Brexit: Now What? Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
What makes me laugh about the whole sad affair is that within 10 years or so, the UK will realize that the 1998 agreements with the PIRA were the demarcation of it's loss to the Irish, and not any sort of victory. After about 70 years of fighting and getting stomped, the PIRA realized that if it could make demographics and political circumstance an ally, then they could eventually rip Northern Ireland from the UK. And that is exactly what is to happen, and the UK can no longer do a damned thing to stop it.

Demographics and Brexit will rip Northern Ireland from the UK. That's the deal. What was negotiated to end a war in 1998, will be the tool by which the PIRA gains ultimate victory.

Strange, huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

This is so sad for the UK:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...rish-passport-application-forms-34830144.html
 
Last edited:
Jules Galen said:
What makes me laugh about the whole sad affair is that within 10 years or so, the UK will realize that the 1998 agreements with the PIRA were the demarcation of it's loss to the Irish, and not any sort of victory. After about 70 years of fighting and getting stomped, the PIRA realized that if it could make demographics and political circumstance an ally, then they could eventually rip Northern Ireland from the UK. And that is exactly what is to happen, and the UK can no longer do a damned thing to stop it.

Demographics and Brexit will rip Northern Ireland from the UK. That's the deal. What was negotiated to end a war in 1998, will be the tool by which the PIRA gains ultimate victory.

Strange, huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

This is so sad for the UK:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...rish-passport-application-forms-34830144.html
Click to expand...
In other words a majority of the population will come to support a United Ireland, and that will be achieved peacefully. What's wrong with that? Why do you call it "ripping" the UK? The only thing that is a "rip" is the border that divided Ireland for a century. If Scotland too chooses independence peacefully and democratically, will you say that the Scots are ripping the UK apart? Why not acknowledge in that event: it is the wish of the people that the union should come to an end?

During the Troubles, unionists used to claim: the IRA use the gun because they and their cause can never win using the ballot box. If the nationalists do in fact attain their aims using the peaceful constitutional route, what's your problem?

I too am applying for a Republic of Ireland passport, in defiance of this Brexit rubbish, on the strength of my grandmother who was born in Co Antrim, of Protestant descent, during the nineteenth century; and was as hostile to Irish independence as it is possible to be. I think that is poetic justice, and it is neither violent nor in my opinion "sad".

The United Kingdom is essentially an imperial structure. The Empire died in 1956, when the UK was restrained by the USA from chastising Egypt. It was then only a matter of time until the union also dissolved. Let us be thankful if it comes to a peaceful end, rather than a bloody and violent one. Unlike Wordsworth when he contemplated the Extinction of the Venetian Republic, I have no inclination to
... grieve when even the Shade
Of that which once was great is pass'd away.​
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
In other words a majority of the population will come to support a United Ireland, and that will be achieved peacefully. What's wrong with that? Why do you call it "ripping" the UK? The only thing that is a "rip" is the border that divided Ireland for a century. If Scotland too chooses independence peacefully and democratically, will you say that the Scots are ripping the UK apart? Why not acknowledge in that event: it is the wish of the people that the union should come to an end?

During the Troubles, unionists used to claim: the IRA use the gun because they and their cause can never win using the ballot box. If the nationalists do in fact attain their aims using the peaceful constitutional route, what's your problem?

I too am applying for a Republic of Ireland passport, in defiance of this Brexit rubbish, on the strength of my grandmother who was born in Co Antrim, of Protestant descent, during the nineteenth century; and was as hostile to Irish independence as it is possible to be. I think that is poetic justice, and it is neither violent nor in my opinion "sad".

The United Kingdom is essentially an imperial structure. The Empire died in 1956, when the UK was restrained by the USA from chastising Egypt. It was then only a matter of time until the union also dissolved. Let us be thankful if it comes to a peaceful end, rather than a bloody and violent one. Unlike Wordsworth when he contemplated the Extinction of the Venetian Republic, I have no inclination to
... grieve when even the Shade
Of that which once was great is pass'd away.​
Click to expand...

I got no problems with any of this, and I think that NI's future is quite bright compared to it's past. And i am glad the ultimate resolution will be peaceful. But, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement - which was brought about by Force of the PIRA in no small part - was instrumental in setting the stage for NI's future departure from the UK.

After 70-years-or-so of being beaten up by the British (and the Protestants), the PIRA did it right: they figured out how to fight the British and they figured out how to make a peace that was ultimately beneficial to them from a long-term perspective. I mean, after you fought for over 70 years, what's 30-or-so more years in the big scheme of things. It's a long war...and the PIRA kept its focus.

Nevertheless, there are a lot of ex-PIRA people that don't even fully appreciate what was negotiated in 1998 and what it will mean for the future or NI. These types - these "shoot 'em up" simpletons, see winning wars as nothing but body counts and "Flag Planting". They totally missed it....and probably still don't see it.

Seriously, I saw this coming from as far back as 2011 after reading an article entitled, "IRA vs. Al Qaeda: I Was Wrong' in the exiled written by the "War Nerd". http://exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/

I'm sure that people who were actually paying attention saw it as far back as 1998 - when it happened!

An amazing development.
 
Last edited:
A group of 72 MPs have written to the BBC accusing it of being pessimistic and skewed in its Brexit coverage - in the months since the vote on the EU.

In a letter to the director general, they said the BBC is "unfairly representing" Leave voters by focusing on those who regret their decision.

The MPs warned the future of the BBC "will be in doubt" if it is not seen as a impartial broker.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39335904

Threatening the BBC?

Seems they are learning from Trump.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
A group of 72 MPs have written to the BBC accusing it of being pessimistic and skewed in its Brexit coverage - in the months since the vote on the EU.

In a letter to the director general, they said the BBC is "unfairly representing" Leave voters by focusing on those who regret their decision.

The MPs warned the future of the BBC "will be in doubt" if it is not seen as a impartial broker.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39335904

Threatening the BBC?

Seems they are learning from Trump.
Click to expand...

Nothing must stand in the way of the Brexit narrative that "everything is OK and everything will be great after we have rid ourselves of the albatross which is the EU" :rolleyes:
 
I'm quite jealous of people who have the right to an Irish passport, or indeed any other passport at all. I don't. My only way out of this mess is if a Scottish passport becomes possible.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm quite jealous of people who have the right to an Irish passport, or indeed any other passport at all. I don't. My only way out of this mess is if a Scottish passport becomes possible.
Click to expand...

How dare you attempt to shirk your responsibility to dig the Leave supporters out of the ever-deeper hole they appear to be digging for themselves ;) :p
 
The Don said:
I've never understood the squeamishness about eating horse if, like me, you're willing to eat pig, sheep or cow
Click to expand...

I actually find it rather tasty :) But as I understand it people of Anglo-Saxon descent have a problem with eating what they see as companion animals - horses, dogs, cats, etc. I believe I mentioned you guys are weird a couple of times now ;)

McHrozni
 
Hlafordlaes said:
The problem is, there are few viable alternatives between In and Out that would not lead to making concessions that would make a shambles of the EU enterprise. This makes Out the default if the UK stays its course. Any concessions are likely to be mostly in the area of letting displaced citizens carry on without uprooting their lives or careers. But the elephant in the room, relatively free market access, can only be a choice between the two extremes, In or Out, as In implies levels of integration the UK has explicitly rejected already.
Click to expand...

The only thing the UK explicitly rejected was EU membership, and that only by a small plurality of the electorate. There was no consensus sought, let alone reached in UK about EEA or Customs union. This is a pet project of the PM and her goons who weren't able to look into the dangers of leaving without a deal a month after saying leaving no deal would be preferable to leaving with a bad deal. UK endorsed the level of integration it already reached.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
The only thing the UK explicitly rejected was EU membership, and that only by a small plurality of the electorate. There was no consensus sought, let alone reached in UK about EEA or Customs union. This is a pet project of the PM and her goons who weren't able to look into the dangers of leaving without a deal a month after saying leaving no deal would be preferable to leaving with a bad deal. UK endorsed the level of integration it already reached.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

I guess if people accept that the primary reason for leaving the EU was to "get control over immigration" then I suppose it flows that leaving the EEA is inevitable too because free flow of people is a prerequisite for membership.

The thing is that it's not that clear what the drivers behind Brexit were. For every Leave campaigner saying it was about immigration, there's another saying that it's not a big factor and instead it's about free trade or being free of EU regulations (either specific ones or to be generally free of "foreign interference") or something else entirely. It was a bit like a buffet where people could pick what they wanted or indeed just vote Leave to cock a snook at the establishment.

IMO there's no doubt that a lot of Leave voters would be unhappy with a version of Brexit which left us with the free flow of EU citizens but then again those same leave voters are likely to be equally unhappy if post-Brexit net migration does not reduce significantly. Of course a majority of Leave voters may not be a majority of the population at large.

I suppose the only thing in favour of a "diamond hard" out-out-out Brexit is that it's likely to give nearly all Leave voters something they wanted (even the ones who voted Leave just to create chaos ;)).
 
The Don said:
I guess if people accept that the primary reason for leaving the EU was to "get control over immigration" then I suppose it flows that leaving the EEA is inevitable too because free flow of people is a prerequisite for membership.

The thing is that it's not that clear what the drivers behind Brexit were. For every Leave campaigner saying it was about immigration, there's another saying that it's not a big factor and instead it's about free trade or being free of EU regulations (either specific ones or to be generally free of "foreign interference") or something else entirely. It was a bit like a buffet where people could pick what they wanted or indeed just vote Leave to cock a snook at the establishment.

IMO there's no doubt that a lot of Leave voters would be unhappy with a version of Brexit which left us with the free flow of EU citizens but then again those same leave voters are likely to be equally unhappy if post-Brexit net migration does not reduce significantly. Of course a majority of Leave voters may not be a majority of the population at large.

I suppose the only thing in favour of a "diamond hard" out-out-out Brexit is that it's likely to give nearly all Leave voters something they wanted (even the ones who voted Leave just to create chaos ;)).
Click to expand...

The referendum question was unambiguous:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

The only thing it set out to do was to answer the question whether UK should leave the EU or not. It provides us with no information about whether this is about controlling immigration or standards or maybe about providing paychecks to the members of the European parliament or about EU flag flying alongside the Union jack. As such we should avoid any conjecture about "what drove Brexit". We should instead acknowledge we don't know in any acceptable democratic way what drove voters to go for Brexit and accept there is no democratic mandate to do anything, except maybe to exit the EU without giving up on all aspects of membership that can still be retained.

After all, the electorate did know about what membership entailed in 1972 and voted in favor. It also knew and had the ability to influence what membership evolved into since then. You can't just trump that on conjecture "uh, well, most people I talked to say X was the problem, so we should do that" or maybe "newspapers mainly focus on Y, so we should do that instead". You don't run a democratic state based on rumors, hearsay or newspaper articles. One couldn't manage even a single person household in that way, let alone a major country.

This is how irresponsible the British government is.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
I actually find it rather tasty :) But as I understand it people of Anglo-Saxon descent have a problem with eating what they see as companion animals - horses, dogs, cats, etc. I believe I mentioned you guys are weird a couple of times now ;)

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Well, there was the whole furore about horsemeat in the burgers at certain establishments. On one hand, sure, if you advertise 100% beef and it turns out to be horse, that is outright false advertising, fair enough. Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with horse meat per se. One will find it on many menus around europe as an actual dish.
 
abaddon said:
Well, there was the whole furore about horsemeat in the burgers at certain establishments. On one hand, sure, if you advertise 100% beef and it turns out to be horse, that is outright false advertising, fair enough. Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with horse meat per se. One will find it on many menus around europe as an actual dish.
Click to expand...

The problem with undocumented horse meat is that horses are also used for racing. Those horses can be laced with hormones and medicines (antibiotics) illegal for animals intended for human consumption. Illegal horse meat can come from such animals, so the furor was rather justified, irrespective of your feelings towards the tasty, tasty horses :o

McHrozni
 
The Don said:
The continued drop in the value of the pound has resulted in the CPI measure of inflation creeping up to 2.3% - the RPI measure (which includes mortgage interest payments) is just over 3%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39337909
Click to expand...

Pound holds steady at about 1.15 Euros to the pound. It lost about 7% of its' value permanently, I think.

I don't advice you calculate that in real terms to see how much Brexit cost you already, you'll likely get angry. I know I would.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
The problem with undocumented horse meat is that horses are also used for racing. Those horses can be laced with hormones and medicines (antibiotics) illegal for animals intended for human consumption. Illegal horse meat can come from such animals, so the furor was rather justified, irrespective of your feelings towards the tasty, tasty horses :o

McHrozni
Click to expand...
Sure. QC needs to pervade the food industry. My point is, however, that there is nothing per se wrong with horse meat as a foodstuff.

For most, the squeamishness about it arises not from any quality consideration, but from a rose tinted conception of Dobbin wearing a straw hat and looking cute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom