(( Still not funny - I’ll leave it ))
Many of the “West Island” are seriously considering joining you on the North or South islands. If it wasn’t for the fact that the whole county is liable to disappear into a sinkhole at any moment, I probably would!
Isn’t Australia the one where all their MPs keep resigning because they aren’t Australian?
Nah, you’re thinking of our Deputy PMs and assorted other types of minister.
But our Prime Ministers are 100% Aussie Beef™.
As far as we know.
I’ve been wondering recently how much the Brexit problems are caused not bey Brexit inherently, but by our attempts to rush it to a ridiculous timeline, that was never voted on and isn’t necessary. So much of our legal, political and trade systems are tied up in the EU, it’s clearly going to take time. Had someone just grabbed a hold of this and said we were going to enter into a 7-year transition period, with the full exit being achieved at the end of that, would things be a lot better now? I have a feeling it;ll ultimately take around that long anyway, but you still have people shouting “walk away” like that’s actually a thing. I mean, if both sides refuse to negotiate, and just “walk away” fundamentally that means the EU haven’t even agreed to acknowledge the UK as a country, never mind recognised passports, etc. There’s always going to be some sort of “deal”.
Something that I’ve wondered about, it’s not like the EU is an ancient thing, it became a thing during just the last decade or so (1999-2002). Is this something that only older citizens care about, or did young people sway what happened?
It’s been a bit longer than that. The UK joined the “common market” (sort of a fledgling EU) in the 70s.
To add to the age imbalance - I read recently[Citation Needed] that if they held the vote again now, and everyone voted exactly the same way that remain would win. Because a critical mass of “Leavers” have… well… shuffled off this mortal coil.
The EU traces its roots from the European Coal and Steel Community (1951). The latter is crucial because the goal was to stop war by making it materially impossible. No more will France and Germany fight over the resource rich Rhineland.
Also, the European project has always been political with the Schuman Declaration. I don’t know why the Brits has this high denial that they don’t know what they are getting into when they joined the EEC (European Economic Community).
The Europeans even proposed the European Defence Community and the European Political Community. The former failed because France wants to keep North Africa, and the latter failed because of the former.
One of the things I saw noted at one point, was that that over 65+ group hides an interesting story, in that people right at the top end of it tend to flip back to remain. The observation being that if you remember, or grew up right next to the shadow of war in Europe, you’re much better pre-disposed to an organisation whose origins lie in the attempts to stop that sort of war from ever happening again.
It’s one of the things that makes me saddest. I’m pretty critical of the EU in a lot of specifics, but in the broad strokes, I’m really surprisingly on board for an anarchist. At the end of the day, international co-operation, creating links through sharing culture, stopping war by building bonds across borders, are all pretty positive goals.
I have deliberately not commented on this thread because the dyke’s creaking and I don’t want to inflict the deluge on folk by opening that particular floodgate, but in a nutshell…
Lord Buckethead will save us all!
(Speaking as an American anglophile who gets Brexit info from the occasional news time, watching British comedy panel shows, and Brits he follows on Twitter)
I’m glad Parliament didn’t approve of the plan. I feel like the Leave side of the first referendum sold the idea of leaving, but they had no actual plan and have yet to put forward one that isn’t a pipe dream. Mrs. May has been trying for years to find a plan that won’t wreck the UK economy, won’t restart The Troubles, and that the EU would agree to, but it doesn’t look like one exists. If there was a second referendum where the public chooses between two actual possibilities, i.e., “Stay” vs. “Leave and face all these repercussions,” I hope there are enough sensible that Stay would win. But, hey, Cameron probably thought the same too when he held the first referendum.
To draw a parallel, I figure a lot of people who want Trump’s wall don’t actually care if the wall would work on not. Security analysts didn’t come up with the idea for a wall; a couple political consultants thought it would be a good mnemonic device, a symbolic middle finger to anyone not white. But it was also sold on the lie that Mexico would pay for it, just like Leavers sold how much Brits would get out of leaving. Now we have a shutdown because the symbolic middle finger is more important practical issues affecting people.
On the one hand, we do have more awareness that the Brexit promises were lies without foundation, but on the other hand we still have people shouting in the streets that “Remainers” are nazis…
Right now, the leavers are still winning. It’s just slightly more likely that this will all be dropped. But with Labour still adamant they’re backing leave there is no possible majority government to back remaining.
And unfortunately if there was a referendum (which is looking likely), it will probably be between an announcer deal vs going back to the drawing board or an announcer deal vs a no deal brexit. It would be a very brave politician to select Remain as an option.
IF Labour get their general election, and IF Labour win that, it’ll be interesting to see what happens next. If two parties fail to get anywhere with Brexit, what then? We’re in a political stalemate and no one is accepting turning round as an option.
On the bright side, if there is a general election, then the DUP will be out of the picture regardless of what happens.
This is why the initial referendum was flawed - it was a choice between the devil you know and a dream which never existed which is not a fair or sensible comparison.
IMO they should scrap the current debacle, have the leavers get together to create a model for leaving (probably negotiating with the EU), the have a referendum on the choice between two known options with know pros and cons.
And this is what annoys me when people talk about respecting the first referendum. Since the choice offered in the first referendum was false, there is no sacrosanct mandate that must be followed to the point of self-inflicted economic harm.
Brexit is still a thing? I thought it was done and over, much to the regret of everyone on both sides.
(Please have sympathy for me, I’m an idiot American and still trying to figure out why-the-Trump. I have a bit of an idea of what happened, but I don’t know really why it’s getting cooked up again).
The deal the PM hashed out with European leaders was just overwhelmingly rejected by parliament, so Brexit is back to square 1 as far as legal-progress-to-a-conclusion is concerned. Business, trade, deals, research grants, hiring and firing and relocating are all proceeding as you would expect during the uncertainty.