EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 461
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On January 16 2019 09:21 Gorsameth wrote: The UK parliament just rejected the deal May had negotiated with the EU. Brexit is still on, but a hard brexit (Where the UK and EU split without any agreement in place) just became a lot more likely. No one knows what happens next. A softer Brexit also became more likely, as did no-Brexit. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On January 16 2019 12:38 Plansix wrote: There is some real weird history about why the EU formed being dropped here. He didn't state that the EU was formed for that reason... | ||
KwarK
United States43565 Posts
On January 16 2019 11:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Brexit is basically Britain not wanting to come to grips with it's declining global influence and desperately wanting to believe that leaving the EU will somehow stop that decline. I mean not really. That’s certainly not why the socialists want out. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43565 Posts
On January 16 2019 12:35 Mohdoo wrote: The funny thing about that is that the formation of the EU is probably the only reason Britain didn't end up completely subjugated by the US. Without the EU, the US would have bullied each country into submission. Currently, they have legitimate bargaining power. The US will devour Britain if they leave. Like actually leave the EU This is a very strange claim. Britain wasn’t in the EU, and the EU didn’t really exist, in the decades you’re referring to. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On January 16 2019 12:35 Mohdoo wrote: The funny thing about that is that the formation of the EU is probably the only reason Britain didn't end up completely subjugated by the US. Without the EU, the US would have bullied each country into submission. Currently, they have legitimate bargaining power. The US will devour Britain if they leave. Like actually leave the EU Not even close to the truth. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9769 Posts
In a sense, Theresa May is hoping that doing some tiny tweaks is going to fix this, which is the same thing she was hoping when she postponed the vote in December. I can't believe that this is the best strategy the government could come up with. The only way forward in my opinion is to delay Brexit by a few months, and really try to work with Labour and the other party leaders to find some kind of middle ground on each issue, not to just keep threatening a no-deal unless people vote for this dead, ill-considered mess. | ||
|
Archeon
3262 Posts
But yeah, atm she isn't even close to and it's probably easier to draw some socialists than convince every last conservative, especially considering that some promise themselves a rise to power by May's fall. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
What isn't even close to the truth? That the US has used it's size and power to get their way in trade deals with smaller countries and economies? Or that 28 countries speaking as one is stronger in such negotiations than 28 individual ones? Trump is literally bulliying long time friends and allies into submission, such as Canada, but he would never do that to the UK because...you're a super super super special ally. Kenneth Clarke made good points on that subject yesterday | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9769 Posts
On January 16 2019 19:29 Archeon wrote: Tbf if May got all the conservative votes for her brexit deal, she'd have a majority, right? But yeah, atm she isn't even close to and it's probably easier to draw some socialists than convince every last conservative, especially considering that some promise themselves a rise to power by May's fall. This is true, but unrealistic I think. IMO its easier to court either remainers or leavers than conservatives or Labour MPs. Its impossible to get all the tory votes because they are split down the middle with half of them wanting us to leave with no deal and the other half wanting us to remain in some kind of close union. She'd be better off taking Brexit as a collection of issues and trying to determine which issues are more important to which side. Remainers may be interested in workers' rights and trading standards, while leavers might want more immigration control and legal autonomy -- just as an example. In fact, the best thing to do would have been to take this approach 2 years ago instead of trying to go it alone. It seems like we've wasted so much time that its a bit redundant now because there's literally no time left to renegotiate anything. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11744 Posts
In the UK system, the problem that Jock describes arises. half the tories and half labour want X, but they can only ever be motivated to vote against their own party, but not FOR something the other party proposes. Which means that nothing gets done, and you slowly slide towards hard Brexit due to gridlock. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43565 Posts
On January 16 2019 19:31 Longshank wrote: What isn't even close to the truth? That the US has used it's size and power to get their way in trade deals with smaller countries and economies? Or that 28 countries speaking as one is stronger in such negotiations than 28 individual ones? Trump is literally bulliying long time friends and allies into submission, such as Canada, but he would never do that to the UK because...you're a super super super special ally. Kenneth Clarke made good points on that subject yesterday The proto EU was a project to merge the coal and steel industries within Western Europe to deny France and Germany distinct military industrial complexes. The plan was peace through codependency. A customs union later emerged which Britain joined several decades later. If the US was to dominate a UK outside the EU then it would have done so during the coal and steel community years, or during the non UK years. It’s just nonsense. The timeline doesn’t work. The EU wasn’t around in it’s political form back then and Britain wasn’t in it. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On January 16 2019 21:05 KwarK wrote: The proto EU was a project to merge the coal and steel industries within Western Europe to deny France and Germany distinct military industrial complexes. The plan was peace through codependency. A customs union later emerged which Britain joined several decades later. If the US was to dominate a UK outside the EU then it would have done so during the coal and steel community years, or during the non UK years. It’s just nonsense. The timeline doesn’t work. The EU wasn’t around in it’s political form back then and Britain wasn’t in it. That obviously makes no sense indeed and is why I read it differently. I read it to mean that if the EU wasn't created then there wouldn't have been a union for the UK to join, in which case they would have been alone and in a weaker position in their dealings with the US. Not than the UK necessarily was precent at it's creation which it clearly wasn't. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22085 Posts
On January 16 2019 21:33 Longshank wrote: But again, Kwarks point is that they were alone for a while before they finally joined the EU. So you can go look for the answer, did the US bully the UK before they joined the EU?That obviously makes no sense indeed and is why I read it differently. I read it to mean that if the EU wasn't created then there wouldn't have been a union for the UK to join, in which case they would have been alone and in a weaker position in their dealings with the US. Not than the UK necessarily was precent at it's creation which it clearly wasn't. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On January 16 2019 21:36 Gorsameth wrote: But again, Kwarks point is that they were alone for a while before they finally joined the EU. So you can go look for the answer, did the US bully the UK before they joined the EU? That's 60 years ago and one can only speculate what would have been 30 years ago. It's completely reasonable to believe that the US would have used it's weight in negotioations with the UK in the -90s since that's what they did with every other country. And it's almost a given that they would do that today since since that's evidently and with Little finesse what they're doing to 'special friends' and long time allies. Can you give me one good reason why they wouldn't? | ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
On January 16 2019 21:36 Gorsameth wrote: But again, Kwarks point is that they were alone for a while before they finally joined the EU. So you can go look for the answer, did the US bully the UK before they joined the EU? That's not really an answer though. It is like saying digital data gathering of civilians on a massive scale weren't an issue for UK citizens before they joined EU, therefor it is not an issue today. Just because a (then) benign country did not bully you 45~ years ago, does not mean it will not do it today. Diplomatic/political landscape, international security cooperation, financial structures, and trade goods logistics are very different today compared to how it was in the 70s. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22085 Posts
On January 16 2019 21:57 Longshank wrote: Ofc the UK is weaker on its own then with the EU. That has been mentioned repeatedly during Brexit, that the 'we will get better deals alone' makes no sense.That's 60 years ago and one can only speculate what would have been 30 years ago. It's completely reasonable to believe that the US would have used it's weight in negotioations with the UK in the -90s since that's what they did with every other country. And it's almost a given that they would do that today since since that's evidently and with Little finesse what they're doing to 'special friends' and long time allies. Can you give me one good reason why they wouldn't? But to say the US would have completely bullied the UK? No. no they wouldn't have. Who is the US bullying comparable to the UK? You talk as if Trump is bullying people using the vast power of the US. Mexico doesn't seem to be paying for that wall of his. Bullying Canada into a more US focused Nafta doesn't appear to have worked. The Uk would is weaker alone, no doubt about it. But Bullied? I see no evidence of that. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1402 Posts
And that is for the eu to accept a hard border between Ireland and northern Ireland in which case the whole backstop wont be needed at all. Its not the preferred solution,specially not for the irish. But the reality is that northern Ireland is officially part of the uk,justified or not. And going by that reality a hard border on the island seems the most logical approach. I am not even sure Britain would dare let it come to that,as it could reignite the troubles. Maybe Europe should just force englands hand here. If that's what they want then they can get it? Other then that I am more and more inclined to believe that its all theatre leading to a no brexit in the end. To not vote may away tonight after declining her deal makes no sense to me. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22085 Posts
On January 16 2019 23:51 pmh wrote: The EU will readily accept a hard border in Ireland. If Britain wants out,which I am not sure about,then I think there is only 1 logical solution. And that is for the eu to accept a hard border between Ireland and northern Ireland in which case the whole backstop wont be needed at all. Its not the preferred solution,specially not for the irish. But the reality is that northern Ireland is officially part of the uk,justified or not. And going by that reality a hard border on the island seems the most logical approach. I am not even sure Britain would dare let it come to that,as it could reignite the troubles. Maybe Europe should just force englands hand here. If that's what they want then they can get it? Other then that I am more and more inclined to believe that its all theatre leading to a no brexit in the end. To not vote may away tonight after declining her deal makes no sense to me. Its an unacceptable solution for the UK, and especially the DUP that provides May with a majority government. | ||
| ||
