- Status
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,069
Can we all recall that the "Deal" is supposed to be a transitional deal, not the real deal? That any somewhat permanent deal between the UK and the EU was always supposed to be negotiated only after brexit?
Can I point out, again, that the easy political way out for this deadlock is to exit and then negotiate? Which avoids the "loss of face" thing because it can be presented as a new negotiation?
And say again that postponing is the most stupid of all possible moves because it keeps things deadlocked and leads to further radicalization of positions? As it has been happening.- Consider what would have happened if the UK had left in the original date. Coudln't it already have a new government? Couldn't it already have negotiated something with the EU?
The UK's Parliament is currently an assembly of complete idiots! They can't even figure out what is best for their long-term self-preservation, lost in short-term political machinations.
Ditto.
I can only add that whereas the original choice was between "bad" and "terrible" options, the choice now is between options "terrible" and "even worse still".
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brex...ting-of-parliament/ar-AAIuJRP?ocid=spartanntp
I guess this is the day Boris caves in, resigns or goes full on Trump and defies the law. It certainly won't be the day anything is actually resolved about Brexit
I guess this is the day Boris caves in, resigns or goes full on Trump and defies the law. It certainly won't be the day anything is actually resolved about Brexit
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...personalization_enabled:false&ocid=spartanntp
“We didn’t win two world wars to be pushed around by a Kraut.”
Well, Britain didn't even win ww2, although it certainly won it more than France
“We didn’t win two world wars to be pushed around by a Kraut.”
Well, Britain didn't even win ww2, although it certainly won it more than France
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...personalization_enabled:false&ocid=spartanntp
“We didn’t win two world wars to be pushed around by a Kraut.”
Well, Britain didn't even win ww2, although it certainly won it more than France
yes !
"we"
lol
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brex...ting-of-parliament/ar-AAIuJRP?ocid=spartanntp
I guess this is the day Boris caves in, resigns or goes full on Trump and defies the law. It certainly won't be the day anything is actually resolved about Brexit
We get a hot weekend
As appetiser Thursday-Friday 17-18 October the EU summit with all PMs
Agenda:
1. General discussion new 7 year budget 2020-2027
2. General discussion new 5 year strategy period 2019-2024
3. Climate
4. Brexit and any other foreign affairs.
Whatever the humiliation for Johnson...
the newsmedia have not much time to dwell on that because:
The Saturday following an emergency sitting of UK Parliament.
The same Saturday a "Peoples Vote" (anti-Brexit pro new referendum) mass rally in London.
Last edited:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...personalization_enabled:false&ocid=spartanntp
“We didn’t win two world wars to be pushed around by a Kraut.”
Well, Britain didn't even win ww2, although it certainly won it more than France
But, but in 1940 little Britain stood alone (hides empire behind cardboard cutout of Winnie and ignores the pilots from 14 other nations that fought in Our Finest Hour).
Johnson hardly needs to play the blame game when he has Cummings and other useful idiots to pass on obvious lies such as the alleged remarks by Angela Merkel.
The Withdrawal Act actually requires there to be no border infrastructure on the Irish border, but no one has accused the Tories of being both consistent and sensible at any point in the last three years.
The Withdrawal Act actually requires there to be no border infrastructure on the Irish border, but no one has accused the Tories of being both consistent and sensible at any point in the last three years.
Ferocitus
Deity
EnglishEdward
Deity
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brex...ting-of-parliament/ar-AAIuJRP?ocid=spartanntp
I guess this is the day Boris caves in, resigns or goes full on Trump and defies the law. It certainly won't be the day anything is actually resolved about Brexit
Well, my thinking is that it is most likely the day when Parliament will finally get around to having a vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson.
Who gets to say,
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
EnglishEdward
Deity
I am sure Boris is perfectly capable of misquotig Churchilll.
Overseas territories do not an empire make.The UK hasn't been an empire since the Commonwealth of the 1930s legally and certainly not since it lost most of its colonies since 1945. Northern Ireland is as much 'a colony' as South Africa was (Ireland as such was definitely treated as a colony by the British). Gibraltar was ceded by Spain; I'm sure Spanish nationalists consider it 'a colony', but its inhabitants would disagree (Spain holds similar territories in Morocco, by the way). The Falklands (Malvinas for Argentinians) are just some rocky spots with a few shepherds on it. Sure, it's a colony. (No Argentinians live there.) Cyprus: British military presence has nothing to with 'colonization': it was the result of the Turkish invasion and the delicate situation since (Cyprus was and is independent).
Does any of this make the UK an empire? Surely not. Those days are gone forever. Being an empire requires something more than some overseas spots under your control and a permanent UNSC membership these days.
I'm not quite sure what this is based on. The Brexit referendum was (and is) non-binding. The then Conservative government that had the brilliant idea to organize said referendum promised, however, to honour its results (exit Cameron).
The following Conservative government tried to work out a workable Brexit deal and got voted down by parliament each time (exit May).
The pro-Leave vote was statistically marginal with a turnout of 75 % of voters. Meaning of actual voters barely 40 % voted Leave. (Not really relevant, just factual.)
It's a bit redundant to say at this point that the Brexit decision is at least controversial. Any wise government would drop all further mention of it. This the Conservatives cannot do, since they have committed themselves to a Brexit referendum result. Now, I could be wrong, but decisions taken out of ignorance should not to be held up indefinitely regardless of the consequences. (One of which is that the UK economy has been shrinking since said referendum.)
Last edited:
It isn't just the tories, though. Brexit is supported by a very large percentage of the british (mostly english) population, and possibly by a majority if we are just talking about brexit without factoring type of it.
The legalese about "non binding" doesn't play any role in practice. As things stand no politician could just cancel brexit just like that.
We didn't need those pesky EHIC cards anyway. It's quite ironic that Ireland is only one of three nations still willing to honour EHIC cards, given everything that is going on right now.
You mean that Johnson does not need to arrange these EHIC cards with the US with his and Trump's fabulous trade deal in the make: that the US pays for health care of UK tourists ?
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
You think that would be wise?!
Sometimes you just have to take the decision with any majority, but the chance you have peace afterwards are much better when you have a bigger majority.
The Gemini had a two-astronaut crew.
For decisions the captain the casting vote for decisions.
For the Apollo project a crew of three was chosen. And for the Lunar Module that would actually land on the moon a crew of two, with there again the captain having the casting vote.
During the Apollo project thoughts were already made for a manned Mars project, including thoughts on how big the crew should be.
That crew would be together for a much longer time than the crews for the short hop to the moon, the time delay with Houston would necessate more responsibility to the crew, and the unforeseen problems during the trips and on Mars could be more complicated.
The obvious decision was that the crew should be of an uneven number, in order to always have a majority for decisions.
But then the discussion moved to 5 or 7 astronauts.
One of the strong arguments for using a crew of 7, from that decision aspect, was that 7 would as uneven number guarantee that there would always be a majority (4-3), but that 7 had the advantage over 5 that the crew could decide for a qualified majority if the decision was not so urgent that it had to be just taken with any majority.
For a crew of 7 this would mean a vote of 5-2 or better.
The psychology behind it was that the 2 in a 5-2 would be more inclined to have peace with the decision than the 3 in a 4-3. That 5-2, being 72%-28%, coming close to the often used twothirds qualified majority.
A crew of 5 would have regular 3-2 decisions, and this 60%-40% was seen as unsatisfying forced, as unstable, for many decisions.
In the many (business) meetings that I attended, it was often so that, although there was no defined vote system or democracy in that respect at all... if the opinions were too divided, the matter was simply postponed for further contemplation.
Meaning continuation of the status quo.
Getting the buy in of enough people for a change is elementary common sense !
Especially when it is about bigger decisions of an irreversible nature.
In that respect counting noses and decide big style based on 50% + 1 vote is imo lunacy.
And only justifiable when you cannot postpone, and must change the status quo.... or "everybody" agrees that a decision has to be taken anyway.
The Gemini had a two-astronaut crew.
For decisions the captain the casting vote for decisions.
For the Apollo project a crew of three was chosen. And for the Lunar Module that would actually land on the moon a crew of two, with there again the captain having the casting vote.
During the Apollo project thoughts were already made for a manned Mars project, including thoughts on how big the crew should be.
That crew would be together for a much longer time than the crews for the short hop to the moon, the time delay with Houston would necessate more responsibility to the crew, and the unforeseen problems during the trips and on Mars could be more complicated.
The obvious decision was that the crew should be of an uneven number, in order to always have a majority for decisions.
But then the discussion moved to 5 or 7 astronauts.
One of the strong arguments for using a crew of 7, from that decision aspect, was that 7 would as uneven number guarantee that there would always be a majority (4-3), but that 7 had the advantage over 5 that the crew could decide for a qualified majority if the decision was not so urgent that it had to be just taken with any majority.
For a crew of 7 this would mean a vote of 5-2 or better.
The psychology behind it was that the 2 in a 5-2 would be more inclined to have peace with the decision than the 3 in a 4-3. That 5-2, being 72%-28%, coming close to the often used twothirds qualified majority.
A crew of 5 would have regular 3-2 decisions, and this 60%-40% was seen as unsatisfying forced, as unstable, for many decisions.
In the many (business) meetings that I attended, it was often so that, although there was no defined vote system or democracy in that respect at all... if the opinions were too divided, the matter was simply postponed for further contemplation.
Meaning continuation of the status quo.
Getting the buy in of enough people for a change is elementary common sense !
Especially when it is about bigger decisions of an irreversible nature.
In that respect counting noses and decide big style based on 50% + 1 vote is imo lunacy.
And only justifiable when you cannot postpone, and must change the status quo.... or "everybody" agrees that a decision has to be taken anyway.
- Status
Similar threads
