nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Rhineshark

kuro68k wrote: »

The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.

1. The EU
2. Remainers
3. Ireland
4. Corbyn

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Professor Moriarty

Infini wrote: »

In fairness its not worth throwing the whole country under the bus because of the pig ignorant stupidity of a certain amount of people. However it does show that the UK if they manage to dodge this bullet NEEDS heavy reform of its political structures.

Well, I'm looking at it from an Ireland/EU perspective. There isn't time for such reform as it would take years. Plus they are throwing themselves under the bus. If they don't do it now they will do it sometime in the future. In the interim they will continue to crap all over the EU. A long amicable separation, where Ireland isn't damaged too much, is probably best now.

keane2097

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. The EU cannot allow the UK to be better off outside the EU. Nothing personal, the UK must be an example pour encourager les autres. It's a crucial existential matter for the EU project.

It's not really 'can't allow them to be better off', it's more 'can't allow them the perks of the club out of the club'.

I mean, if it turned out a random EU country would be way better off out of the EU for some particular reason I wouldn't expect the EU to try and **** them over on the way out to make them worse off.

It just happens to be the case that without the perks of being a member the UK will be much worse off. The EU isn't doing anything particularly unnecessary to make it worse for them.

Professor Moriarty

keane2097 wrote: »

It's not really 'can't allow them to be better off', it's more 'can't allow them the perks of the club out of the club'.

I mean, if it turned out a random EU country would be way better off out of the EU for some particular reason I wouldn't expect the EU to try and **** them over on the way out to make them worse off.

It just happens to be the case that without the perks of being a member the UK will be much worse off. The EU isn't doing anything particularly unnecessary to make it worse for them.

I would encourage the EU to make it as difficult as possible. Two reasons. As an example to others and to wound them as much as possible without inflicting economic self-harm. If the opportunity presents itself, you should wound a competitor.

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I would encourage the EU to make it as difficult as possible. Two reasons. As an example to others and to wound them as much as possible without inflicting economic self-harm. If the opportunity presents itself, you should wound a competitor.

That's the same mentality that feeds religious fundamentalism. Fortunately, the EU does not engage in such nonsense.

RobMc59

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsTech/status/1068636806017662977

I'm re-watching the West Wing and they refer to dumping the bad news stories that aren't a big deal as dumping the garbage. This is what happening here. Remember when losing access to the Galileo project either wouldn't happen or would be such a outrage the it would be an international incident. Well now they are adopting the bender (of Futurama fame) attitude we'll build our own satellites and rockets with black jack and hookers

The minister for science resignation is another nail in the coffin for the TM deal-she's digging a massive hole for herself which she's not going to be able to get out of-but she showed how out of touch she was when she called the last GE which resulted in humiliation for her.

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

That's the same mentality that feeds religious fundamentalism. Fortunately, the EU does not engage in such nonsense.

So making business difficult for a competitor equates to religious fundamentalism? You'll have to explain that.

I think it's naive in the extreme to think that the EU will treat the UK in any way other than in a clinical manner that puts the needs of the EU first and foremost.

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I would encourage the EU to make it as difficult as possible. Two reasons. As an example to others and to wound them as much as possible without inflicting economic self-harm. If the opportunity presents itself, you should wound a competitor.

I think this would be an ultimately dangerous approach. It would encourage the UK (in this instance) to agitate behind the scenes and suggest to Spain/Italy/Poland or whoever that the EU is not in their best interest and why don't they break free and join some new alliance.

I think the stability in Europe in terms of armed conflict has been positively influenced by the EU (albeit not removed completely) I don't think it is draconian to suggest that more acrimony and division could encourage some to consider flexing their muscle.

Since humans arrived there has been armed conflict, given the greater technology now available in that area, encouragement of it should be avoided at all costs.

I do know there are still many cases of EU countries partaking in military actions (particularly in the middle east) but forgive me for thinking that is not an excuse to say it has to happen more locally.

Did anyone think in 1918 that there would be another more destructive world war in their lifetime?

Angela Merkel made a very valid point when she said that we will know have we truly learned the lessons from the last World War when all those that existed during it have passed. It's in our nature to be aggressive, unity needs to be encouraged to temper this trait.

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So making business difficult for a competitor equates to religious fundamentalism? You'll have to explain that.

I think it's naive in the extreme to think that the EU will treat the UK in any way other than in a clinical manner that puts the needs of the EU first and foremost.

I agree that the EU will put the needs of the EU first but I hope that they continue to have a somewhat conciliatory tone such as the words from Tusk, Barnier and Juncker in the last weeks suggesting that this is a moment of sadness. Not "good riddance to the Brits".

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

I agree that the EU will put the needs of the EU first but I hope that they continue to have a somewhat conciliatory tone such as the words from Tusk, Barnier and Juncker in the last weeks suggesting that this is a moment of sadness. Not "good riddance to the Brits".

Absolutely. All good friends and jolly good company. However, once they leave, Britain will compete with the EU. You only have to glance at the attitude of the their press over the past twenty years to know that the vilification of the EU will intensify. Being nice to the UK hasn't worked out that well so far. It's not in the EU's interest to make an enemy of the UK but operating on the basis of sentiment would be self-defeating. Without damaging itself, the EU should seize every opportunity to take business from the UK. It's already happening anyway.

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

I think this would be an ultimately dangerous approach. It would encourage the UK (in this instance) to agitate behind the scenes and suggest to Spain/Italy/Poland or whoever that the EU is not in their best interest and why don't they break free and join some new alliance.

I think the stability in Europe in terms of armed conflict has been positively influenced by the EU (albeit not removed completely) I don't think it is draconian to suggest that more acrimony and division could encourage some to consider flexing their muscle.

Since humans arrived there has been armed conflict, given the greater technology now available in that area, encouragement of it should be avoided at all costs.

I do know there are still many cases of EU countries partaking in military actions (particularly in the middle east) but forgive me for thinking that is not an excuse to say it has to happen more locally.

Did anyone think in 1918 that there would be another more destructive world war in their lifetime?

Angela Merkel made a very valid point when she said that we will know have we truly learned the lessons from the last World War when all those that existed during it have passed. It's in our nature to be aggressive, unity needs to be encouraged to temper this trait.

I'm not suggesting that the EU goes to war with the UK or that they punish Britain unnecessarily. Nor would I suggest destabilising the country. All of those actions would be self-defeating. Brexit should be seen by the EU as the existential threat that it is and also as an opportunity to hamstring a competitor wherever it is in their interest.

20silkcut

Tell me how wrote: »

I think this would be an ultimately dangerous approach. It would encourage the UK (in this instance) to agitate behind the scenes and suggest to Spain/Italy/Poland or whoever that the EU is not in their best interest and why don't they break free and join some new alliance.

I think the stability in Europe in terms of armed conflict has been positively influenced by the EU (albeit not removed completely) I don't think it is draconian to suggest that more acrimony and division could encourage some to consider flexing their muscle.

Since humans arrived there has been armed conflict, given the greater technology now available in that area, encouragement of it should be avoided at all costs.

I do know there are still many cases of EU countries partaking in military actions (particularly in the middle east) but forgive me for thinking that is not an excuse to say it has to happen more locally.

Did anyone think in 1918 that there would be another more destructive world war in their lifetime?

Angela Merkel made a very valid point when she said that we will know have we truly learned the lessons from the last World War when all those that existed during it have passed. It's in our nature to be aggressive, unity needs to be encouraged to temper this trait.

It is incredible and a dire reflection on the English education system that so many people over there to this day chalk down World War Two as a great victory and for it to continue to fuel such a sense of entitlement .

Tell me how

20silkcut wrote: »

It is incredible and a dire reflection on the English education system that so many people over there to this day chalk down World War Two as a great victory and for it to continue to fuel such a sense of entitlement .

Agree.
Also, as an aside, one of the reasons why I am glad the decision in Ireland to not make History be mandatory for the junior cert is being reviewed.

Strazdas

Dr North over at the eureferendum website seems to have completely lost the plot, predicting that Brexiteers will turn to terrorism and civil war if Brexit is not implemented

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the EU goes to war with the UK or that they punish Britain unnecessarily. Nor would I suggest destabilising the country. All of those actions would be self-defeating. Brexit should be seen by the EU as the existential threat that it is and also as an opportunity to hamstring a competitor wherever it is in their interest.

I do agree the EU has to be steadfast in competing for its interests. I would hope that even so, after the UK leaves that the tone would continue to be one of being open to them returning at a later date.

If they leave, this will not happen for a generation I suspect but I hope it does eventually.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

Dr North over at the eureferendum website seems to have completely lost the plot, predicting that Brexiteers will turn to terrorism and civil war if Brexit is not implemented

Jacob will simply retire to his villa on the Riviera.

Strazdas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Jacob will simply retire to his villa on the Riviera.

I suspect the idea is totally overblown anyway. When you look at the demographics, it makes the idea of civil war seem very unlikely. Yes, support for Leave was strongest in working class communities in the north of England etc but the vast bulk of that support came from the over 55s and over 65s.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

I suspect the idea is totally overblown anyway. When you look at the demographics, it makes the idea of civil war seem very unlikely. Yes, support for Leave was strongest in working class communities in the north of England etc but the vast bulk of that support came from the over 55s and over 65s.

Completely overblown. Despite FPTP Britain, with the exception of NI, remains a democratic and stable society. I do think that much of the UK's eurosceptism will wash out through the generations but that will take, well, generations.

Tell me how

Strazdas wrote: »

I suspect the idea is totally overblown anyway. When you look at the demographics, it makes the idea of civil war seem very unlikely. Yes, support for Leave was strongest in working class communities in the north of England etc but the vast bulk of that support came from the over 55s and over 65s.

Virtually nonexistent threat at this point I suspect given that all major parties support upholding the democratic vote of the referendum.
But, there may be some fringe activists such as Tommy Robinson and his ilk who try to instigate some form of anarchy.

But, while there might be a non-existent threat at this point, the impact of Brexit on UK society has the potential to promote a much more agitated and divisive society.

(As an aside, if you asked me to predict whether the US or UK is closer to civil war, I'd go with the former given the influence of gun culture and the NRA to manipulate.)

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Jacob will simply retire to his villa on the Riviera.

Exactly.

I suspect that after Brexit is secured that Farage and JRM could fade out of public life having achieved their lifes focus, the re-ignition of the British Empire. They will leave it to others to actually implement it.

briany

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Completely overblown. Despite FPTP Britain, with the exception of NI, remains a democratic and stable society. I do think that much of the UK's eurosceptism will wash out through the generations but that will take, well, generations.

Surely the level of Euro-scepticism in subsequent generations of UK citizens will depend on what form the EU takes in coming years.

There has long been this idea that as the older generations die off, the younger generations with their more liberal, progressive ideas will make their society a more liberal and progressive place, but what seems to happen in actuality is that the younger people just become more conservative and traditional, what they would call 'sensible', as they age.

But more than that, it seems like Euro-scepticism is a thread long-woven into the British psyche. I don't know if it's something that'll simply wash out.

PopePalpatine

Strazdas wrote: »

Dr North over at the eureferendum website seems to have completely lost the plot, predicting that Brexiteers will turn to terrorism and civil war if Brexit is not implemented

In fairness, all it takes is some incel manchild to steal a parent's car and drive into some pedestrians.

Professor Moriarty

briany wrote: »

Surely the level of Euro-scepticism in subsequent generations of UK citizens will depend on what form the EU takes in coming years.

There has long been this idea that as the older generations die off, the younger generations with their more liberal, progressive ideas will make their society a more liberal and progressive place, but what seems to happen in actuality is that the younger people just become more conservative and traditional, what they would call 'sensible', as they age.

But more than that, it seems like Euro-scepticism is a thread long-woven into the British psyche. I don't know if it's something that'll simply wash out.

That's possible but I do think that younger generations are more exposed to alternative viewpoints than older generations. I would imagine that the readerships of The Telegraph and The Express, for example, are mostly over 50. I don't think that many younger people are reading them or will do so in the future.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I would encourage the EU to make it as difficult as possible. Two reasons. As an example to others and to wound them as much as possible without inflicting economic self-harm. If the opportunity presents itself, you should wound a competitor.

The UK will be an important trading partner. Impoverishing them will make the EU poorer too.

Strazdas

briany wrote: »

Surely the level of Euro-scepticism in subsequent generations of UK citizens will depend on what form the EU takes in coming years.

There has long been this idea that as the older generations die off, the younger generations with their more liberal, progressive ideas will make their society a more liberal and progressive place, but what seems to happen in actuality is that the younger people just become more conservative and traditional, what they would call 'sensible', as they age.

But more than that, it seems like Euro-scepticism is a thread long-woven into the British psyche. I don't know if it's something that'll simply wash out.

It depends what you mean by Euroscepticism. In the broadest sense, it probably long predates their membership of the EEC - in that case, it is more they and their hang ups that are the problem rather than the institution of the EU.

Tell me how

Strazdas wrote: »

It depends what you mean by Euroscepticism. In the broadest sense, it probably long predates their membership of the EEC - in that case, it is more they and their hang ups that are the problem rather than the institution of the EU.

I think this is because those alive pre 1973 had very strong memories of WW2 and so a lot communicated distrust to their offspring, those that are in power now.

In 20 years time, those in power are more likely to have grown up in a period where there was largely positive experiences of being members of the union.

Unless, bitterness, acrimony and conflict are the key traits of future interactions.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK will be an important trading partner. Impoverishing them will make the EU poorer too.

Indeed, which is why not inflicting self-harm would be important. An example of what I'm talking about is the Gallileo row. The EU naturally intends to kick the UK out and is refusing to refund funds that Britain contributed. Nothing personal, just business. As a prime example of how many in Britain view the EU, here is The Sun's comment on the matter:

"THE EU’s repugnant arrogance in excluding us from the Galileo security satellite should open even Remainers’ eyes. Brussels is prepared to endanger millions to teach Brexit Britain a lesson.Last year there was outrage at the merest hint of us using our security strength as a bargaining chip, even as the Government ruled it out.German-backed EU bureaucrats are doing far worse.So be it. We are Europe’s main security power. They have much to lose.Theresa May is demanding back the £1billion we put into this system.But that is chicken feed next to our £39billion divorce bill. She must insist not a penny is paid until we are reinstated in Galileo and a trade deal is signed.We were naive to imagine Brussels would be a friendly partner after Brexit.Its powerful bureaucrats are now nakedly and dangerously hostile."

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed, which is why not inflicting self-harm would be important. An example of what I'm talking about is the Gallileo row. The EU naturally intends to kick the UK out and is refusing to refund funds that Britain contributed. Nothing personal, just business. As a prime example of how many in Britain view the EU, here is The Sun's comment on the matter:

"THE EU’s repugnant arrogance in excluding us from the Galileo security satellite should open even Remainers’ eyes. Brussels is prepared to endanger millions to teach Brexit Britain a lesson.Last year there was outrage at the merest hint of us using our security strength as a bargaining chip, even as the Government ruled it out.German-backed EU bureaucrats are doing far worse.So be it. We are Europe’s main security power. They have much to lose.Theresa May is demanding back the £1billion we put into this system.But that is chicken feed next to our £39billion divorce bill. She must insist not a penny is paid until we are reinstated in Galileo and a trade deal is signed.We were naive to imagine Brussels would be a friendly partner after Brexit.Its powerful bureaucrats are now nakedly and dangerously hostile."

The most amazing thing about this is that in a world where information is so easily accessed, that many will take the Sun at their word and believe this to be the case.

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

The most amazing thing about this is that in a world where information is so easily accessed, that many will take the Sun at their word and believe this to be the case.

Yes, tripe swallowed whole. You get the same rubbish in The Telegraph and The Express. Of course, there's nothing stopping people not buying these papers but they continue to buy them.

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes, tripe swallowed whole. You get the same rubbish in The Telegraph and The Express. Of course, there's nothing stopping people not buying these papers but they continue to buy them.

The numbers buying all papers are dwindling.

Of course, the propensity for misinformation and manipulation is even greater in digital media so I'm not expecting any moment of uniform awareness any time soon.
I think it is quite dangerous in fact and is likely to get worse as even people who think they are informed don't realise that they are in some form of echo chamber unbeknownst to themselves.

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I would encourage the EU to make it as difficult as possible. Two reasons. As an example to others and to wound them as much as possible without inflicting economic self-harm. If the opportunity presents itself, you should wound a competitor.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So making business difficult for a competitor equates to religious fundamentalism? You'll have to explain that.

Firstly, your use of the phrase "as an example to others" can be interpreted as "our way is the One True Path and if you don't follow it, you should be punished" (as opposed to the simpler, less fundamentalist "you will burn in Hell for your foolish sinfulness" which is what most forecasters are proclaiming).

Secondly, saying the EU should "wound a competitor". That is exactly the same "them vs us" mentality that has the UK (and the US) in its current position, and is neither socially responsible nor economically justified. Sure, there are some businesses that go all out to wound or kill their competition, but the most successful usually engage in a fair fight. That works at a micro level, where local [insert any SME] coordinates or collaborates with their competitors to share days off or sudden, excessive demand or complementary areas of experience, and it works the same at the macro, global level.

The UK is not, and will never be, a competitor to the EU in any sense. It is a sovereign state (contrary to the oft-repeated Brexiteer claims) that has been - until now - part of a socio-economic club with considerable membership benefits.