Panrich wrote: » This is very funnyhttps://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1086264773149380608
Seabourne Freight shares the same registered Address, 59 Mansell Street, as the Maritime Law firm Campbell Johnson Clark whose Director is called Mark Bamford, ...Sir Antony Bamford of JCB is a huge Tory party donor, his brother is called Mark
FreudianSlippers wrote: » I doubt that the DUP would go for it, but if N.I. became an independent nation and was allowed to remain in the EU, they could also remain in the commonwealth and have a trade deal with Great Britain - problem solved? (I mean obviously not, but just spit-balling)
Adamcp898 wrote: » You're advocating the merging of NI with the RoI against the current unionist majority. Hardly anything as noble as respecting the "consent of the NI electorate".
Adamcp898 wrote: » I think you're making the assumption though that enough people want to be a member of the EU more than they want to be a member of the United Kingdom. An assumption that I'd be very wary of given how quickly we've watched the North become polarised again in the past two years after years and years of slowly moving towards a middle ground.
demfad wrote: » I am not suggesting there should be a poll. Just to point out that if a border poll succeeds it would by definition mean that only a minority wanted to maintain the Union with GB. In other words there cannot be a UI under the GFA against a Unionist majority.
demfad wrote: » I am not suggesting there should be a poll. Just to point out that if a border poll succeeds it would by definition mean that only a minority wanted to maintain the Union with GB. In other words there cannot be a UI under the GFA against a Unionist majority. If you mean a "Protestant" majority or that ethnic group then that's different. My own view is that a border poll would be best instigated when a significant minority of the pro-UI vote are likely to be from this group. Looking for a "majority" of this group as a threshold would only encourage the DUP to continue sectarian politics knowing it only needs to keep it's "own" in tow. The best argument for keeping NI should be that Citizens have a better life there. The recent referendums in the ROI have no doubt caused cracks in support for the DUP. They cannot rely on National loyalty when many Liberal Protestants may have so much more in common with the social realities down south. If half of Protestants are required to vote for a UI the DUP can keep enough through fear. If only a significant minority are needed then you will see a liberalising NI needed to preserve the Union. That can't be bad?
Infini wrote: » 56% of NI voted to remain. Id's say that's more than assumption you know.
Adamcp898 wrote: » No, you're assuming that the 56% also would choose being a member of the EU over being part of the UK. That's the dangerous assumption to make.
Adamcp898 wrote: » But you're right, some of the seasons you listed above are exactly the reason why there should never be a border poll simply because the perceived nationalist majority ticks over to 51%, something which the same poster is advocating above. It would only serve to further polarise a highly polarisable situation.
Infini wrote: » The problem is that the British Government should have thought of this before pursuing such a reckless and stupid Brexit agenda to begin with though. The only way this whole issue gets put back in hibernation is the total abandonment of Brexit as this is the whole reason this problem was caused to begin with.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » As an aside, Isabel Oakeshott ghostwote Arron Banks' Bad Boys of Brexit. It's rather terrifying that residents of a post-industrial city like Derby would be so fervent about the prospects of a no-deal Brexit. They seem to genuinely think that the disaster capitalists are concerned with their well-being.
Gintonious wrote: » They were almost frothing at the mouth at the idea of a No-Deal. Honestly, the only reason I can think that they would want this, is because they don't know EXACTLY what it will do to them. QT in a few months will be a really fascinating watch.
For all of this is the afterlife of dead things. One of them is Brexit itself. When did Brextinction occur? On 24 June 2016. The project was driven by decades of camped-up mendacity about the tyranny of the EU, and sold in the referendum as a fantasy of national liberation. It simply could not survive contact with reality. It died the moment it became real. You cannot free yourself from imaginary oppression. Even if May were a political genius – and let us concede that she is not – Brexit was always going to come down to a choice between two evils: the heroic but catastrophic failure of crashing out; or the unheroic but less damaging failure of swapping first-class for second-class EU membership. These are the real afterlives of a departed reverie. If the choice between shooting oneself in the head or in the foot is the answer to Britain’s long-term problems, surely the wrong question is being asked. It is becoming ever clearer that Brexit is not about its ostensible subject: Britain’s relationship with the EU. The very word Brexit contains a literally unspoken truth. It does not include or even allude to Europe. It is British exit that is the point, not what it is exiting from. The tautologous slogan Leave Means Leave is similarly (if unintentionally) honest: the meaning is in the leaving, not in what is being left or how..... It may seem strange to call this slow collapse invisible since so much of it is obvious: the deep uncertainties about the union after the Good Friday agreement of 1998 and the establishment of the Scottish parliament the following year; the consequent rise of English nationalism; the profound regional inequalities within England itself; the generational divergence of values and aspirations; the undermining of the welfare state and its promise of shared citizenship; the contempt for the poor and vulnerable expressed through austerity; the rise of a sensationally self-indulgent and clownish ruling class. But the collective effects of these interrelated developments do seem to have been barely visible within the political mainstream until David Cameron accidentally took the lid off by calling a referendum and asking people to endorse the status quo.
Gintonious wrote: » This is Monty Python scale stuff, listen to the cheer at around the 3 min remark when the blonde one says that May should walk away. Or the guy at the 2 min mark who thinks No Deal scare the EU into coming back to the table...
mrbrianj wrote: » You'd have to laugh at the 'German cars' line - do they realise that the UK sell just as many back into the EU? They wont listen to their own car manufacturers so why should Merkel listen to hers?
demfad wrote: » She was also aware of Banks having multiple meetings with the Russian ambassador to the UK and not one meeting as the book maintained. Withholding this information was extremely helpful to Banks and anyone else in this group (Wigmore, Farage) who may have been acting the maggot with Russians/US billionaires to deliver Brexit.
Havockk wrote: » How do you see that playing out? Once the realisation hits?
VinLieger wrote: » Hurrache wrote: » May and her ministers apparently are set to block Bercow's peerage, the first time in 230 years, as a punishment for what they see as his bias during the Brexit debate. How incredibly petty of them
Hurrache wrote: » May and her ministers apparently are set to block Bercow's peerage, the first time in 230 years, as a punishment for what they see as his bias during the Brexit debate.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Russman wrote: » True, but I think most MPs don't want to leave at all but are terrified to say it for fear of their seats and being seen to "go against the people". Which is exactly why Norway is perfect. It is technically Brexit - they leave the EU, but it does the least damage possible.
Russman wrote: » True, but I think most MPs don't want to leave at all but are terrified to say it for fear of their seats and being seen to "go against the people".
Adamcp898 wrote: » This is what you said: Then this: You're advocating the merging of NI with the RoI against the current unionist majority. Hardly anything as noble as respecting the "consent of the NI electorate". And I haven't expressed any opinion other than that it's generally a bad idea to force anything on anyone, something which I thought would be fairly obvious, so I'm not sure what I'm meant to be "not okay" with either. Emphasis mine.
No. The problem (not the only, just the major one) with what you've just outlined is that it would be an extremely antagonistic way to try and force a United Ireland and could lead to huge amount of unrest and violence.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The working classes suffer more, those who are mobile amongst whom I am sufficiently fortunate to count myself by virtue of my being Irish will leave the country in larger numbers than at present while the Jacob Rees-Moggs of the country enrich themselves with Project Singapore-on-Thames. All the while the media will be desperately looking for scapegoats. If people equate Brexit with greater sovereignty, Murdoch, Desmond, the Barclays and Rothermere might find their margins taking a hit.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Which is exactly why Norway is perfect. It is technically Brexit - they leave the EU, but it does the least damage possible.
