prawnsambo wrote: » I was reminded about that whilst reading those posts. It was (and is) such a sharp insight into British government; both permanent and elected.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well? Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely? Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing — set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch... The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Strazdas wrote: » Most people in EU states blame their own governments for the country's problems. A quite bizarre situation has developed in the UK where the population are blaming the EU for Britain's problems (even obviously idiotic ideas such as the EU is the cause of non-EU immigration).
murphaph wrote: » ALL European countries have been "at odds" (literally at war) with their neighbours for centuries. That's why most have the common sense to see the benefit of the EU!
Danzy wrote: » More that the same things that drive Brexit exist in other countries and the same response is applied.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » the Brexit virus seems to be spreading to the EU. having infected UK politics, i hope the EU has the resilience to deal with this contagion and that they can contain it.
correct horse battery staple wrote: » I hope the EU don't offer an extension until minutes before deadline, this would wreck UK markets and provide the much needed taste of no deal Brexit to Johnson
Field east wrote: » The opposition had the means to counteract thes e statements but choose not to do so. Maybe it’s a cultural thing or did the uK run out of time to analyze what was being said.
robinph wrote: » It is a severely twisted logic that pushes the idea of having a referendum to confirm that this deal is what people want would somehow be anti democratic. The media is at fault for allowing those idiotic statements to be given such prominence.
murphaph wrote: » Nobody is fighting any battles here. It's a discussion forum so we are discussing it. We all know it's a UK matter.
hotmail.com wrote: » You're fighting 2016 battles.. The Brits want out even if it is going to harm their living standards. People in Ireland will have to accept it. It's not us leaving the EU after all. This is why a managed exit is what is best for the Irish government and the Irish people.
Sam Russell wrote: » 'Getting Brexit done!' is a nonsense in terms of passing the current deal and it is all over. It is just a basic lie. The 'deal' is only the withdrawal agreement (WA) and leads onto the next step - a future relationship agreement - a trade agreement.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Arch Brexiteer Peter Bone agrees wholeheartedly that there should be a second referendum. He says it should have Johnson's Deal or No Deal on the ballot paper.
Sam Russell wrote: » I assume the question would be along the lines of: 'Do you wish to shoot yourself in - 1: The head? 2: The foot? Please select one or the other.
Sam Russell wrote: » Well, yes, but the point being made is that they do not know, nor understand, what it is that this 'Europe' is that they wish to be out of - is it the EU, the ECJ, the CU, the SM, 'Brussels' and its undemocratic bureaucrats (although they have no trouble with their own 'loyal Civil Servants'), or indeed the ECHR that insist on those troublesome requirements to treat others humanely. The fact that the vast majority of voters had little understanding of how the EU actually works, and what parts of political life comes under the EU competency, goes to prove that an uniformed electorate should never be asked such a far reaching question. A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).
Sam Russell wrote: » A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).
hotmail.com wrote: » I'm not disagreeing with you. But this isn't the way a large chunk of Britons see it. They want to be out of the European Union even if their position is hypocritical or contradictory. The Irish government has accepted this position and are trying to move on.
CelticRambler wrote: » In the two posts above, we have the perfect explanation of why Brexit is a mess: The Brits most certainly do not want out of Europe. Their problem is they - and posters who argue this point - is that there is no single definition of what the "Europe" is that they want out of. To take a very recent example: Thomas Cook. Tens of thousands of Brits were quite happy to spend their GBPs on airlines benefiting from EASA regulation of their aircraft, flying through European Air Traffic Control, benefiting from EU-directed consumer protection regulation, to visit another EU country, visa-free, where they could use their mobile phones under EU-directed "at home" tariffs, protected by at least an EHIC in case of injury, but possibly also travel insurance subject to the same guarantees in "Europe" as GB, and eating food prepared in catering establishments that had been certified safe according to the same standards as any eatery in their local High Street. If they were unfortunate enough to be the victim of crime, they could have counted on the mutual recognition of security protocols and legal decisions. And at the end of their trip, they were free to bring back to the UK just about anything they'd bought, borrowed or found without fear of prosecution. Which part of all that so angers the British that they want to trash their relationship with 27 other countries on the European continent? It is utterly pointless arguing in favour of anything Brexity on the grounds that "the people voted to leave" until you've answered the question "Leave what?" ... and if there's even one Leaver who says "this is not what I voted for in 2016" then it calls into question the whole vote.
robinph wrote: » That is true of the print media certainly. The bias is less clear from the TV media, as shown by both sides being convinced that they are biased against them.
