Brexit - The UK leaves the EU
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 6,863 comments
- 264,401 views
- 28,530
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand but for what it's worth: no. At various times they have been captured and recaptured by both the native Welsh and the invasive English. There is more history to them than that and their archaeological credentials are worthy of preservation much like the Pyramids and any early railway or industrial earthwork project.
Nobody denies their origins and purpose of inital construction and it is not ignored at the individual sites. However, there is a difference between preserving an 800 year old castle and creating a monument in 2017 specifically dedicating its use as a tool of oppression. That would be like erecting a statue of Cecil Rhodes in Zimbabwe or Zambia today for his services to British Imperialism or erecting a 30ft handcuff and chain statue in Atlanta today to commemorate James Henry Hammond and his "Cotton Is King" proslavery views.
- 640
- England
Someone told me today that other countries apart from The UK have enquired about leaving the EU and the EU have dismissed the enquiries.
Anybody know anything about this?
Anybody know anything about this?
- 4,722
- United Kingdom
If only the EU could have dismissed the idea before it all went mental.
- 28,410
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The trouble for the EU is that it is not up to them who stays in the EU and who leaves - it is up to individual member states and their voters should they decide that EU membership is no longer right for them. The UK was, however, something of a special case - having not signed up to the Euro, it is technically easier for the UK to leave the EU than say Spain, Italy or Greece - Eurozone membership (and debt) makes it a lot more complicated. It's unclear how the EU would survive if a country/economy the size of Italy was to hold a referendum on EU membership and they voted to leave, but for the time being at least there isn't another EU member state in a mad rush to leave. That said, I didn't think the UK was in a rush to leave either...
- 23,439
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I'd have thought that of all the members of the EU, Poland have gained from it more than most, especially through their own population's migration throughout Europe. I just see it as them flexing their muscles in a time where the EU is perhaps feeling vulnerable.
- 28,530
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Slovakia has also prospered greatly thanks to the European Union for the same reasons. But 5 million Slovaks versus 40 million Poles means they're not as pop culturally known elsewhere though. Too many Polski Skleps and not enough Slovenske Obchods. 
I'd certainly say that I know more pro-EU Slovaks than anti-EU Slovaks but I suppose that's to do with the sort of company I keep. There're certainly people in central Europe who would like to leave the EU as well.
I'd certainly say that I know more pro-EU Slovaks than anti-EU Slovaks but I suppose that's to do with the sort of company I keep. There're certainly people in central Europe who would like to leave the EU as well.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
As a Welsh person surrounded by EU funded projects I think it would be very dangerous to dismiss anti-EU feelings in Poland just because they've benefited hugely from it.
- 28,410
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Parliament voted last night to prevent the final Brexit bill from being passed using a lower standard of scrutiny, basically forcing the government to make the final EU withdrawal bill a full Act of Parliament.
Last night, the BBC interviewed the Justice Minister and he was literally like a broken record. Every answer he gave was essentially identical, except for the use of different words and putting them in a slightly different order. After 5 answers like that, I was getting pretty irritated but also quite impressed by this guy's vocabulary - and his steadfast adherence to his own mantra that this defeat for Theresa May was 'no big deal' (though he didn't actually describe it like that!) Contrary to what the Justice Minister repeatedly said, I believe it is a big deal - not least because it shows just how precarious May's negotiating position is.
Part of the problem is that May is being forced into a 'Hard Brexit' by a combination of her own party and the attitude of the EU - anything less than Hard Brexit is seen as a betrayal of the vote by Brexiteers, but 'Soft Brexit' (aka 'having your cake and eating it) has all but been ruled out by the EU. Ironically, that means that the right wingers like UKIP and the Tory right are actually more in step with the EU insomuch as they both realise that Soft Brexit will not/cannot happen for a multitude of reasons.
But - Soft Brexit is much more popular with the British people than Hard Brexit... given that 48% of UK people voted to Remain but must accept that the UK is leaving the EU, almost all Remainers would prefer a 'Soft Brexit'. That means that it only takes a small proportion of Leave voters to favour 'Soft Brexit' for that to be the most popular option... and I'd guess that at least one quarter of Leave voters would prefer a soft(er) Brexit than what is being suggested by the likes of Nigel Farage.
What that adds up to is a very difficult position for the UK government - the people want Soft Brexit but the EU won't allow it. This is possibly the main reason why Theresa May (and the Brexiteers) would prefer for the final Brexit deal to be passed with relatively little intrusion from the rest of parliament, because they know that their 'Hard Brexit' deal is not likely to be supported by the majority of people, hence any deal they can come up with is likely to get voted down.
Last night, the BBC interviewed the Justice Minister and he was literally like a broken record. Every answer he gave was essentially identical, except for the use of different words and putting them in a slightly different order. After 5 answers like that, I was getting pretty irritated but also quite impressed by this guy's vocabulary - and his steadfast adherence to his own mantra that this defeat for Theresa May was 'no big deal' (though he didn't actually describe it like that!) Contrary to what the Justice Minister repeatedly said, I believe it is a big deal - not least because it shows just how precarious May's negotiating position is.
Part of the problem is that May is being forced into a 'Hard Brexit' by a combination of her own party and the attitude of the EU - anything less than Hard Brexit is seen as a betrayal of the vote by Brexiteers, but 'Soft Brexit' (aka 'having your cake and eating it) has all but been ruled out by the EU. Ironically, that means that the right wingers like UKIP and the Tory right are actually more in step with the EU insomuch as they both realise that Soft Brexit will not/cannot happen for a multitude of reasons.
But - Soft Brexit is much more popular with the British people than Hard Brexit... given that 48% of UK people voted to Remain but must accept that the UK is leaving the EU, almost all Remainers would prefer a 'Soft Brexit'. That means that it only takes a small proportion of Leave voters to favour 'Soft Brexit' for that to be the most popular option... and I'd guess that at least one quarter of Leave voters would prefer a soft(er) Brexit than what is being suggested by the likes of Nigel Farage.
What that adds up to is a very difficult position for the UK government - the people want Soft Brexit but the EU won't allow it. This is possibly the main reason why Theresa May (and the Brexiteers) would prefer for the final Brexit deal to be passed with relatively little intrusion from the rest of parliament, because they know that their 'Hard Brexit' deal is not likely to be supported by the majority of people, hence any deal they can come up with is likely to get voted down.
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
The whole idea behind "Soft Brexit" and a "Hard Brexit" makes me laugh, even with a limited political understanding. It's surely more akin to having a "clean" breakup at the end of a relationship as opposed to a messy breakup. It becomes messy when the end of the relationship is not mutual, or one of the parties disagrees on how actually owns what (in simplified terms anyway - of course there are a lot of factors at play in any relationship).
Again as far as I understand, the EU were very much against Britain leaving so you already have one of the catalysts for a messy situation. But this whole idea of "Soft Brexit" also comes across as Theresa May and the government pushing for 100% ownership of the house, the car and even blocking the EU from seeing the kids at the weekend. Funny enough, the EU aren't going to roll over and so we should all just forget about the idea of a Soft Brexit ever happening.
Again as far as I understand, the EU were very much against Britain leaving so you already have one of the catalysts for a messy situation. But this whole idea of "Soft Brexit" also comes across as Theresa May and the government pushing for 100% ownership of the house, the car and even blocking the EU from seeing the kids at the weekend. Funny enough, the EU aren't going to roll over and so we should all just forget about the idea of a Soft Brexit ever happening.
- 28,530
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Isn't it still possible to cancel the withdrawal process? That is to say, that it is possible to trigger Article 50 but change your mind right up until the scheduled leaving date and remain in the EU?
It would be exceptionally embarrassing, sure, but it is still an option. Given that the leaving process demonstrates not only how much worse off you will be due to factors A, B and C and elements X, Y and Z but also shows how incompetent your own top secretaries are, it is still possible, although admittedly unlikely, for Westminster to have the stones to say "Sorry, we made a mistake and we'd like to stay now."
I suppose it comes down to whom do you want to betray; the 52% or the 48%?
I used to enjoy reading the news; finding out what's going on around the world and at home. But each and every day with Brexit it physically pains me to keep reading the :censored:ing omnishambles that is happening.
- 28,410
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It would be a bit pointless to reverse the decision at the last minute when much of the damage from deciding to leave has already been done. What is perhaps more likely is that the UK could re-join the EU in several years time if and when the EU has reformed to the extent that it becomes less unattractive to the majority of British people - but that's highly unlikely. Various people have said that the UK is free to change its mind or to re-join the EU whenever it wants, but despite these friendly sounding comments, it is considerably more likely that a UK-less EU will change in the opposite direction to what pro-EU reform campaigners (like David Cameron) were hoping for - the EU will probably have little choice but to double-down on ever-closer integration, even if it means that some countries (like Poland) decide to leave as well.
The Euro/Eurozone has been stretched in recent years because the EU is not integrated enough, and so it is highly unlikely that they will decide that the UK was right all along and that it should revert back to simply being a common market type entity. While full integration in Europe could (and probably will) bring strong economic benefits, it also (obviously) comes at a very high price - namely the erosion (and possibly the eventual disappearance) of national sovereignty, and increasingly centralised power in Brussels. I personally think that each EU member state has a limit to how far they are willing to accept these concepts, and that the UK is just the first on the list. There will likely come a time when other member states declare that they are not willing to go any further on integration, and find themselves at odds with the 'grand vision' of an ever more united EU.
The Euro/Eurozone has been stretched in recent years because the EU is not integrated enough, and so it is highly unlikely that they will decide that the UK was right all along and that it should revert back to simply being a common market type entity. While full integration in Europe could (and probably will) bring strong economic benefits, it also (obviously) comes at a very high price - namely the erosion (and possibly the eventual disappearance) of national sovereignty, and increasingly centralised power in Brussels. I personally think that each EU member state has a limit to how far they are willing to accept these concepts, and that the UK is just the first on the list. There will likely come a time when other member states declare that they are not willing to go any further on integration, and find themselves at odds with the 'grand vision' of an ever more united EU.
Last edited:
- 28,530
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
No, I totally agree with that but if it was done now or sometime in the near future, the damage would be significantly reduced.
Especially given how little progress has actually been made so far anyway.
It says Article 50 on the neck!
- 28,410
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
- 2,119
- Somewhere only we know.
- FanofGT5
Here is a video from the great Winston Churchill about socialism folks.
- 16,484
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
The 1950 general election... wasn't that the one Churchill lost to a socialist party who formed the National Health Service? Attlee called a snap election the following year and lost to the Conservatives but Churchill didn't dismantle the state run health care system for some reason. Perhaps he thought it was a good idea.
As for whether being part of a trading bloc represents socialism, it seems to me that the business leaders who wanted to remain in Europe didn't see it that way. Maybe it's because the economic situation is different now from the fifties when this country was at the head of a global empire?
As for whether being part of a trading bloc represents socialism, it seems to me that the business leaders who wanted to remain in Europe didn't see it that way. Maybe it's because the economic situation is different now from the fifties when this country was at the head of a global empire?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
In the film Churchill quips about everyone being on rations. He wasn't kidding. All of Europe was still on its ass, sitting in the ashes of WWII. Britain was bankrupt, the Empire in ruins. The US opposed your colonialism, and supported you to fight communism. Per wiki, between 1945 and 1965, the number of people under British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to five million, three million of whom were in Hong Kong.
SestoScudo
(Banned)
- 3,000
- Australia
- Decepticon 47
I think people hate the EU because its dominated by Germany i dont think so I mean France, Italy and the UK also have a strong economy that rivals Germany heck even the same can even be said for the Scandanvian countries too.
Afterall its an economic union and Germany is an economy powerhouse in Europe and the World.
A lot of the so called conspiracy theories of a German Fourth Reich through EU is so stupid.
Afterall its an economic union and Germany is an economy powerhouse in Europe and the World.
A lot of the so called conspiracy theories of a German Fourth Reich through EU is so stupid.
- 2,119
- Somewhere only we know.
- FanofGT5
At the end of the day folks, satisfaction is the key to happiness and if you are not happy with the result tough, because it was a binding result in the referendum.Nobody can change that no matter who you are.17.4 million people went to vote on that day on June 23rd 2016.If you are not happy i can't change your mind for you, you need to do that yourself.If you are happy with the result great, and the way things are going good i am happy too.
- 16,430
- United Kingdom
At the end of the day folks, it's midnight.
That statement is more relevant than your opinion, and I don't give a **** if you're happy about it or not - just as you don't give a **** about the impact it might have on other peoples businesses and personal lives.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
What you said is simply not true. I'm not happy with the result, but there is something I can do about it. I can leave. I think what many Brexiteers fail to take into account is that those who are disgusted/disheartened/inconvenienced/unhappy enough by the result will consider moving to another country. The most critical factor in this is that those who move abroad are those who are actually able. What makes someone able to move to another country? Usually, it's a combination of not having a lot tying them to their original country and a good education and set of skills which allows them to get a job abroad. Thus, you're looking at a generation of young (i.e. don't own a house or property, haven't built a career, may not have a spouse to consider let alone children, etc.) engineers, scientists, bankers, chemists, doctors, programmers, managers, and entrepreneurs who will begin to seriously consider moving to the EU or further abroad. I know several people who have already made this move, and others who plan to when they graduate uni. We do not know what the affect of this emigration will be, but I believe it will play a significant part in weakening the UK economy. Greece is an extreme example of this 'brain drain': those who are able to leave (i.e. those able to get into foreign unis or get foreign jobs) have done so, leaving a country where skilled workers are extremely scarce. Most developed nations already have a shortage of engineers and other STEM related workers, which is why so many of these jobs are held by immigrants already. Driving these people away from your country will increase immigration out of necessity, as companies will be even more reliant on recruiting foreign workers, but it will also weaken your country's economy because it is generally easier to recruit those who already have the right to work and the local language skills.
I love England. It's my home. But I have no problem leaving if I feel that my quality of life will be significantly better in a place which has better relations with other countries, better public services, more pragmatic domestic and foreign policy, and has a population which is more interested in being part of a global community rather than shutting its doors and demonising the people who make this country greater.
- 28,410
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Except it wasn't.
- 28,530
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I was just about to post the same thing.
There was no obligation from the British government to trigger Article 50 and there still isn't any obligation to see it through to the end.
Just for what it's worth.
