Brexit from the European Union.

[taxme]

Well, it looks like Brexit may not happen for a very long time now. It may not happen at all as some of the traitorous British politicians are trying to stall and then stop it. They appear to be trying to stall the exit for another year. What a slap in the face to the majority of the British people who voted to exit the European Union. The politicians keep talking about wanting some kind of a deal done up before they leave but no one is trying to make a deal. They just appear to want to keep fighting against the exit and it would appear as though they want to keep pushing the Brexit exit back. I believe that this may start to lead to chaos and mayhem in the streets of London with massive demonstrations by the people that want Brexit. Demonstrations like what we have seen in Paris these past few months. The Brexit people must get out and fight for Brexit because if they do not then those traitorous politicians will not give them their Brexit. The globalist corporation deep state elites will be certainly out there fighting against Brexit. If Brexit happens it will take a bite out of their globalist plans for a new world order and one world domination. 

Go, Brits, go, fight for your Brexit freedom from the communist unelected EU bureaucrats who are all on the globalist elites payroll. Works for me.  

Edited April 11, 2019 by taxme

[OftenWrong]

Brexit is not a financial advantage for the banks, therefore there will be no Brexit.

They already voted out the "No Deal" option, so there will be no crashing out of the EU. That means there has to be a deal. No deal, no Brexit. Now MP's can do what they like to do best- nothing.

[-TSS-]

Parliament is supreme and it can walk over a referendum-result if it sees fit. However, doing so would be a very dangerous precedent. If you have no intention of honouring a possible "wrong" referendum-result then dont have a referendum. 

Another thing is to ask is it right that parliament is supreme. Have you ever watched the meetings of the British parliament? In my opinion it reminds more of a zoo than a group of sensible adults discussing issues. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

17 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Parliament is supreme and it can walk over a referendum-result if it sees fit. However, doing so would be a very dangerous precedent. If you have no intention of honouring a possible "wrong" referendum-result then dont have a referendum. 

Another thing is to ask is it right that parliament is supreme. Have you ever watched the meetings of the British parliament? In my opinion it reminds more of a zoo than a group of sensible adults discussing issues. 

I prefer the HoC debates to those of Canada’s equivalent. Leaving aside the Brexit madness, the quality of debate is higher over there. Have a listen to their Question Time. 

As you say, Britain is a representative democracy where parliament is supreme. The referendum was merely a plebiscite. Mrs. Thatcher roundly denounced the last referendum on EU-esque membership, not least for the precedent it created. 

On another front, the EU27, a free association of member states, is heartily sick of Brexit and want to move on ASAP as there are many other pressing matters to deal with. There is little desire to keep the UK in the EU any more. 

 

Edited April 14, 2019 by SpankyMcFarland

[-TSS-]

Many people who aren't British but who watch the British parliament meetings say that the parliaments in their own countries are boring compared to the  British parliament.

[taxme]

On 4/14/2019 at 4:28 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

I prefer the HoC debates to those of Canada’s equivalent. Leaving aside the Brexit madness, the quality of debate is higher over there. Have a listen to their Question Time. 

As you say, Britain is a representative democracy where parliament is supreme. The referendum was merely a plebiscite. Mrs. Thatcher roundly denounced the last referendum on EU-esque membership, not least for the precedent it created. 

On another front, the EU27, a free association of member states, is heartily sick of Brexit and want to move on ASAP as there are many other pressing matters to deal with. There is little desire to keep the UK in the EU any more. 

 

Then why do the British politicians keep trying to stop Brexit from happening if the EU has little desire to keep the UK in the EU anymore? That should be taken as an insult to the British people and to their stunned politicians to want to get out of the EU now. But I guess the politicians prefer insults and will take them rather then do say or do anything about it. Most politicians anywhere in the world are useless bunch of azz holes anyways. Those politicians in the British government are sure proving that point to me and many others. 

[scribblet]

I don't get it really, the people voted, they have to do it...    This guy seems to tell it like it is...     (no comment on his eyebrows) 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12124910/Sir-Bernard-Ingham-EU-is-corrupt-useless-and-riddled-with-fraud.html?fbclid=IwAR0XE36fmRZTyzc8LlrwN00M7_UiB62-NgPa1NOnxdGEmoh8_8ydCctLp5Q

[taxme]

On 4/14/2019 at 4:28 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

I prefer the HoC debates to those of Canada’s equivalent. Leaving aside the Brexit madness, the quality of debate is higher over there. Have a listen to their Question Time. 

As you say, Britain is a representative democracy where parliament is supreme. The referendum was merely a plebiscite. Mrs. Thatcher roundly denounced the last referendum on EU-esque membership, not least for the precedent it created. 

On another front, the EU27, a free association of member states, is heartily sick of Brexit and want to move on ASAP as there are many other pressing matters to deal with. There is little desire to keep the UK in the EU any more. 

 

Canada is boring anyway thanks to our boring and not so interesting politically correct politicians. None of them have a Trump back bone in them. All they seem to be good at is talking foolish talk and lying. Our present day Canadian politicians should not be in charge of running this country or any province. They keep trying to make Canada un great. My opinion. 

 

[taxme]

On 4/12/2019 at 11:01 PM, OftenWrong said:

Brexit is not a financial advantage for the banks, therefore there will be no Brexit.

They already voted out the "No Deal" option, so there will be no crashing out of the EU. That means there has to be a deal. No deal, no Brexit. Now MP's can do what they like to do best- nothing.

I was watching on the internet last night where there was a meeting of a British group of people who have created a new political party called The Brexit Party with their leader being Nigel Farage. Their goal is to Brexit. They party was formed because they have now seen what the British politicians and PM May are trying to do? Stall and stop the Brexit exit. The PM and the British politicians of Britain are trying to pull off a treasonous act here by denying the British people their referendum on leaving the EU. The new party is  prepared to take on the traitors in the British parliament that have pretty much given the finger to the British people who voted for Brexit. How well they will do is not known for now but I do hope that they do quite well and can take on the globalist EU establishment and those traitors in the British government and defeat them at the polls one day soon. Sooner rather then later.

What is with politicians today who refuse to allow the people to decide policy and have a say on their future and will go against their will? Even when a majority win a referendum, like in Britain, they get the finger from their dear leaders. Britain may say that it is a democracy? But is it really? It certainly does not look like it to me. 

 

[Guest]

This Brexit thing has been seriously mismanaged........and  as time passes   the sides involved  harden their views./positions.

 

Perhaps  pushing the pause button  is wise........so all parties can clear their thoughts   and clarify their objectives.

[Zeitgeist]

Brexit was sold to the public on the idea of Britain regaining control of its destiny (and asserting the Anglo-American alliance and Commonwealth).   It’s a powerful and persuasive position.  However, as a customs union, the EU worked well for its members on the whole.  May’s various “Brexit deals” retain some form of customs union without ceding decisions about immigration and some other federal decisions to the European Parliament.  Brits have seen the fallout of open borders in Germany and France, as well as the cost of what are essentially transfer payments to poorer parts of Europe and European regulatory requirements which have also imposed policy on the Brits.  

May’s deals have been rejected by parliament, which I think means one of three outcomes: perpetual Brexit talks with perpetual postponement of Brexit (and possibly an unfavourable hard Brexit if Europe doesn’t agree to further postponement), another referendum on Brexit (which could either end Brexit or bring Britain back to its current state), or a Brexit with a deal agreed upon by parliament, the only sensible course if there is to be a Brexit.  I think if it’s the last option, that deal will essentially be a form of sovereignty association: customs union with some mild representation in and oversight by the EU over some very limited matters, immigration not being one of them.  It might simply be a trade deal like CETA without political representatives in Europe or further obligations between the EU and Britain.  The latter option is the winning deal for the pro-Brexiters.  The former is essentially continued but reduced EU membership.  It probably doesn’t make sense because while you get control of immigration, you still lose the ability to live and work anywhere in the EU, an advantage of EU membership yet also a disadvantage in terms of controlling immigration into Britain from the rest of Europe.  

I suggest having a final referendum with two options: a Brexit with a customs union deal versus Remain, which means staying in the EU and trying to reform it from within.   The second position is what Italy is doing.  The deal should be in the referendum question.  Such a referendum can only be avoided if the Brits can agree on a Brexit deal.  At least a Brexit referendum with a deal written into it forces the Brits to resolve the matter for good. 

The issue of the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland is also hugely problematic.  How does Northern Ireland retain an open border with the Irish Republic while also exiting the EU?  That also has to be worked out in the deal.  If it cannot be, Britain may have no choice but to face a hard Brexit forced by Europe or reject Brexit altogether.  

Edited May 20, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[-TSS-]

Theresa May, that useless excuse for PM, has finally come to the obvious conclusion and decided to let someone else take over.

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Theresa May, that useless excuse for PM, has finally come to the obvious conclusion and decided to let someone else take over.

I don't get why people are so down on her.  She wasn't exactly dealt a winning hand.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't get why people are so down on her.  She wasn't exactly dealt a winning hand.

Study history. She screwed herself, and the country.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Study history. She screwed herself, and the country.

Cameron screwed the country.  What happened after the vote was inevitable, regardless of who was in charge.

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Study history. She screwed herself, and the country.

I agree with bcsapper.  You don't seem to have an answer to my question.  I'm sincerely interested in your point of view if you have some reasons.

[OftenWrong]

She had all the power she needed at first. Until she called her "snap election".

Edited May 25, 2019 by OftenWrong

[Guest]

8 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

She had all the power she needed at first. Until she called her "snap election".

That's a fair point, about which I had completely forgotten.  Still,  I don't think she would have been able to ignore the Northern Irish backstop issue even with the bigger majority she hoped to get.  And no majority would have seen her plan through, as so many of her own party voted against it.

[OftenWrong]

Yes, it's so easy to forget things these days it seems.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes, it's so easy to forget things these days it seems.

Agreed.  I had forgotten this.  To her credit, she saw the need to amass unity before embarking.  It just wasn't there.  I agree with bcsapper.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed.  I had forgotten this.  To her credit, she saw the need to amass unity before embarking.  It just wasn't there.  I agree with bcsapper.

Agree with whatever you like, history is a statement of reality. She had her mandate, referendum result. She declared her intentions.

It is my understanding that she was accused of political machinations, greed was her motivator as she saw a chance to secure more power whenher opposition was weak. Snap election called, despite advice not to do it.

Now, that is from memory and I shall not bother to find you links. You already forgot.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Agree with whatever you like, history is a statement of reality. She had her mandate, referendum result. She declared her intentions.

It is my understanding that she was accused of political machinations, greed was her motivator as she saw a chance to secure more power whenher opposition was weak. Snap election called, despite advice not to do it.

Now, that is from memory and I shall not bother to find you links. You already forgot.

Nevertheless, I think you are wrong on your basic premise.  This mess is Cameron's fault, not May's.  Regardless of who took the mantle, regardless of the size of the mandate, the EU had one goal and one goal only after the vote was cast.  It had to ensure a message was sent to all other members that leaving was painful.  Had Cameron not cravenly given in to a few loud voices in his party, with the absolute certainty in his mind that the vote would go in the remainer's favour, we would not be here now. 

[Argus]

18 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Nevertheless, I think you are wrong on your basic premise.  This mess is Cameron's fault, not May's.  Regardless of who took the mantle, regardless of the size of the mandate, the EU had one goal and one goal only after the vote was cast.  It had to ensure a message was sent to all other members that leaving was painful.  Had Cameron not cravenly given in to a few loud voices in his party, with the absolute certainty in his mind that the vote would go in the remainer's favour, we would not be here now. 

And had the EU had the balls or brains to stop the horde of migrants from North Africa and the Middle-East at its borders, and deport most of them the Brexit vote would have failed and the EU would not now be drowning in the rising flood of populists and extremists and would not be spending $200 billion a year, by one estimate, on feeding and dealing with the security and settlement of the migrants as well as trying to bribe countries from Turkey to Libya to try and suppress more coming over.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Agree with whatever you like, history is a statement of reality. She had her mandate, referendum result. She declared her intentions.

2. It is my understanding that she was accused of political machinations, greed was her motivator as she saw a chance to secure more power whenher opposition was weak. Snap election called, despite advice not to do it.

3. Now, that is from memory and I shall not bother to find you links. You already forgot.

1. Right.  Reality.  I am familiar with these facts but they still don't explain why people hold her in disdain.  

2. Ah ok.  You got your information from elsewhere.  Do you remember where?

3. I did.  I don't need a link, thanks.  I'm just asking for an opinion.

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Nevertheless, I think you are wrong on your basic premise.  This mess is Cameron's fault, not May's.  Regardless of who took the mantle, regardless of the size of the mandate, the EU had one goal and one goal only after the vote was cast.  It had to ensure a message was sent to all other members that leaving was painful.  Had Cameron not cravenly given in to a few loud voices in his party, with the absolute certainty in his mind that the vote would go in the remainer's favour, we would not be here now. 

I think that Brexit is a valid statement. Brexit is a voice that should be heard. At the point after the democratic referendum, that is what we are talking about, and what really happened. Just because you don't agree with Brexit doesn't make it Cameron's fault.