition reads. "Mayor Sadiq, wouldn't you prefer to be President Sadiq? Make it happen!">>

so if 'Brittania who rules the w
orld' have lost all its colonies etc etc, loose Scottland or N Ireland which are considered also other nations it can be swallowed, allow hard to do it,
BUT IF ENGLAND LOSES LONDON WILL BE A HISTORICAL DISATER,

just imagine their Queen at her palace.
the queenn of England to be living in a presidential confederate city called London
:confused::confused::unsure::unsure::shocked::shocked: :LOL::LOL: :mad::mad:
 
I wonder with all these historical dates,
which are very interesting I must say, and show the historical back of UK
I wonder when the ghost of Mary Stuart arise?
before midnight or after?

anyway, I still believe at quick action of article 50 of EU,
and a referendum for Scotland and N Ireland, before it is ended,
Britain will face tremendous changes, and probably will keep her 'colours' but will not be the same,

Anyway I was reading today that Mayor of London is puting more obstacles, asking aytonomy of London,
that will make England a confedarate country,
the demands that London mayor is asking are very dangerous, and might create even civil troubles,
making London an autonomy city inside England,
I smell troubles there,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-their-own-independence-after-brexit-result/


it seems that 1948 symbolical year of colonial policy ending will return to Europe as oposite.
and the lady that stayed at london at WW2 is too old,
and the prince is too young to handlle the inner civilian crisis.


<<A petition asking for Mayor Sadiq Khan to .declare London independent has drawn more than 175,000 signatures "London is an international city, and we want to remain at the heart of Europe," the petition reads. "Mayor Sadiq, wouldn't you prefer to be President Sadiq? Make it happen!">>

so if 'Brittania who rules the w
orld' have lost all its colonies etc etc, loose Scottland or N Ireland which are considered also other nations it can be swallowed, allow hard to do it,
BUT IF ENGLAND LOSES LONDON WILL BE A HISTORICAL DISATER,

just imagine their Queen at her palace.
the queenn of England to be living in a presidential confederate city called London
:confused::confused::unsure::unsure::shocked::shocked: :LOL::LOL: :mad::mad:


Those signatures are fake, they found 77000 fake signatures, as hackers claim responsibility for 'prank', another one of those terrorists's plan to destroy Europe.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-...rexit-petition-investigated-for-fraud/7548284
 
Despite the drama, I see a realistic opportunity that the divorce will eventually strengthen both EU and Britain. Berlin and Paris will become more important. Merkel already announced big increase of military budget. Given that Britain already has it's own strong military, the Brexit makes sense somewhat.
But the Brexit drama will go on for yet a couple of months. The risks remain high. Bank crashes might happen for instance, Scotland might secede. The EURO and the arrogance of many leaders in Europe remain problems. Interesting times.
quote-if-britain-must-choose-between-europe-and-the-open-sea-she-must-always-choose-the-open-winston-churchill-126-97-15.jpg
 

Attachments

  • quote-if-britain-must-choose-between-europe-and-the-open-sea-she-must-always-choose-the-open-win.jpg
    quote-if-britain-must-choose-between-europe-and-the-open-sea-she-must-always-choose-the-open-win.jpg
    62 KB · Views: 97

This thread has been viewed 74280 times.

Back
Top