381–390 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
War between who and who?
Not necessarily "large scale", but it's hard to leave the EU customs union without introducing a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and specifically not having a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was part of the peace agreement that ended the Troubles.
Imagine if all the great minds thinking, discussing, reporting and debating brexit spent their time on solving real problems facing the human race instead.
Brexit is a real problem that the human race is faced with. There can be no higher question than that of what rules people should be using to deal with each other. For most of human history the rules were imposed by force. You open your market because if you don't, I'll escalate from sending a strongly worded missive all the way up to sending my armies to pillage your countryside. Recently we've moved to a more contr…
The thing is, the people of the UK don't want to be part of that "United States of Europe". It is being forced upon them. The failure of pro-EU people to recognize that they are breeding unrest will lead to civil war, unless they allow the Brits to exit as they've voted to do.
Here's what happens next: - A motion of no confidence has been tabled and will be debated and voted on tomorrow - If the motion carries (i.e. the Government loses): 1. Theresa May must resign as Prime Minister 2. There can be a 14 day window in which a new government is formed, which must be approved by a motion of confidence. This is likely to be waived 3. There will be a general election. Theresa May will remain le…
If it goes to a second referendum and remain win, then that is the "will of the people", not politicians/Westminster elite/EU telling people how to live their lives, it's the fellow man and woman on the street making the decisions just like it was the first time.
Resorting to violence is extremely unlikely. There are always nutbags around but I can't see this turning into anything more.
...and if it did I would remind those considering violence that the vast majority of the remain vote were young and healthy adults, while the leave vote was predominantly from those aged over 54 (1). Every year more and more leavers die, yet the remain ranks just get stronger and stronger as more kids turn 16. No amount of rose-tinted blitz spirit is going to help with those gammy-knees, dicky-tickers, and bad-backs if it comes to the rough stuff.
The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on. It was a lie, you cannot force the EU to accept an unfavorable trade deal. If only for the reason that it would set an exceptionally bad precedent and everybody would want their own deal, to pick and choose the parts of EU membership that are favorable to them, leading the EU to implode. Somebody needs to own up to that lie and accept that a "no deal" outcome, wh…
> A "no deal" outcome, which is clearly bad, is still the best thing brexiters can actually deliver. It could go much much worse than just "bad". The UK imports a lot of food from EU neighbors. In case of a hard Brexit, this will just ... stop. The question is whether all supermarkets can immediately redo their supply chains. That is not likely. Especially since the UK will loose all trade agreements with the non-EU…
A hard Brexit doesn't mean the EU will impose an embargo on the UK. The EU now happily exports food to WTO members outside the EU, and doesn't impose export tolls or restrictions on those that I'm aware of.
Of course the UK might impose its own tolls, quotas and other import restrictions after crashing out of the EU, but that'll be its own doing.
Edit (since OP updated): It seems implausible that the government would make that self-imposed process onerous enough to result in a literal famine. Which goes to the heart of what you've misunderstood here.
This "chaos at the border" refers to chaos for UK companies trying to export things due to customs requirements the EU has, whereas the UK's hypothetical inability to import something would be due to a purely self-imposed post-EU customs process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, what if? You're essentially arguing that if our benevolent overlords decide that the democratic process might result in something unfavorable that they should do the wise thing and ignore the will of the people.
this is the general principle behind the EU Commission: that of a technocracy the head of the Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, on the 2005 French referendum on the Lisbon Treaty: "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'." the result being that the French rejected it, but it was adopted regardless
1. The French didn't hold a referendum on Lisbon
2. The treaty was ratified in 2008
Presumably you are either confusing the referendum on the EU constitution with the Lisbon treaty, or trying to suggest that they are one and the same? They are not of course, the Lisbon treaty was drafted specifically to address the concerns with the EU constitution. "The electorate rejected version 1, so we redrafted until it was acceptable" sounds like a pretty good policy to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
War between who and who?
Not necessarily "large scale", but it's hard to leave the EU customs union without introducing a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and specifically not having a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was part of the peace agreement that ended the Troubles.
Neither the UK or Ireland will ever ever be the ones the enforce the hard border.
It would have to be the EU enforcing it, if that is what their trade deals demanded. And I sincerely doubt that the EU would be happy with the consequences of them stationing troops on that border.
Both the UK and Ireland have stated that they will not be enforcing a hard border.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That "woman of great importance in the UK government" is the Prime Minister. For the purpose of this discussion, and until she's voted out, she is the most important person in the United Kingdom.
"she is the most important person in the United Kingdom." I believe members of the UK armed forces would probably dispute that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it Essentially, they want to honor the will of the people. The will of the people, by democratic vote, was to leave the EU. With that in mind, they have no options that are in any way good: 1) Push ahead and exit with no-deal (economically disastrous) 2) Push ahead and exit with the proposed deal (economically bad…
> 4) Hold another referendum where it's going to have to be a decision between staying in or exiting with no deal (also political suicide & creates distrust). I've never really understood this reasoning given how Leave as completely nebulous with no real details. Is it really such a betrayal to go back and say "alright here's what Leave actually means is this what you actually want vs Remain"? That's been my issue wi…
Then then they're on the hook to do the actual replacement part and realize that there never was a replacement but they have this hard deadline to get it done.
The fact that the vote was held at all is total madness. They were trying to call a bluff and it blew up in their face. The whole "post fact era" thing only works up until you the point where you need to actually implement policy.
The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on. It was a lie, you cannot force the EU to accept an unfavorable trade deal. If only for the reason that it would set an exceptionally bad precedent and everybody would want their own deal, to pick and choose the parts of EU membership that are favorable to them, leading the EU to implode. Somebody needs to own up to that lie and accept that a "no deal" outcome, wh…
> A "no deal" outcome, which is clearly bad, is still the best thing brexiters can actually deliver. It could go much much worse than just "bad". The UK imports a lot of food from EU neighbors. In case of a hard Brexit, this will just ... stop. The question is whether all supermarkets can immediately redo their supply chains. That is not likely. Especially since the UK will loose all trade agreements with the non-EU…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brexit is a real problem that the human race is faced with. There can be no higher question than that of what rules people should be using to deal with each other. For most of human history the rules were imposed by force. You open your market because if you don't, I'll escalate from sending a strongly worded missive all the way up to sending my armies to pillage your countryside. Recently we've moved to a more contr…
> Brexit is history in the making. The EU is a phenomenally novel way of integrating sovereign nation-states into a singular political entity, that happened without war. It's aim is to make something as singularly powerful as the United States, without force. The thing is, the people of the UK don't want to be part of that "United States of Europe". It is being forced upon them. The failure of pro-EU people to recogn…