Posted on 02/04/2019 3:37:30 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
ok.
however, i wonder if those people who are reconsidering their leave vote are reconsidering again given the draconian and seemingly anti-freedom positions taken on brexit by the EU leaders.
i also wonder if the situation is as static as it appears to be at the present time. there are still 57 or whatever days left to go and that imho is still a long time in the world of politics. for example, trump has yet to weigh in with an updated response including specifics on how the us will handle the post-brexit trade situation with gb, and iirc the queen has not, at least as of yet, made her position clear. also it does not seem to me that political commentary takes into consideration the possibility that trump may come to gb’s trade rescue if the EU leaves it in the lurch.
Of course, I could be getting it all wrong— half the battle i have, viewing it from the usa, is just trying to keep track of all of the strange-sounding terminology (”backstop,” etc.).
my own personal experience from traveling both in gb and internationally in the past few months is that britons are just plain tired of being whipsawed from one direction or another by all the fervent arguments by true believers on both sides. i am not convinced that they have formed a firm opinion yet about what is happening. to be fair, i think there is some risk either way, so some trepidation might be expected.
The polls also suggested that if a referendum were held on Brexit people would choose overwhelmingly to stay. How did that poll work out? Do you really think the people who have been yanked around and lied to since that vote are going to change their minds, or the people who have seen how the politicians have treated them since negotiations began are going to want to continue being led by them?
They were invited into Ireland by Dermot MacMurrough, King of Leinster. Mostly in order to stop the almost endless wars between the various kingdoms. Wars that were ended when the Anglo Normans unified Ireland for the first time in its history.
The people who voted LEAVE then have changed - the numbers are lower because LEAVE meant different things to different people - the EFTA option or the EEC option or the Canada option. The numbers who wanted a HARD Brexit (no-deal) are lower than 50% easily. If a poll was Hard Brexit or stay in the EU as is, then "stay in the EU as is" will win with 60% of the vote or more. Other options would have different results.
And the politicians on both sides have lied. Since negotiations began nothing has moved because the people who voted LEAVE weren't clear on what type of LEAVE they wanted.
Invited? by a guy who was exiled? a fig leaf excuse for foreign intervention, and the resultant starving and subjugation of millions so that some occupiers could have their cake and eat it too. but well, that excuses it all, does it, because an *exile* found it within himself to “invite” the british to invade ireland. you might ask the irish if they felt touched by british “concern” before blaming them for anything. i doubt you would get much more than a fist in the face from a real irishman (or a real irish woman). what-if and second guess history all you want, if that is what you call a legitimate invitation, i have a bridge in brooklyn for sale that you might be interested in buying. i am astonished by your sense of history and your lack of compassion. maybe more like disgusted.
since politicians lie then, let’s have more referenda, until the desired result is achieved?
is that the entiredty of the argument then??
let’s see what else you’ve got (if anything).
I suppose you have figured out in your learned studies that there are more jews living outside israel than inside because the jews happen to like to travel? and that maybe, for example, maybe the polish jews were to blame for their own extermination because the kapos invited the nazis into their ghettos??
just wondering how much kool aid you like to drink there buddy...
“And the politicians on both sides have lied. Since negotiations began nothing has moved because the people who voted LEAVE weren’t clear on what type of LEAVE they wanted.”
This last point itself is a lie. Any blame for lack of clarity in the referendum itself lies with the politicians, not with the people. The politicians are beginning to sound as if they could not find their asses with both hands. They certainly should not be trusted to write yet another referendum, since seemingly by their own admission they totally botched the first and ever since could not quite figure out what it really meant (did leave really mean leave, ad nauseum). Agreed?
No— more evidently, the reason nothing has moved is because yet again, politicians have failed to come up with a timely strategy for the possibility of an EU rejection of an orderly brexit. That’s a rather obvious possibility to miss entirely, isn’t it? Now they are running on the fumes of their own pro-one-world-order rhetoric, all the while blaming the stupid voters yet again for lack of clarity, or common sense, whatever. Well, good luck to those politicians. Perhaps they can still buy or steal exit papers for the last plane to lisbon, err, brussels. Or berlin. Whatever.
Believe politicians who previously lied? Here, have some more of the delicious remainer kool aid!
I see that some people are being duped into believing the scaremongers. You have no idea other than some more ridiculous poll numbers suggesting people would overwhelmingly vote to stay vs a hard Brexit. Using lots of capital letters doesn’t make your premise any dumber.
Check the people who voted leave -- then ask them if they want or wanted a hard leave. Every single one I've spoken to wanted no free movement of people for work (welfare tourists) but wanted free goods and services movement.
hmmm... the last line didn’t put the blame on anyone. I just said that the majority had different ideas of what “leave” entailed.
And I have a British wife, a ton of British relatives and live in Spain right next to the largest English community not in England. Nothing in the internal debates have changed any minds but a whole bunch of people are turned off by the way they are being treated by Brussels and the big corporations that like the status quo.
“the last line didn’t put the blame on anyone. I just said that the majority had different ideas of what “leave” entailed.”
i will rephrase:
the voters voted to leave. leave means precisely (let me look that up for you in the mirriam webster online dictionary):
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leave
3 a : to go away from : DEPART
leave the room
b : DESERT, ABANDON
left his wife
c : to terminate association with : withdraw from
left school before graduation
take your pick of any of the above three, and get the same result, that the british agreed amongst themselves in a democratic process to put it to a vote and they voted to DEPART from the EU, to ABANDON the EU, and to TERMINATE ASSOCIATION WITH the EU. Maintaining any existing formal association as a member of the the EU or within its jurisdiction is simply not within the commonly accepted definition of ‘leave.’ you can probably take the english equivalent of merriam-webster and get the same result. the notion that the voters were confused is a term of art and excuse for subverting the will of the people. otherwise, why have a vote in the first place, if it is magically decided later that it for any reason should not be regarded as a valid expression of the people’s will? perhaps you are confused about the process of voting? do you know what a vote means? it seems you are one of those who has a differing idea, not on the substance but on the process and the intent of the process. ...Not to mention iirc a promise that there would be only a single vote and no follow-up voting of any sort. To insist that leave somehow does not really mean leave or requires further clarification seems [Bill] Clintonesque (a hypertechnical parsing of words; being semantic to an over-the-topdegree).
What am I missing? By any chance do you also at times have issues with the definition of the word “is”?
I would characterize this bickering about whether a vote is a vote, whether a referendum is a referendum, or whether “leave” means “leave” as so much passive aggressive behavior on the part of politicians and the remainer MINORITY, AS PROVEN BY REFERENDUM and agreed to hold and abide by in advance by remainers and brexiteers alike.
Brexit won, remain LOST. By 0.3%, 3%, OR 30%, is not relevant. Any other interpretation is (simply put) intellectually and morally dishonest.
(Here in the USA, I am just an observer in the bleachers.)
But I do believe this will be bad for the UK. Good for me as I'm here in Poland and I can see business from the UK heading here, but bad for the UK
Do you want to stay within the EU, keeping the status quo? Yes/No
If No then do you wish to :
a. Leave the EU completely - become an outside trading partner like Canada
b. Leave the EU but become an EFTA member like Norway
c. Leave the EU but become a member of the EEC like Switzerland
And they should have put in a clear statement about whether the referendum would be binding or advisory only
The politicos bungled it up and confused everyone
Now the thing that is killing British business is uncertainty.
a Hard Brexit is better than uncertainty. But a Hard Brexit is still bad for British industry and British unity
As to your relatives I can't say anything, but they definitely have their own opinions and votes and thank you for sharing their points of view
WRT "the way they are treated - you mean before the referendum or after?
Let me give you an example - California tomorrow has a vote to leave the USA or not. People vote leave but some think "oh, we'll still keep the dollar", others "oh, but we'll still be able to trade with Oregon and New York" etc.
In fact in the case of Brexit, people had examples -- the EFTA (norway), EEC (Switzerland) approaches that they thought they were voting for.
The stupid thing is that the stupid politicos didn't define anything:
The UK functioned incredibly well for such a small island nation until about sixty years ago. They then hit the reconstruction of the 40s and 50s and became a bit too complacent, and in the competitive world of countries who had rebuilt themselves after the second world war and who kept on developing their industries and their expertise, the Brits relative position went downhill very quickly indeed. In one generation they fell from being a world superpower to being the sick man of Europe (1973 when they joined the EEC)
So they joined the Common Market in order to help their industries and productivity get back on track and in the forty years that followed, British systems and infrastructure became ever-more closely aligned with the EEC/EC/EU at each stage of its evolution. For two generations now, the rules and practices of the EU have been built into British rules and practices. British industries took the fact of EU membership as a given, a constant.
To use an analogy here, imagine a business park where the companies in each of the buildings interact and trade with each other. They have direct communication lines between each other, there are roads that connect them all. To move a product from one business to another you only need a van, and people can walk freely from one business to the next to meet and do deals with each other. And then one day there is an earthquake, and one of the buildings -we'll call it UK Ltd - becomes separated from the rest by a thirty-foot crack.It is suddenly inaccessible to the others - its products can no longer be used by the other businesses in the park, they can no longer meet with or talk to the people who work there because the phone and data lines have been severed. A bridge needs to be built in order to restore access, phone and data cables need to be reinstalled, all that will cost money and will take time, and until it happens, the only way to get goods from one side of the chasm to the other is by hiring a crane to lift them across, and that costs money and it takes a lot longer than doing it with a van. So the rest of the businesses find other suppliers to do what UK Ltd did before the earthquake and the employees in all those other businesses continue to prosper. And then a year later, when the bridge is finally built and the cables have been relaid, UK Ltd comes knocking on their door and says "TaDa! We're back!" and the others say "well that's great, but we don't need your products any more, we've found another supplier."
Or the UK leaving the EU is reasonably close to the process for leaving a gym. Typically, if you’re a member of the gym, you can use the showers, the sauna, the exercise equipment, and so on. You can even sign up for a yoga or Pilates class if either is on offer.
When you leave the gym, you either lose access to those facilities or have to pay for them on a per-session basis. Strangely enough, that’s what leaving the EU is like, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.