1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    29 Jun '16 13:452 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Democracy can shake things up but you have to live with the consequences. And those will not be mild.

    I think the UK just shot themselves in the foot. They will also lose Scotland and maybe even Northern Ireland. So the UK won't be so U anymore. Did anyone think THAT one through before this bombshell dropped?

    Would you care if there was no EU in 30 years, everyone going their own way and back to city states like 400 years ago?
    Scotland and Northern Ireland could join up with Eire itself and reunite the ancient Celtic Kingdom. It possible some days to see the coast of Ireland from the West coast of Scotland, its only twelve miles across the Irish sea at its narrowest point I heard. I once climbed up Goat Fell on the Island of Arran (850 metres) to see if I could see Ireland but it was not possible, not with my eyes anyway.
  2. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    Resident of Planet X
    The Ghost Chamber
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    28730
    29 Jun '16 13:47
    Originally posted by Seitse
    Sorry, I don't speak chav.

    Can someone translate for me this good man's rudimentary language, please?
    Bugger off.

    (Free translation).
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    29 Jun '16 13:49
    Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
    Bugger off.

    (Free translation).
    Please I am not used to such course and vulgar language.
  4. Standard memberSeitse
    Doug Stanhope
    That's Why I Drink
    Joined
    01 Jan '06
    Moves
    33672
    29 Jun '16 13:51
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Please I am not used to such course and vulgar language.
    Did you understand what it said? You're my hero. I seldom can decipher what non-sub-scum write.
  5. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5344
    29 Jun '16 14:03
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Democracy can shake things up but you have to live with the consequences. And those will not be mild.

    I think the UK just shot themselves in the foot. They will also lose Scotland and maybe even Northern Ireland. So the UK won't be so U anymore. Did anyone think THAT one through before this bombshell dropped?

    Would you care if there was no EU in 30 years, everyone going their own way and back to city states like 400 years ago?
    Did anyone think THAT one through before this bombshell dropped?

    Yes. Sturgeon's reluctance to commit to a referendum shows it is no certainty it would be won, especially if Scotland must take on the Euro.

    Would you care if there was no EU in 30 years, everyone going their own way and back to city states like 400 years ago?

    Yes. There are many other possibilities, however. The debate over the referendum was full of false dichotomies, and your comment rather hints at another.

    I didn't vote Leave because I wanted to see the EU collapse. I voted Leave because I could not accept the current terms of membership and saw no prospect of reform.

    I hope one day we can vote to rejoin the EU, but for that to happen a lot will have to change. It is interesting that, in just a few days, some member states are voicing questions of reform in a way they never have before, and would not have done but for us leaving.
  6. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    29 Jun '16 14:155 edits
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    [b]Did anyone think THAT one through before this bombshell dropped?

    Yes. Sturgeon's reluctance to commit to a referendum shows it is no certainty it would be won, especially if Scotland must take on the Euro.

    Would you care if there was no EU in 30 years, everyone going their own way and back to city states like 400 years ago?

    Yes. ...[text shortened]... questions of reform in a way they never have before, and would not have done but for us leaving.[/b]
    Nicola wants to have a referendum on her own terms, not one imposed upon her or the Scottish people by events elsewhere. Saying that with sentiment running so high this might be as good a time as any although we are into the UK for some hefty amounts of dosh. If we leave can we just declare bankruptcy, tell our creditors that the other Scotland is dead, write it off and start again?
  7. Standard memberSeitse
    Doug Stanhope
    That's Why I Drink
    Joined
    01 Jan '06
    Moves
    33672
    29 Jun '16 14:55
    Hadas, a fellow at St. Mary's and a Reuters analyst, penned this interesting piece:

    edward-hadas
    Most leading British politicians spent much of June 27, the Monday after the country voted to leave the European Union, congratulating each other for accepting the will of the people. Parliamentarians from both parties took a peculiar pride in having abdicated their responsibility. The winners expressed magnanimity and the losers mostly promised to respect what they called the will of the people. To those watching from the outside, this sort of politics is reckless, bizarre and unnecessary.

    It is reckless because the UK faces a tremendous economic and political challenge. Leaving the EU is a gamble, with small possible economic gains and large likely losses. An isolated and mistrusted nation faces the withering away of ties with its largest trading partner. But many Remain partisans are being sucked into the Leave campaigner’s fantasy world, in which perfidious Britain might still get a good deal with the EU. The recovery of the benchmark FTSE 100 above 6,300 points on June 29, back where it was the day before the vote, reflects those idle dreams.

    Under the circumstances, the almost unquestioned acceptance of the referendum’s result is bizarre. Why continue down this path? Why alienate already angry voters on both sides? Remain supporters are already furious, and the Leave voters are in for bad news. They face some combination of economic decline and the betrayal of their wish to hide in a fantasy pre-globalisation world.

    The best explanation for this peculiar behaviour is not the one Prime Minister David Cameron offered, respect for democracy. It comes from another British tradition – games. We won, you lost. Chin up, take it like a grownup. Shake hands and move on.

    Everything is wrong with this approach. The decision to leave or stay in the European Union is not a sporting match with a winner, a loser, clear rules, a referee and a replay next year. This question is complex. It should be answered only by people who are able to make informed and rational judgments. To give the people the opportunity to override the legislature is an insult to the principle of representative democracy.

    The British basically invented this stable form of democracy, but they still decided to treat EU membership as a game. But they forgot a basic principle of sports, fair rules. In this referendum, the terms were anything but fair. The Leave campaign did not have to present any plan, any forecast, any concrete explanations of anything. They took full advantage of this un-level playing field by encouraging voters’ illusions, fears and hatred.

    In sports, it is acceptable to play by the rules, even when they appear unfair. The Leave campaign, though, actively cheated. The one big number it touted – a saving of 350 million pounds a week in contributions to Europe – was a lie. The assurance that the 1.2 million British people living in the EU had nothing to fear was a lie. The claim that the UK could easily negotiate a good exit deal was a lie. An effective referee would have disqualified the Leave side, and given Remain victory by default. Britain has a watchdog for policing untruths in commercial advertising. It does not have one for political campaigns.

    Instead, the match was played to the end and the Leave campaign declared the winner. But in such a closely called election, the numbers aren’t decisive. This was a three-way election, with 28 percent of the electorate not voting, 37 percent in favour of leaving and 35 percent for Remain. If non-voters were younger than the average, and had gone to the polls after all – a question that is now largely academic – Remain may have been the winner.

    So a cheating team just manages a draw in a match that was rigged in its favour. There is no reason for the strong Remain majority in parliament to be good sports about a plebiscite they did not lose. The nation’s elected representatives should be looking for the least incendiary way to get around the result. They have a duty to forget the game.

    It would have been far better never to have called a referendum. Whatever happens, irreversible damage has already been done to the British reputation, among both potential investors and European governments. The economy has suffered from the uncertainty. The right decision now, to ignore last week’s vote, will add shame and ridicule. It would require careful selling to voters to avoid political unrest. But those are lesser evils than the problems that would come from being good losers.

    At least demographics are on the side of Britain in Europe. Remain won decisively among young adults, by a three-to-one margin according to a YouGov poll. That reflects the coming generation’s increasingly global perspective. The elite of this group are almost as much European as British. As they gradually take power, they will want to join the European project, bringing understanding and enthusiasm. The next prime minister would do well to stop playing games and make their path smoother.
  8. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    Resident of Planet X
    The Ghost Chamber
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    28730
    29 Jun '16 14:58
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    Out of interest to those that thumbed this down (or who didn't), who are the other candidates in, say, the last 20 years and what did they achieve that comes close to the impact that Farage has had? Or has been as successful in achieving such profound political change?

    (Alex Salmond aside, who I admit is close, and may take back the top spot if Scotland leaves the UK.)
    I didn't thumb down your post but will respond anyway. πŸ™‚

    Farage has certainly been a pawn in the Brexit game with designs perhaps on promotion, but the knights of Boris and Gove were always going to sacrifice him at the earliest opportunity. Like a well placed pawn he served a purpose in the opening, but will quickly become irrelevant in the middle game and be off the board completely in the end game.

    I probably do too many chess analogies.

    😞
  9. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5344
    29 Jun '16 14:59
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    If we leave can we just declare bankruptcy, tell our creditors that the other Scotland is dead, write it off and start again?
    That might just count against you a tad in any application to rejoin the EU.

    But with a little help from Goldman Sachs you should be able to work your way round this.
  10. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116923
    29 Jun '16 14:59
    Incidentally, I didn't thumb it down either.
  11. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116923
    29 Jun '16 15:03
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Would you care if there was no EU in 30 years, everyone going their own way and back to city states like 400 years ago?
    You are creating a false dilemma the opposite of the current EU is not the dark ages. It is rhetoric like this from you that drives ignorance.

    30 years...? The EU, in it's current form, is finished already, it just doesn't realise yet. The UK will not be the first country to exercise democratic objection.
  12. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116923
    29 Jun '16 15:05
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Scotland and Northern Ireland could join up with Eire itself and reunite the ancient Celtic Kingdom.
    Good grief; it's like listening to Lord of the Rings.
  13. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    Resident of Planet X
    The Ghost Chamber
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    28730
    29 Jun '16 15:08
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Good grief; it's like listening to Lord of the Rings.
    Robbie would make a credible Golum.
  14. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8305
    29 Jun '16 15:13
    My precious, (....dwool dwool...)
  15. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116923
    29 Jun '16 15:141 edit
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    I don't think most of this is relevant to whether or not he was successful/important. And I certainly never suggested that he speaks for you, as he does not speak for me.

    But I don't think we can simply dismiss as coincidence (or a minor influencing factor) that Cameron's decision to offer a referendum in the manifesto coincided with a period when ...[text shortened]... onservative vote, having resisted it previously.

    Do you think he did it for any other reason?
    Thank you for your acknowledgement - I appreciate it.

    Are you defining Fargue's success as influencing Cameron to call a referendum? I'm not clear why you describe Fargue as "now (post Brexit) clearly is the most successful/important UK politician of recent decades."

    I think you need to define this and demonstrate efficacy of your chosen metrics, before we move on. If it is the outcome of the referendum then I strongly disagree.

    Do I think he has been successful? He's taken his party from zero to 1 seat. Success I suppose. Yes he has, but while his influence is felt through the current spate of hate going on in the UK, I think near history will confine his impact to being of a political flag-waving activist rather than a social and cultural visionary.

    I also think he will become exemplary of how "not" to do it; within the perspective on political success.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree