The influence of the EU on Britain.
Comments
-
The nazis were not nationalists in the way we understand it. They were a product of the collapse of the German establishment, a challenge from the working class and the economic crisis and were at best tolerated by traditional nationalists in order to impose order. They had 'Socialist' in their name as well by the wayseth plum said:
I have bolded the bit that I believe needs some proof. It is open to challenge isn't it? Wasn't it German nationalism that led to fascism? There have been plenty of nation states that have been oppressive dictatorships and awful regimes, and a nation state is also probably easier to gain control of and to sour than one that is part of a greater conglomeration.stonemuse said:And if you are still interested, one more.
Globalisation has created oligarchies of financiers, investors and high-skilled professionals that dominate national politics. The EU expands their opportunities and its rules work in their interests. The power they have wielded has been at the expense of the country as a whole. Brexit was a vote against their interests. It was a vote for the nation state, which remains the fundamental unit of democracy, and the best means of managing globalisation in the interests of citizens. And it was a vote born of two concerns. First, a long disquiet at the Napoleonic nature of the EU and its imperial ambitions for “ever closer union”. And second, a distrust that the British governing class would defend the UK’s national integrity inside the EU, or that it would be capable of constructing a more democratic model.
Britain has often been an uncooperative member of the bloc – better to be a co-operative partner. Outside the EU we can sustain a close relationship with our Continental neighbours, and agree a reciprocal trading arrangement. Our commitment to Europe’s defence and our valuing of its culture and science would be undiminished.
The Conservative government has no strategic view of the country’s future. It appears incapable of defending the national interest in the Brexit negotiations, and it has made Britain look weak and incompetent.
In opposition, Labour’s deep rifts are held in abeyance. The party should be 20 points ahead of this hopeless government but the hard left in control mirrors the hard right of the Conservative Party. It is not trustworthy and it is not credible, and the public know it. Neither of the two main party leaderships is fit to govern the country.
Brexit can restore Britain to its major nation status, or it can fulfil the predictions of the declinists and lead us to irrelevance. Nothing is decided. The majority of people do not share the turmoil of the political classes over Brexit. We need national leadership, political resolve, and a strategy for a better country. These are in short supply. The EU cannot provide them for us – only we can do that.
https://google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/11/why-left-should-support-brexit%3famp
In short the nation state is not the fundamental unit of democracy, and the writer of this piece sneaks it in with nothing to justify it.0 -
What about the rest of the article? I think it makes some very good points.seth plum said:Well (Trump aside) we also have the United States of America...that seems to have 'worked' historically.
The original piece did not say 'parliamentary' democracy, but that the nation state is the fundamental unit of democracy.
Zimbabwe is a nation state, but up until now does not seem to have been a fundamental unit of democracy.
The UK is a conglomeration of states isn't it, and existed as such prior to the creation of the EU during the 20th century, although I agree there is also a debate to be had as to whether the UK is actually democratic, or which nuanced version of democracy it is.1 -
You’re not suggesting that the nazis were in any way shape or form “socialist” ?Southbank said:
The nazis were not nationalists in the way we understand it. They were a product of the collapse of the German establishment, a challenge from the working class and the economic crisis and were at best tolerated by traditional nationalists in order to impose order. They had 'Socialist' in their name as well by the wayseth plum said:
I have bolded the bit that I believe needs some proof. It is open to challenge isn't it? Wasn't it German nationalism that led to fascism? There have been plenty of nation states that have been oppressive dictatorships and awful regimes, and a nation state is also probably easier to gain control of and to sour than one that is part of a greater conglomeration.stonemuse said:And if you are still interested, one more.
Globalisation has created oligarchies of financiers, investors and high-skilled professionals that dominate national politics. The EU expands their opportunities and its rules work in their interests. The power they have wielded has been at the expense of the country as a whole. Brexit was a vote against their interests. It was a vote for the nation state, which remains the fundamental unit of democracy, and the best means of managing globalisation in the interests of citizens. And it was a vote born of two concerns. First, a long disquiet at the Napoleonic nature of the EU and its imperial ambitions for “ever closer union”. And second, a distrust that the British governing class would defend the UK’s national integrity inside the EU, or that it would be capable of constructing a more democratic model.
Britain has often been an uncooperative member of the bloc – better to be a co-operative partner. Outside the EU we can sustain a close relationship with our Continental neighbours, and agree a reciprocal trading arrangement. Our commitment to Europe’s defence and our valuing of its culture and science would be undiminished.
The Conservative government has no strategic view of the country’s future. It appears incapable of defending the national interest in the Brexit negotiations, and it has made Britain look weak and incompetent.
In opposition, Labour’s deep rifts are held in abeyance. The party should be 20 points ahead of this hopeless government but the hard left in control mirrors the hard right of the Conservative Party. It is not trustworthy and it is not credible, and the public know it. Neither of the two main party leaderships is fit to govern the country.
Brexit can restore Britain to its major nation status, or it can fulfil the predictions of the declinists and lead us to irrelevance. Nothing is decided. The majority of people do not share the turmoil of the political classes over Brexit. We need national leadership, political resolve, and a strategy for a better country. These are in short supply. The EU cannot provide them for us – only we can do that.
https://google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/11/why-left-should-support-brexit%3famp
In short the nation state is not the fundamental unit of democracy, and the writer of this piece sneaks it in with nothing to justify it.
1 -
The fundamental unit of democracy is the seat, directly voted for by it's constituents. Everything above that is, necessarily, some sort of fudge on the basic principle in order to create a manageable system of government.1
-
-
I believe that is his point. He is saying that they were neither Nationalist nor Socialist in the true sense of either word.ShootersHillGuru said:
You’re not suggesting that the nazis were in any way shape or form “socialist” ?Southbank said:
The nazis were not nationalists in the way we understand it. They were a product of the collapse of the German establishment, a challenge from the working class and the economic crisis and were at best tolerated by traditional nationalists in order to impose order. They had 'Socialist' in their name as well by the wayseth plum said:
I have bolded the bit that I believe needs some proof. It is open to challenge isn't it? Wasn't it German nationalism that led to fascism? There have been plenty of nation states that have been oppressive dictatorships and awful regimes, and a nation state is also probably easier to gain control of and to sour than one that is part of a greater conglomeration.stonemuse said:And if you are still interested, one more.
Globalisation has created oligarchies of financiers, investors and high-skilled professionals that dominate national politics. The EU expands their opportunities and its rules work in their interests. The power they have wielded has been at the expense of the country as a whole. Brexit was a vote against their interests. It was a vote for the nation state, which remains the fundamental unit of democracy, and the best means of managing globalisation in the interests of citizens. And it was a vote born of two concerns. First, a long disquiet at the Napoleonic nature of the EU and its imperial ambitions for “ever closer union”. And second, a distrust that the British governing class would defend the UK’s national integrity inside the EU, or that it would be capable of constructing a more democratic model.
Britain has often been an uncooperative member of the bloc – better to be a co-operative partner. Outside the EU we can sustain a close relationship with our Continental neighbours, and agree a reciprocal trading arrangement. Our commitment to Europe’s defence and our valuing of its culture and science would be undiminished.
The Conservative government has no strategic view of the country’s future. It appears incapable of defending the national interest in the Brexit negotiations, and it has made Britain look weak and incompetent.
In opposition, Labour’s deep rifts are held in abeyance. The party should be 20 points ahead of this hopeless government but the hard left in control mirrors the hard right of the Conservative Party. It is not trustworthy and it is not credible, and the public know it. Neither of the two main party leaderships is fit to govern the country.
Brexit can restore Britain to its major nation status, or it can fulfil the predictions of the declinists and lead us to irrelevance. Nothing is decided. The majority of people do not share the turmoil of the political classes over Brexit. We need national leadership, political resolve, and a strategy for a better country. These are in short supply. The EU cannot provide them for us – only we can do that.
https://google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/11/why-left-should-support-brexit%3famp
In short the nation state is not the fundamental unit of democracy, and the writer of this piece sneaks it in with nothing to justify it.1 -
Bob, why do Gibraltar's gambling laws require access to the single market? I'm sure you're right, I just don't understand why this is the case. Can you explain?bobmunro said:
A hard Brexit would have a huge impact on Gibraltar's economy - most of which currently relies on gambling duty and financial services, both of which require access to the single market.se9addick said:
Most people in the UK forget Gibraltar exists (apart for when it's time for some good old fashioned Falklands style jingoism) let alone have considered what the impact of Brexit might be on the rock.CharltonMadrid said:Has there been any progress on the status of Gibraltar yet? I haven't seen much mention of it all and it is in the best interest of both Spain and the UK to have some clarity. I know Spain are keen to get their hands on it, but they also recognise the importance it has for employment with a huge number of Andaucians travelling over the border for work.
Its tax status and concerns over cigarette smuggling have been the main points of contention rather than any jingoistic reasons, so ultimately it will be practicality that dictates what happens, but it does seem there has been little discussion of the issue.
Rarely contribute to this any more for reasons already stated but still enjoy reading the thread and it provides a lot of insight for us living abroad but still involved with what is happening in the UK. Thanks folks.0 -
Indeed it does, globalisation is a malevolent force, and of course one aspect is that of media globalisation and the attempt to manipulate the thinking of people. We are in a world of being fed up with science and actual facts, which leads media organs like the Sun to end up with Varadker being told to grow up and shut his gob. The Sun being part of a global enterprise of course.stonemuse said:
What about the rest of the article? I think it makes some very good points.seth plum said:Well (Trump aside) we also have the United States of America...that seems to have 'worked' historically.
The original piece did not say 'parliamentary' democracy, but that the nation state is the fundamental unit of democracy.
Zimbabwe is a nation state, but up until now does not seem to have been a fundamental unit of democracy.
The UK is a conglomeration of states isn't it, and existed as such prior to the creation of the EU during the 20th century, although I agree there is also a debate to be had as to whether the UK is actually democratic, or which nuanced version of democracy it is.
The article has an interesting final paragraph:
Brexit can restore Britain to its major nation status, or it can fulfil the predictions of the declinists and lead us to irrelevance. Nothing is decided. The majority of people do not share the turmoil of the political classes over Brexit. We need national leadership, political resolve, and a strategy for a better country. These are in short supply. The EU cannot provide them for us – only we can do that.
Look at the assumptions there. Britain as a 'major nation' means what exactly? Like major when it was a colonial power getting wealthy on the backs of slaves and the poor and creating problems that the world still lives with today like the borders it arbitarialy created around the globe. Or a magnificent Britain that stood alone against the Nazi's in WW2?
What make a country relevant or irrelevant? What does that actually even mean? That as a country Britain created the X-factor and Downton Abbey, or that an individual gave the world the World Wide Web?
And finally this 'strategy for a better country', what does 'better' even mean? Richer? More philanthropic? Welcoming of 'foreigners'?
Such an article kind of reads like it is coherent, but once challenged it is a bunch of emptiness.
For brexit to happen the brexiters ought to tell us how it will happen and be robust enough to stand up to challenge.2 -
Until you ask who are the constituents.randy andy said:The fundamental unit of democracy is the seat, directly voted for by it's constituents. Everything above that is, necessarily, some sort of fudge on the basic principle in order to create a manageable system of government.
Women for example were excluded in comparison to men even as recently as less than 100 years ago.
The voting age has been reduced from 21 to 18 in my lifetime.0 -
Southbank said:
The Brexiters were not nationalists in the way we understand it. They were a product of the collapse of the British establishment, a challenge from the working class and the economic crisis and were at best tolerated by traditional nationalists in order to impose order.seth plum said:
I have bolded the bit that I believe needs some proof. It is open to challenge isn't it? Wasn't it German nationalism that led to fascism? There have been plenty of nation states that have been oppressive dictatorships and awful regimes, and a nation state is also probably easier to gain control of and to sour than one that is part of a greater conglomeration.stonemuse said:And if you are still interested, one more.
Globalisation has created oligarchies of financiers, investors and high-skilled professionals that dominate national politics. The EU expands their opportunities and its rules work in their interests. The power they have wielded has been at the expense of the country as a whole. Brexit was a vote against their interests. It was a vote for the nation state, which remains the fundamental unit of democracy, and the best means of managing globalisation in the interests of citizens. And it was a vote born of two concerns. First, a long disquiet at the Napoleonic nature of the EU and its imperial ambitions for “ever closer union”. And second, a distrust that the British governing class would defend the UK’s national integrity inside the EU, or that it would be capable of constructing a more democratic model.
Britain has often been an uncooperative member of the bloc – better to be a co-operative partner. Outside the EU we can sustain a close relationship with our Continental neighbours, and agree a reciprocal trading arrangement. Our commitment to Europe’s defence and our valuing of its culture and science would be undiminished.
The Conservative government has no strategic view of the country’s future. It appears incapable of defending the national interest in the Brexit negotiations, and it has made Britain look weak and incompetent.
In opposition, Labour’s deep rifts are held in abeyance. The party should be 20 points ahead of this hopeless government but the hard left in control mirrors the hard right of the Conservative Party. It is not trustworthy and it is not credible, and the public know it. Neither of the two main party leaderships is fit to govern the country.
Brexit can restore Britain to its major nation status, or it can fulfil the predictions of the declinists and lead us to irrelevance. Nothing is decided. The majority of people do not share the turmoil of the political classes over Brexit. We need national leadership, political resolve, and a strategy for a better country. These are in short supply. The EU cannot provide them for us – only we can do that.
https://google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/11/why-left-should-support-brexit%3famp
In short the nation state is not the fundamental unit of democracy, and the writer of this piece sneaks it in with nothing to justify it.4 -
Sponsored links:
-
And so the dance continues with the standard Brexit means Brexit mantra which leads to some washed up politician or other interpreting Brexit on behalf of 34 million voters.
Except now we have a Northern Irish protestant with an Ulster Unionist background (she grew up in Antrim in the 1950s) blathering on about the Irish paying for a border. It should be pointed out that not only does Hoey regularly appear on Russia Today but she was one of 70 MPs launching an attack on the BBC for supposedly running stories that were critical of Brexit.
There's no real need to drag Putin into it - what is blatantly obvious is that the hard Brexit crowd are running a choreography planned by somebody and that they are seeking to conflate, distract and blame anybody they can for the current situation. And where we might be in a fortnight.
Sequencing was agreed but these people don't recognise that because that might be ceding authority to the EU and everyone voted leave innit?
One can only imagine their reaction after Barnier and the EU27 state in December that there has not been sufficient progress to move to the next stage.
As regards Hoey and the Labour whip, that's a tough one. Labour have to play with a straight bat throughout and be prepared to pick up the pieces. So not sure that they need to appear vindictive right now. Her constituency may take a different view?
4 -
They were initially, until Roehm and the leadership of the brownshirts together with Gregor Strasser and his left-wing faction were murdered during the Night of the Long Knives. Those factions of the Nazi party were virulently nationalistic and anti-Semitic but0 also strongly opposed to capitalism and the Prussian conservative elite. Their programme included wholesale nationalisation of industry alongside seizure of the landed estates and redistribution to the peasants.ShootersHillGuru said:
You’re not suggesting that the nazis were in any way shape or form “socialist” ?Southbank said:
The nazis were not nationalists in the way we understand it. They were a product of the collapse of the German establishment, a challenge from the working class and the economic crisis and were at best tolerated by traditional nationalists in order to impose order. They had 'Socialist' in their name as well by the wayseth plum said:
I have bolded the bit that I believe needs some proof. It is open to challenge isn't it? Wasn't it German nationalism that led to fascism? There have been plenty of nation states that have been oppressive dictatorships and awful regimes, and a nation state is also probably easier to gain control of and to sour than one that is part of a greater conglomeration.stonemuse said:And if you are still interested, one more.
Globalisation has created oligarchies of financiers, investors and high-skilled professionals that dominate national politics. The EU expands their opportunities and its rules work in their interests. The power they have wielded has been at the expense of the country as a whole. Brexit was a vote against their interests. It was a vote for the nation state, which remains the fundamental unit of democracy, and the best means of managing globalisation in the interests of citizens. And it was a vote born of two concerns. First, a long disquiet at the Napoleonic nature of the EU and its imperial ambitions for “ever closer union”. And second, a distrust that the British governing class would defend the UK’s national integrity inside the EU, or that it would be capable of constructing a more democratic model.
Britain has often been an uncooperative member of the bloc – better to be a co-operative partner. Outside the EU we can sustain a close relationship with our Continental neighbours, and agree a reciprocal trading arrangement. Our commitment to Europe’s defence and our valuing of its culture and science would be undiminished.
The Conservative government has no strategic view of the country’s future. It appears incapable of defending the national interest in the Brexit negotiations, and it has made Britain look weak and incompetent.
In opposition, Labour’s deep rifts are held in abeyance. The party should be 20 points ahead of this hopeless government but the hard left in control mirrors the hard right of the Conservative Party. It is not trustworthy and it is not credible, and the public know it. Neither of the two main party leaderships is fit to govern the country.
Brexit can restore Britain to its major nation status, or it can fulfil the predictions of the declinists and lead us to irrelevance. Nothing is decided. The majority of people do not share the turmoil of the political classes over Brexit. We need national leadership, political resolve, and a strategy for a better country. These are in short supply. The EU cannot provide them for us – only we can do that.
https://google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/11/why-left-should-support-brexit%3famp
In short the nation state is not the fundamental unit of democracy, and the writer of this piece sneaks it in with nothing to justify it.
3 -
It isn't Gibraltar's gambling laws - it is UK bookmakers based in Gibraltar holding licences in other EU countries (and working on gaining licences in others as and when they regulate). They gain guaranteed access, courtesy of the Treaty of Rome, to those markets by being EU based companies, which will change of course. Malta is rubbing its hands!!Chizz said:
Bob, why do Gibraltar's gambling laws require access to the single market? I'm sure you're right, I just don't understand why this is the case. Can you explain?bobmunro said:
A hard Brexit would have a huge impact on Gibraltar's economy - most of which currently relies on gambling duty and financial services, both of which require access to the single market.se9addick said:
Most people in the UK forget Gibraltar exists (apart for when it's time for some good old fashioned Falklands style jingoism) let alone have considered what the impact of Brexit might be on the rock.CharltonMadrid said:Has there been any progress on the status of Gibraltar yet? I haven't seen much mention of it all and it is in the best interest of both Spain and the UK to have some clarity. I know Spain are keen to get their hands on it, but they also recognise the importance it has for employment with a huge number of Andaucians travelling over the border for work.
Its tax status and concerns over cigarette smuggling have been the main points of contention rather than any jingoistic reasons, so ultimately it will be practicality that dictates what happens, but it does seem there has been little discussion of the issue.
Rarely contribute to this any more for reasons already stated but still enjoy reading the thread and it provides a lot of insight for us living abroad but still involved with what is happening in the UK. Thanks folks.3 -
">
I'm sure it's entirely coincidental the government have released the (redacted) Brexit impact papers today of all days. I mean they've had since 1st Nov to do so...Standby for a big row - David Davis has written to DEXEEU committee admitting reports they're being given aren't complete and don't contain anything that might be commercially sensitive - so after all the fuss in the Commons, MPs aren't being given the full picture
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) November 27, 20171 -
Probably part of the reason why they voted to stay...Isn't the lower rate of tax / capped limit the main reason all of these companies went over in the first place?bobmunro said:
It isn't Gibraltar's gambling laws - it is UK bookmakers based in Gibraltar holding licences in other EU countries (and working on gaining licences in others as and when they regulate). They gain guaranteed access, courtesy of the Treaty of Rome, to those markets by being EU based companies, which will change of course. Malta is rubbing its hands!!Chizz said:
Bob, why do Gibraltar's gambling laws require access to the single market? I'm sure you're right, I just don't understand why this is the case. Can you explain?bobmunro said:
A hard Brexit would have a huge impact on Gibraltar's economy - most of which currently relies on gambling duty and financial services, both of which require access to the single market.se9addick said:
Most people in the UK forget Gibraltar exists (apart for when it's time for some good old fashioned Falklands style jingoism) let alone have considered what the impact of Brexit might be on the rock.CharltonMadrid said:Has there been any progress on the status of Gibraltar yet? I haven't seen much mention of it all and it is in the best interest of both Spain and the UK to have some clarity. I know Spain are keen to get their hands on it, but they also recognise the importance it has for employment with a huge number of Andaucians travelling over the border for work.
Its tax status and concerns over cigarette smuggling have been the main points of contention rather than any jingoistic reasons, so ultimately it will be practicality that dictates what happens, but it does seem there has been little discussion of the issue.
Rarely contribute to this any more for reasons already stated but still enjoy reading the thread and it provides a lot of insight for us living abroad but still involved with what is happening in the UK. Thanks folks.0 -
Personal income tax aside, most of them went over there to avoid paying UK betting tax - but got caught out when the UK treasury introduced Point of Consumption tax (previously it was where the servers were located that determined the betting tax regime).cafcpolo said:
Probably why they voted to stay...Isn't the lower rate of tax / capped limit the main reason all of these companies went over in the first place?bobmunro said:
It isn't Gibraltar's gambling laws - it is UK bookmakers based in Gibraltar holding licences in other EU countries (and working on gaining licences in others as and when they regulate). They gain guaranteed access, courtesy of the Treaty of Rome, to those markets by being EU based companies, which will change of course. Malta is rubbing its hands!!Chizz said:
Bob, why do Gibraltar's gambling laws require access to the single market? I'm sure you're right, I just don't understand why this is the case. Can you explain?bobmunro said:
A hard Brexit would have a huge impact on Gibraltar's economy - most of which currently relies on gambling duty and financial services, both of which require access to the single market.se9addick said:
Most people in the UK forget Gibraltar exists (apart for when it's time for some good old fashioned Falklands style jingoism) let alone have considered what the impact of Brexit might be on the rock.CharltonMadrid said:Has there been any progress on the status of Gibraltar yet? I haven't seen much mention of it all and it is in the best interest of both Spain and the UK to have some clarity. I know Spain are keen to get their hands on it, but they also recognise the importance it has for employment with a huge number of Andaucians travelling over the border for work.
Its tax status and concerns over cigarette smuggling have been the main points of contention rather than any jingoistic reasons, so ultimately it will be practicality that dictates what happens, but it does seem there has been little discussion of the issue.
Rarely contribute to this any more for reasons already stated but still enjoy reading the thread and it provides a lot of insight for us living abroad but still involved with what is happening in the UK. Thanks folks.
There is one notable exception who have always paid UK betting tax on their UK business
1 -
Thanks!bobmunro said:
It isn't Gibraltar's gambling laws - it is UK bookmakers based in Gibraltar holding licences in other EU countries (and working on gaining licences in others as and when they regulate). They gain guaranteed access, courtesy of the Treaty of Rome, to those markets by being EU based companies, which will change of course. Malta is rubbing its hands!!Chizz said:
Bob, why do Gibraltar's gambling laws require access to the single market? I'm sure you're right, I just don't understand why this is the case. Can you explain?bobmunro said:
A hard Brexit would have a huge impact on Gibraltar's economy - most of which currently relies on gambling duty and financial services, both of which require access to the single market.se9addick said:
Most people in the UK forget Gibraltar exists (apart for when it's time for some good old fashioned Falklands style jingoism) let alone have considered what the impact of Brexit might be on the rock.CharltonMadrid said:Has there been any progress on the status of Gibraltar yet? I haven't seen much mention of it all and it is in the best interest of both Spain and the UK to have some clarity. I know Spain are keen to get their hands on it, but they also recognise the importance it has for employment with a huge number of Andaucians travelling over the border for work.
Its tax status and concerns over cigarette smuggling have been the main points of contention rather than any jingoistic reasons, so ultimately it will be practicality that dictates what happens, but it does seem there has been little discussion of the issue.
Rarely contribute to this any more for reasons already stated but still enjoy reading the thread and it provides a lot of insight for us living abroad but still involved with what is happening in the UK. Thanks folks.0 -
It absolutely didn't, I can promise you that. Partly because I was there for several EU Treaty referenda.Jensenwasclass said:''The Irish did try to reject the EU, but they were told to keep voting until they got the right result.''
I am sure that actually happened a few years ago.
Also think this is the hope some cowardly Remainers are clinging onto!
At no stage has there been an attempt to reject the EU.
You can vote against policies, or Treaty changes, without seeking to throw the baby out with the bath water.4 -
She is quite right to point out that the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy in this country. This is a very dangerous game and could backfire into violence if the brinkmanship continues.Red_in_SE8 said:6 -
Sponsored links:
-
Where does she point out the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy?Southbank said:
She is quite right to point out that the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy in this country. This is a very dangerous game and could backfire into violence if the brinkmanship continues.Red_in_SE8 said:
Violence between whom?1 -
No they're not. No one is stupid enough to believe this.Southbank said:
She is quite right to point out that the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy in this country.Red_in_SE8 said:3 -
Yes they are.Fiiish said:
No they're not. No one is stupid enough to believe this.Southbank said:
She is quite right to point out that the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy in this country.Red_in_SE8 said:6 -
She is saying that Ireland should veto trade discussions unless the UK agrees to stay in the Customs Union and/or the single market-which means staying in the EU. Which we voted not to do.Red_in_SE8 said:
Where does she point out the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy?Southbank said:
She is quite right to point out that the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy in this country. This is a very dangerous game and could backfire into violence if the brinkmanship continues.Red_in_SE8 said:
Violence between whom?1 -
No, there are some people thick and paranoid enough to think they believe it but once they actually engage their brains for a second they would see it's complete shit.bobmunro said:
Yes they are.Fiiish said:
No they're not. No one is stupid enough to believe this.Southbank said:
She is quite right to point out that the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy in this country.Red_in_SE8 said:3 -
There are countries in the Single Market/Customs Union that aren't in the EU. Stop repeating this shit from whatever moron website you find this nonsense on.Southbank said:
She is saying that Ireland should veto trade discussions unless the UK agrees to stay in the Customs Union and/or the single market-which means staying in the EU. Which we voted not to do.Red_in_SE8 said:
Where does she point out the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy?Southbank said:
She is quite right to point out that the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy in this country. This is a very dangerous game and could backfire into violence if the brinkmanship continues.Red_in_SE8 said:
Violence between whom?10 -
So when the leave campaign said we could get a Norway style deal that had us remaining in the customs union and single market you're saying that that was another lie by the leave campaign, and that all the countries in the EEA are actually in the EU.Southbank said:
She is saying that Ireland should veto trade discussions unless the UK agrees to stay in the Customs Union and/or the single market-which means staying in the EU. Which we voted not to do.Red_in_SE8 said:
Where does she point out the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy?Southbank said:
She is quite right to point out that the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy in this country. This is a very dangerous game and could backfire into violence if the brinkmanship continues.Red_in_SE8 said:
Violence between whom?
Ireland is simply exercising it's right to insist the UK abides by the treaty it has with Ireland, namely the Good Friday Agreement. If we want to pursue a brexit course that breaks that treaty then it's not just reasonable for them to veto it, but it is surely their only course of action to maintain the GFA.16 -
We voted to leave the EU - we didn’t vote to leave the single market and/or customs union. I don’t recall either being on the voting slip.Southbank said:
She is saying that Ireland should veto trade discussions unless the UK agrees to stay in the Customs Union and/or the single market-which means staying in the EU. Which we voted not to do.Red_in_SE8 said:
Where does she point out the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy?Southbank said:
She is quite right to point out that the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy in this country. This is a very dangerous game and could backfire into violence if the brinkmanship continues.Red_in_SE8 said:
Violence between whom?
You want a hard brexit but not everyone is as mad as a box of frogs. You never did answer my question about what proportion of the 52% you felt voted for your type of brexit (apart from your overly quantitative answer ‘a lot’.7 -
I knew you would bite little fishy!Fiiish said:
No, there are some people thick and paranoid enough to think they believe it but once they actually engage their brains for a second they would see it's complete shit.bobmunro said:
Yes they are.Fiiish said:
No they're not. No one is stupid enough to believe this.Southbank said:
She is quite right to point out that the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy in this country.Red_in_SE8 said:
My ‘yes they are’ was in response to your statement ‘no one is stupid enough to believe this’.0 -
I know. My point is people don't really believe half this shit that the alt-right invents to obfuscate why Brexit is going so poorly but it is more compelling to them than the truth - that Brexit and everyone promoting it is a complete and utter shower of shite.bobmunro said:
I knew you would bite little fishy!Fiiish said:
No, there are some people thick and paranoid enough to think they believe it but once they actually engage their brains for a second they would see it's complete shit.bobmunro said:
Yes they are.Fiiish said:
No they're not. No one is stupid enough to believe this.Southbank said:
She is quite right to point out that the EU is using Ireland to sabotage democracy in this country.Red_in_SE8 said:
My ‘yes they are’ was in response to your statement ‘no one is stupid enough to believe this’.1
