Strazdas wrote: » The former I would say : May is duplicitous and tells lies at the drop of a hat.
Scoondal wrote: » You do not realise that in The Republic of Ireland people have numerous referenda every year. In UK a referendum for the people is rare. So when it happens, the result is very important. UK and ROI are constitutionally different. Again, in a rare public vote in UK ... they voted to leave EU. UK citizens are normal people.
hill16bhoy wrote: » Ireland only holds referendums on constitutional matters and the questions and options are always clearly defined. We don't hold numerous referenda each year. 2018 is an unusual one in that we have had multiple ones but that is by no means the norm. We've never held a non-constitutional referendum. Britain does not have a written constitution and has a system of parliamentary sovereignty - it's parliament that makes the decisions, not the people. That has always been the way. British referendums hold no legal weight. They can only be advisory. But Margaret Thatcher, much as I loathe her overall contribution to British politics, specifically realised the danger referendums could cause there, because they presented the prospect of a hostile, rival decision making system to parliament. This wasn't borne out until the 2016 referendum. The running of the referendum was shambolic, completely the opposite to what happens in Ireland where we are well practiced at running referendums. Disinformation was allowed to completely distort the campaign. Most importantly, one of the options was completely undefined - the Leave option was basically "talking unicorns". The Leave option - what people thought they were voting for, whatever it was, was undeliverable and has proved to be so. Most people who voted Leave were voting for the following: all the benefits of being in the European Union, none of the responsibilities , and a seamless transition to this brave new era of cake. Cake, cake and more cake. "Because we're Great Britain". It was about as deliverable as a referendum which voted to abolish all taxes and simultaneously quadruple public spending. Now, British politics is entrapped in a land of make believe, where they're negotiating with themselves over things which would completely rip up the deal which nobody is happy with, but which the government specifically signed off on. They don't know what they want, but by George they're going to get it, or something. Britain is becoming a rogue state which nobody takes seriously.
Enzokk wrote: » Is there a set time limit that the UK has to wait before they can change their minds on the EU after the referendum? I only ask because the previous referendum on the EU was an overwhelming majority it was 41 before the next referendum. So if a 67% to 33% results in a 41 year wait, how long does a 52% to 48% result mean we have to wait? Also, seems that 17.4m people voted to leave the EU out of a population of 65.6m and 46.5m registered voters and this means you go and don't look back at all. But what does 17.3m people voting to join the EEC out of a population 56.2m and 40m registered voters mean? I don't think those numbers mean anything, it has just been bugging me when it is mentioned that 17.4m people voted to leave the EU as if it is some magical number.
SMRT wrote: » Happy to delete if this is not appropriate. Don't be on Boards often and this seemed a reasonable place for a sanity check before I bite the bullet. From and live in the Republic in a border County. Have been working in the North for 11 years but now have the chance of getting a similar job in the Republic for a slight increase in pay and slightly closer to home. Happy in my current role and company but with Brexit it's a no brainer to ditch the likely sinking sterling and come back to the Euro. Right? My guts saying leave the North if possible but the uncertainty of everything is the killer for me. It's a fairly niche IT role so feel this opportunity won't come up again any time soon.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » One truck can block a motorway for hours.Motorway partially closed for 6 hours after 27 suspected migrants were found in the back of a vehicle
Folkstonian wrote: » How are you linking this to Brexit?
cryptocurrency wrote: » WA without the backstop.
cryptocurrency wrote: » as for being brought to its knees, by whom? The EU?
cryptocurrency wrote: » The reaction to ignoring brexit is more extreme brexiteers in number 10 who will remember their enemies and who tried to bring the nation to its knees. EU tries that then all bets are off. UK and US be well within their right to clip these lads wings big style, maybe even bring some "freedom" their way. Shame there is no oil.
cryptocurrency wrote: » The UK can't remain now
SMRT wrote: » Happy in my current role and company but with Brexit it's a no brainer to ditch the likely sinking sterling and come back to the Euro. Right? My guts saying leave the North if possible but the uncertainty of everything is the killer for me.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » In fact this would be the simplest solution of all - they just withdraw A50. No need for talks or negotiations, they just do it. We will all agree to never speak of Brexit again.
hill16bhoy wrote: » . The running of the referendum was shambolic, completely the opposite to what happens in Ireland where we are well practiced at running referendums. Disinformation was allowed to completely distort the campaign. Most importantly, one of the options was completely undefined - the Leave option was basically "talking unicorns".
kunst nugget wrote: » I don't think that's true at all. We were pretty easily hoodwinked by BS during the first Lisbon referendum.
Bambi wrote: » If a time traveller from 2018 had popped up during the second referendum and told the voters that The Irish Army would be deploying units in some dismal war torn part of North Africa in a non UN role via PESCO (which was a part of the Lisbon Treaty) the treaty would have been shot down again So hardly hoodwinking.
Deleted User wrote: » Just watched Corbyn's speech there. Complete waste of time. The man can't give details. Hoping for something better from the Q&A.
Calina wrote: » Any extension has to be approved by the member states. Not the European Commissioners. It is the 27 governments who would have to be convinced.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » It hasn't been completely agreed. It needs to be ratified by Parliament as well as the governments of the EU27.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Sorry, that's incorrect. It's the European Commission that conducts negotiations and makes recommendations regarding Art 50 to the European Council for implementation; that includes a request for extension. It is certainly the case that the Council must approve and implement the Commission's decision, but it is the Commission that need to agree to an extension.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
john9876 wrote: » But does she want a hard Brexit?
rusty the athlete wrote: » As sickening as it is, the maybot holds all the cards: