Theresa may... or she might not, after all?

[Jetex Jim]

A very insightful article in today's Guardian.
[The paranoid fantasy behind Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... _clipboard]

I was particularly impressed by the following.

The crucial idea here is the vertiginous fall from “heart of Empire” to “occupied colony”. In the imperial imagination, there are only two states: dominant and submissive, coloniser and colonised. This dualism lingers. If England is not an imperial power, it must be the only other thing it can be: a colony. And, as Deighton successfully demonstrated, (in SS-GB) this logic can be founded in an alternative English history. The moment of greatest triumph – the defeat of the Nazis – can be reimagined as the moment of greatest humiliation – defeat by the Nazis. The pain of colonisation and defeat can, in the context of uneasy membership of the EU, be imaginatively appropriated.
Boris Johnson, in the Telegraph of 12 November, claimed that “we are on the verge of signing up for something even worse than the current constitutional position. These are the terms that might be enforced on a colony.”

Feeding the paranoid fantasies of the old folk indeed. It shouldn't be allowed.

[Sisemen]

I get somewhat fed up with the modern malaise of being unable to accept a democratic decision. I suspect that it comes from schools, from pre-school upwards, not being able to inculcate into children that, in the real world, there are actually winners and losers.

[Magnus]

Well, the remoaners couldn't accept the decision, the SNP won't accept the decision to remain in the union and we're going to get in a state of paralysis where the unsuccessful side in any future referendum will demand a re-run. After the EU referendum, once Cameron had scuttled off in shame, we should have said pi$$ off, EU and taken back control, warts and all. After IndyRef, Sturgeon and her team of numpties should have got on with the day job, instead of threatening IndyRef2 while the NHS, justice system and education all pay the price of her inattention. The Eurocrats must be laughing themselves silly.

[CharlieOneSix]

Magnus - thoroughly agree with every single word in your post! Excellent.

[Undried Plum]

Well said, Magnus.

Cameron should have signed off the Article 50 Declaration at 09:00 the following morning. When the Maybot took over, she should have signed and published her Declaration within an hour of returning to No 10 from the Palace.

The Jockistani Peoples Liberation Front Gauleiters should be reminded on a daily basis that they had agreed that the IndyRef was to be a "once in a lifetime" event. OK, so they slightly changed that to "once in a generation", but even that is a multi-decade timescale for a second dook at the apple. If the wee nippysweetie wumman tries to hold a unilateral "referendum" of her own, it will be nothing more than an opinion poll.

In the British Independence Referendum the British people spoke their mind in what should have been a binding contract between we the people and our delegated Parliamentarians. That's the nature of a democracy.

I rather liked Tony Abbott's piece in The Spectator.

[Smeagol]

I rather liked Tony Abbott's piece in The Spectator.

Couldn't possibly do what Tony Abbot suggests in that article. Much too sensible!! And as he points out the myriad of civil servants (on both sides of the Channel) would be 'surplus to requirements'. Couldn't have that could we?

[G-CPTN]

What seems to me to be being implied is that, following the decision to leave (Article 50), Britain should have done nothing and saved all the negotiating shenanigans (and associated stress) and simply waited for the sh!t to hit the fan - causing the EU to panic and come running with concessions . . .


?

[Jetex Jim]

Come on, look on the bright side guys.

[boing]

G-CPTN

It was clear that there would be problems with Brexit but I think that most people saw these technical problems as nothing compared with a continuing gut-wrenching interference of the EU in UK's internal affairs this interference being such micro-management as to be intolerable.

The UK should have immediately submitted the Article 50 documents and waited for the reaction, that way you deal with problems as they occur, you do not go searching for unnecessary problems.

.

[Seenenough]

Over the years had the highly entertaining experience of working with both the French side of Airbus Helicopters as well as the German side of Airbus.

It should not surprise anyone why the EU is such a mess or why the UK want to leave the whole affair.

[Slasher]

I rather liked Tony Abbott's piece in The Spectator.

Yeh. Me too. Thanks for posting that link Mr Plum.

[Cacophonix]

G-CPTN

It was clear that there would be problems with Brexit but I think that most people saw these technical problems as nothing compared with a continuing gut-wrenching interference of the EU in UK's internal affairs this interference being such micro-management as to be intolerable.

The UK should have immediately submitted the Article 50 documents and waited for the reaction, that way you deal with problems as they occur, you do not go searching for unnecessary problems.

.

The problems would always have been there, vide. the Irish border question, etc. etc. The issues were never fully understood by the people or even by the mendacious politicians who made such absurd promises, and a **** would have ultimately been the outcome whatever course was taken. The way this has been handled ever since the ludicrous "plebiscite of the ignorant" has been akin to working out if one should cut one's leg off with a chain saw or a hack saw. Fast or slow the outcome would have been the same with the former option offering at least a speedy cessation of the sheer boredom of this slow motion amputation or car crash.

Caco

[Jetex Jim]

I rather liked Tony Abbott's piece in The Spectator.

Couldn't possibly do what Tony Abbot suggests in that article. Much too sensible!! And as he points out the myriad of civil servants (on both sides of the Channel) would be 'surplus to requirements'. Couldn't have that could we?

The way I understood it the whole point of Brexit was to allow the UK to control its borders with the countries of the EU. And yet Abbott says there's no need to have a hard border between NI and the Republic of Ireland.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect.

And the Brexit crowd are happy with that? Somebody please explain.

[boing]

JJ

A perusal of one of the online mapping programmes will make it obvious to a thinking man why the concept of entering UK via the Irelands is hardly practical. I suggest that you imagine yourself on the Libyan coastline and contemplate the difficulties of departing that point in order to arrive in Liverpool. Better still, why don't you depart for Benghazi and give your plan a try?

.

.

[Jetex Jim]

JJ

A perusal of one of the online mapping programmes will make it obvious to a thinking man why the concept of entering UK via the Irelands is hardly practical. I suggest that you imagine yourself on the Libyan coastline and contemplate the difficulties of departing that point in order to arrive in Liverpool. Better still, why don't you depart for Benghazi and give your plan a try?

.

.

Thank you for your straw man argument regarding the remoteness of Benghazi to Liverpool.

Can I take it you speak for the entire Brexit movement when you make Libyan refugee traffic to UK from RoI the start and end of the Border control argument?

[Capetonian]

As both a fascist and a Brexiteer, which apparently is the same thing, I would like to see border control between all countries. It's a simple matter of protection, akin to locking your house/car when you leave.

Possibly there is a need to separate the two conflated matters of movement of goods, and movement of people, although there are logistical difficulties in doing so. Dropping trade barriers by allowing free movement of goods is to most rational thinkers a good thing, but poses the question of movement of illegal and harmful goods and, I suppose, the transport of invaders in goods containers and trucks.

Controlling the movement of people across its borders should be a fundamental right of any country. Europe (I am using the terms in its geographic sense) is awash with invaders, illegals, unknowns, and unaccountables. This to my (fascist) way of thinking is a massive problem and yet there are many who fail to admit to this or won't see it.

Voting Brexit was not, for me at least and nearly everyone I know, about 'immigration' from the EU, and it was never going to make much difference to immigration from outwith the EU. Most of us accept that the huge majority of immigrants to the UK from the EU (even the French) are a very positive, or at worst benign, influence.

I remain unconvinced about the Irish situation. Irish (Republic) border control incoming from other than the UK is pretty tight, and I say this as someone who travels there frequently, although there are times when checks are absent or minimal. Not having a border between the Republic and UK part of the island gives anyone in the Republic more or less unrestricted access to the UK mainland. Either the Irish internal border needs to be controlled, or full checks need to be done on anyone arriving into the UK mainland from Ireland (either part). The latter may be the better option.

[Woody]

A perusal of one of the online mapping programmes will make it obvious to a thinking man why the concept of entering UK via the Irelands is hardly practical. I suggest that you imagine yourself on the Libyan coastline and contemplate the difficulties of departing that point in order to arrive in Liverpool. Better still, why don't you depart for Benghazi and give your plan a try?

Benghazi or Dock Road, not that great a choice

[Sisemen]

3rd option - invade Eire and take it back into British control.

[Jetex Jim]

In any event, priorities have changed. The Tory party are getting themselves ready for another leadership contest.

Any plans for Brexit may have to be determined by an ex-Australian PM and noted down on the back of an envelope.

[ian16th]

3rd option - invade Eire and take it back into British control.

On another forum, I suggested that they be given the option of rejoining the UK, I was shouted down.

Since the creation of Eire, the Irish have had the right of free movement into the UK, the right of residence, the right to vote when they get to the UK and the rights to all benefits.

Why do they want independence from the UK?