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.
Douglas Thoughtless Headache wrote: » Zzzz, yes, both democratic, so then respect the decision maybe? The actual question was regarding the time periods for difference election classifications and ultimately scales of mass significance.By your logic, every country in the EU should have a membership ref vote roughly every 2yrs. Messy times I forsee, sure you'd wreck the place. Not being funny, but maybe have a nice cup of coco and a rest, else get to work on the (now overdue) 2014 Scotish Inde Ref, thanks kindly.
MarkHenderson wrote: » Getting so bored of this now. The people have voted for Brexit. Just get on with it. What an absolute disaster May has been.
MarkHenderson wrote: » Getting so bored of this now. The people have voted for Brexit. Just get on with it.
tipp_tipp_tipp wrote: » JRM mentioned the head of the WTO stated there would not necessarily need to be hard border with NI in the event of a no deal. Tried googling this but couldn't find a link to it.
tipp_tipp_tipp wrote: » Was watching the debate on channel 4 there, JRM mentioned the head of the WTO stated there would not necessarily need to be hard border with NI in the event of a no deal. Tried googling this but couldn't find a link to it. Can anyone clarify what he was referring to? Apologies if this has been covered already.
trellheim wrote: » Paddy power offering a decent 9:1 odds on Euro/Sterling being 1:1 before the end of the year and I am grinning while I write this a 5:6 odds of rejoining the EU by 2027https://www.paddypower.com/politics that 1:1 eq looks nice tho
hill16bhoy wrote: » What you very much are saying is that the result of a referendum should never be revisited
Douglas Thoughtless Headache wrote: » More lies, never said such a thing. There may well be another one (to rejoin) after a significant, or reasonable period of time has passed. If the UK can't survive and thrive on it's own, they can always seek to return. How long would their test period be, it's hard to say, likely would need to be at least 4-6yrs, I.e. a reasonable span of time to see of they can trade with the rest of the world. All they have to do is ask to come back, after the dust settles. Any update on the Scottish Inde Ref you're working on? It's been over 4yrs now, 4 long years.
Douglas Thoughtless Headache wrote: » There may well be another one (to rejoin) after a significant, or reasonable period of time has passed. If the UK can't survive and thrive on it's own, they can always seek to return. How long would their test period be, it's hard to say, likely would need to be at least 4-6yrs, I.e. a reasonable span of time to see of they can trade with the rest of the world. All they have to do is ask to come back, after the dust settles.
hill16bhoy wrote: » No. I didn't say the bolded bit at all, and the only reason you'd claim such is because you can't debate honestly. What you very much are saying is that the result of a referendum should never be revisited, even if it's obvious that the consequences of that result will be disastrous and polls show a change in opinion (which they do). That's fundamentally undemocratic. Anyway, none other than Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage were saying before the 2016 referendum that there could and should be a second referendum. The second referendum started out as a concept of the Leave campaign. Why the change of heart?!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3rX4nJ0snchttps://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017
judeboy101 wrote: » TM is looking to get the EU to agree to a legally binding clause to never use the backstop. Isn't that like saying "I have car insurance, but I'm never allowed to claim off it?"
Bambi wrote: » Right so, if and when there's a successful border poll, you're going to be supporting the inevitable calls that will emanate from the DUP to rerun it? Just on democratic principles alone.
john9876 wrote: » Tuxy, your link isn't working.
hill16bhoy wrote: » I wouldn't support holding a border poll in the first place unless opinion polls consistently showed 55% or more in favour of it, because the consequences of a 51-49 unification vote would likely be appalling and lead to a return to bloodshed. Peace is much more important to me than a united Ireland. However a successful unification vote of 55% or more would likely be much easier to implement than Brexit. A united Ireland is a more workable outcome on a legal level. It's not difficult to understand. The process of countries unifying (and splitting up) has already happened successfully in modern Europe. Brexit has proved to be an unworkable project. Leavers can't agree on what they want because they voted for an abstract fantasy in a referendum which was all about abstract fantasy. One version of Brexit has effectively been delivered and rejected. There are only two other versions of it that are feasibly available - Norway, which looks likely to be a no go, and no deal, which is a catastrophe which nobody voted for. An abstract fantasy is not a basis for going forward. The situation has now changed to one where a second referendum with defined, properly explained choices is by far the most sensible and logical proposition.
Strazdas wrote: » MEP on Ch.4 News tonight pointed out that if Britain went for No Deal, it would mean it was tearing up the GFA and effectively becoming a rogue state.I'm not sure that the Brexiteers realise (or care maybe) just how much they are trashing their country's reputation.
lawred2 wrote: » Who is this lad on Claire Byrne? An absolute loon..
briany wrote: » https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1072190546863669248
LeinsterDub wrote: » https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/10/day-of-brexit-drama-ends-with-mp-grabbing-the-ceremonial-mace The pantomime continues. I mean there are some who are more outraged about this than the actual brexit farce.
