Is Britain about to leave the EU?
- Thread starter Mega Tsunami
- Start date
- Status
^That sounds horrible. "The poor matter"?!?
(although i am not at all well-versed in how Venezuela is doing, nor what its politicians did there, yet it seems Corbyn framed his posts in a way that isn't at all controversial. Then again, from videos of Chavez i saw... Chavez was not a class act. He sounded more like a bizarre cross between Thatcher and Idi Amin).
(although i am not at all well-versed in how Venezuela is doing, nor what its politicians did there, yet it seems Corbyn framed his posts in a way that isn't at all controversial. Then again, from videos of Chavez i saw... Chavez was not a class act. He sounded more like a bizarre cross between Thatcher and Idi Amin).
seriously?
when a leader of a country dies everyone tries to find something nice to say about who died, regardless of what they thought. Its bad manners to speak ill of the dead, and a tweet proves nothing about what he thought. after all he's politician and could be expected to lie anyway
"Thank you Hitler for showing that it is possible to restore faith in one's people and fight the oppressors. He made massive contributions to Germany and mankind"
"Thank you Stalin for showing we can accomplish anything and defeat all of our enemies, internal and external. He made great contributions and ...."
Chávez was a murdering dictator, and Corbyn was his buddy and slavish admirer, all the way to the end.
Pablo Iglesias worked for Chávez.
I don't give Europe's bozo-left a pass for their complicity on dictatorships abroad, not any more than I give a pass for Nazi associations of the AfD and Orban's fascism.
Corbyn is a scumbag and his policies would ruin Britain.
Has there been much discussion in England about how threatening this is to peace in Northern Ireland, or how the brexiters intend to mantain and uphold the Good Friday Agreement?
It honestly seems pretty irresponsible for a government obligated by treaties it has signed to uphold peace through that Agreement, to even be holding a vote that so directly threatens it with the creation of borders and the breakdown of binational and cross-border institutions.
It honestly seems pretty irresponsible for a government obligated by treaties it has signed to uphold peace through that Agreement, to even be holding a vote that so directly threatens it with the creation of borders and the breakdown of binational and cross-border institutions.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
that sort of demonstrates the absurdity of taking one line internet statements as reflecting the writers true beliefs
my point entirely in my previous post
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
That's because some of the pro-Brexit leaders didn't really want the referendum to succeed and just saw it as a game for power between Eton boys.
And the EU is now saying "No, you mofos, this is not a f-ing game".
There's probably also a good portion of spite and penned up resentment behind EU leaders now urging the UK get out asap, and not everybody who is "shocked" is actually unhappy about the UK leaving (and possibly reentering in the future without exceptions and the rebate).
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Venezuela is the fourth MOST corrupt country in the world, the previous governments were not all that great, but Chávez disastrous policies have only come home with the collapse of Oil prices at the time of hes death Oil prices allowed Lavish government benefits to the poor and for a short time the illusion of lifting the poor from poverty.
Meanwhile it appears that Scottish Parliament has to give consent to leaving the EU.
The role of the devolved legislatures in implementing the withdrawal
agreement
70. We asked Sir David whether he thought the Scottish Parliament would have
to give its consent to measures extinguishing the application of EU law in
Scotland. He noted that such measures would entail amendment of section
29 of the Scotland Act 1998, which binds the Scottish Parliament to act in a
manner compatible with EU law, and he therefore believed that the Scottish
Parliament’s consent would be required.83 He could envisage certain political
advantages being drawn from not giving consent.
71. We note that the European Communities Act is also entrenched in the
devolution settlements of Wales and Northern Ireland. Though we have
taken no evidence on this specific point, we have no reason to believe that
the requirement for legislative consent for its repeal would not apply to all the
devolved nations.
The role of the devolved legislatures in implementing the withdrawal
agreement
70. We asked Sir David whether he thought the Scottish Parliament would have
to give its consent to measures extinguishing the application of EU law in
Scotland. He noted that such measures would entail amendment of section
29 of the Scotland Act 1998, which binds the Scottish Parliament to act in a
manner compatible with EU law, and he therefore believed that the Scottish
Parliament’s consent would be required.83 He could envisage certain political
advantages being drawn from not giving consent.
71. We note that the European Communities Act is also entrenched in the
devolution settlements of Wales and Northern Ireland. Though we have
taken no evidence on this specific point, we have no reason to believe that
the requirement for legislative consent for its repeal would not apply to all the
devolved nations.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Churchill supported Franco and Thatcher supported Pinochet.
that sort of demonstrates the absurdity of taking one line internet statements as reflecting the writers true beliefs
my point entirely in my previous post
But Corbyn said a few vaguely positive things about an elected populist.
And that's just taking things too far.
HAND
Armchair Philosopher
Some breaking news - "Nicola Sturgeon says MSPs at Holyrood could veto Brexit"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36633244
Probably wishful thinking on Sturgeon's part, but time will tell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36633244
Probably wishful thinking on Sturgeon's part, but time will tell.
Posted the House of Lords European Union Committee report extract two posts above. The argument is that EU law is embedded in the devolved parliaments of Scotland, NI and Wales and so to have the application of EU law be extinguished would require those bodies' consent.
I would assume the only alternative would be if Westminister is still permitted to amend the Scottish devolution legislation. Which would be pretty dicey.
When you create a de facto federation, things like that tend to emerge from it.
BoriGovRage are not the 52% who voted for Brexit, though. Do you think all those people would have voted to leave if the Eu was not by now terrible next to what it was 10 or more years ago? Also, note that in the past not even the Tory side (other than utter fringe) were in favor of leaving the actual Eu. Eg Tory leader at the time (William Hague) said stuff to the tone of "In Europe, but not run by Europe", etc. Those were the Blair years.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Well, Cameron promised a referendum purely to shut up the eurosceptic wing in the party and Johnson ran with it to inherit Cameron's throne. This will go down as one of the most avoidable farces in Britain's history.
While Tories were not in favor of outright leaving in the past, they always insisted on special treatment and were never interested in being a normal EU member like everybody else and "eurosceptic rethoric was always a cheap way to pander and deflect anger. The UK has been the odd man out since Thatcher wanted her money back.
And although I don't have any hard numers, it seems that a far amount of the leave voters were just angry and -believing that the remain vote will have a solid lead- used it as an opportunity for a protest vote, and their first thought after watching the news Friday morning was "WTH have we just done !? ". #Bregret #Regrexit
We might see something similar in the USA later this year. "Yes, I voted for him but I was just angry at Hillary. I didn't think Trump could win."
Vaguely positive? He was his buddy, admired everything he did, never denounced him, hugged him like a groupie every time they met...
As for "elected populist", he was a dictator who murdered and pillaged his country and turned it into the failed state it is now. In terms of concrete damage done to the people, he is much worse than Pinochet.
But I understand you. When Jean Marie Le Pen or some other right-wing scumbag cozies up to known anti-semites and praises dictators, that's proof that they are monsters. When Corbyn, Ken Livingston or Pablo Iglesias do the exact same, it's just "vaguely positive remarks" and we should ignore them and not hold it against them. Pablo Iglesias freakin' worked for Chávez, who he called "Comandante" until the end. That's much more than Churchill or Thatcher ever did to Franco or Pinochet, no?
But hey, in the world you live in the left has the monopoly of good intentions, and dangerous clowns like Iglesias and Corbyn are good men who shouldn't be held accountable by the people they associate with or even worked for.
I can see a lot of potentially complicated legal challenges being posed in the face of Brexit. This is going to be a mess of gigantic proportions, and God only knows what the final cost will be.
One of the lest thought-out moves in recent history.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,418
You get this in every crisis: political leaders whose priority is grabbing power will do anything to get it, even braking apart their own countries and causing civil wars. You had that in the USSR and in Yugoslavia, in Europe's recent past. Sturgeon is another one. Not that there is any threat of war, note: if she does indeed force another referendum and wins it the rest of the EU will just say, fine, go your way.
I don't think she can win, though, for lack of backing from both her colleagues and the population at large - regardless of what polls say now. SNP's position in Scotland is anomalous, the party being a "single-issue" one that expanded to fill a temporary void. Independence will undo that. As with the UKIP, the opportunists inside don't really stand for what they claim they stand for. But her main difficulty is selling the idea of having Scotland both independent and a dependent part of the EU - it is a contradition, one that several other "regionalists" across the EU have fallen into years ago and never solved. Such a proposal will neither satisfy the hardcore Independence supporters for "we want independence to be free to rule ourselves", not credibly offer expected material benefits to the opportunistic Independence supporters for "we want independence to be wealthier". The EU is a project now visibly failing that is just not sufficiently appealing, my predition is that a campaign for independence that centers on an alternative of belonging to the EU will fail.
^Agreed.
Let alone that Scottish parliament blocking UK leaving the EU after UK votes to leave, would be analogous to UK parliament blocking Scotland leaving UK.
It is irresponsible, at best. She should just prepare for a future Scotxit from the KU.
Let alone that Scottish parliament blocking UK leaving the EU after UK votes to leave, would be analogous to UK parliament blocking Scotland leaving UK.
It is irresponsible, at best. She should just prepare for a future Scotxit from the KU.
The other alternative would be to let Scotland leave the UK. This might be a ploy to gather support for another Scottish referendum.
Personally I'd be making Scottish consent conditional on an independence referendum.
The whole point of devolution is recognition that decisions by England can override Scottish ones due to numerical superiority. It is protection against that tyranny of the majority. Exercising that protection on such an important existential question seems only reasonable.
(I should note that referenda in Australia require both a majority of the national vote and a majority of States in order to pass. Constitutional change in the US requires more than a simple majority of states too. The principle of sub-state entities having a specific say over their destiny should hardly be controversial)
The whole point of devolution is recognition that decisions by England can override Scottish ones due to numerical superiority. It is protection against that tyranny of the majority. Exercising that protection on such an important existential question seems only reasonable.
(I should note that referenda in Australia require both a majority of the national vote and a majority of States in order to pass. Constitutional change in the US requires more than a simple majority of states too. The principle of sub-state entities having a specific say over their destiny should hardly be controversial)
This can be gotten without being on the public eye.
Personally i think Sturgeon just messed up in this issue. It cannot negate the Brexit vote, so it can only extend the current state of WTH.
- Status
Similar threads
