BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Ballysmate wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:EU actions like this will provide additional justification to many in the UK that we are right to leave. Not a wise course of action if there is to be a GE or second referendum.
I don't believe the EU (with the exception of Ireland) have any interest in persuading the UK to change their minds.
Neither do I. I also believe that Brexit will cost Ireland billions.
That's why I can't understand MPs who want to avoid a no deal, voted down TM's deal 3 times. The EU continually stated that that deal was the best on offer. Did they not believe them?
The best deal on offer, taking into account TMs red lines. Presumably they thought her red lines were too strong.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
antonyfromoz wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:darkhairedlord wrote:briantrumpet wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:In the meantime, looks like the Luxembourg stunt pulled by their PM is backfiring a tad. How difficult would it have been to move the press conference indoors? :roll:
Even Sir Nicholas Soames is saying that it was bad form:
https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/17/boris-ambushed-luxembourg-pm-empty-podium-trick-10755306/
And a close ally of Merkel has tweeted that it did not help the EU cause.
I think Bettel has earned himself a Eurotw@t award.
It ought to be noted that the lot making the racket outside were indeed Brits living in Lux, who, perhaps not unfairly, are not enormous fans of the No Deal approach BoJo has said he's taking.
Luxembourg were demonstrating the country version of the Napoleon complex.
It has backfired on them and clearly been shown up for what it was!
It also highlights the faults of the EU regarding the minor nations.
It's also rather apt that you are responding to BikeRadar's own example of the napoleon complex
Luxembourg is the small dot just to the right of Germany and above Italy in case anyone is having problems seeing it. I also recall reading somewhere that the UK economy is larger than the smallest 18 EU members combined if that helps as well.
I reckon there could be some benefits regarding national security too - and, after Brexit, being part of a bigger group would mean that it would be harder for other countries to push us around too.
I would suggest that the pre-eminent player in the gathering of intel in Europe is GCHQ and the loss of sharing would impact the EU significantly.
The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.0 -
Jez mon wrote:Ballysmate wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:EU actions like this will provide additional justification to many in the UK that we are right to leave. Not a wise course of action if there is to be a GE or second referendum.
I don't believe the EU (with the exception of Ireland) have any interest in persuading the UK to change their minds.
Neither do I. I also believe that Brexit will cost Ireland billions.
That's why I can't understand MPs who want to avoid a no deal, voted down TM's deal 3 times. The EU continually stated that that deal was the best on offer. Did they not believe them?
The best deal on offer, taking into account TMs red lines. Presumably they thought her red lines were too strong.
So they wanted a less advantageous deal?
Weird.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:EU actions like this will provide additional justification to many in the UK that we are right to leave. Not a wise course of action if there is to be a GE or second referendum.
I don't believe the EU (with the exception of Ireland) have any interest in persuading the UK to change their minds."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:I reckon there could be some benefits regarding national security too - and, after Brexit, being part of a bigger group would mean that it would be harder for other countries to push us around too.0
-
Ballysmate wrote:The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
I've never really understood this, tbh. A Corbyn government might be a nightmare - it might not. But you can vote Corbyn out after 5 years. It's unlikely we would ever be in a position to 'rejoin' the EU again.0 -
Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
I've never really understood this, tbh. A Corbyn government might be a nightmare - it might not. But you can vote Corbyn out after 5 years. It's unlikely we would ever be in a position to 'rejoin' the EU again.
I agree that the likelihood of rejoining the EU is remote. Why make things worse by voting for the 1970s?
What is difficult to understand about that?0 -
Ballysmate wrote:
I would suggest that the pre-eminent player in the gathering of intel in Europe is GCHQ and the loss of sharing would impact the EU significantly.
The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
Antony also needs to go away and better understand the difference between the EU and NATO now in terms of 'not being pushed around by other countries' as he puts it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
I've never really understood this, tbh. A Corbyn government might be a nightmare - it might not. But you can vote Corbyn out after 5 years. It's unlikely we would ever be in a position to 'rejoin' the EU again.
I agree that the likelihood of rejoining the EU is remote. Why make things worse by voting for the 1970s?
What is difficult to understand about that?
If enough people vote for the 1970s, then that's what we'll get. The upside of that is that if we don't like it, we can go back to voting for the 1950s again, like we do now.
The point I'm making is that brexit is likely to be a lot more permanent than that..0 -
Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
I've never really understood this, tbh. A Corbyn government might be a nightmare - it might not. But you can vote Corbyn out after 5 years. It's unlikely we would ever be in a position to 'rejoin' the EU again.0 -
Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
I've never really understood this, tbh. A Corbyn government might be a nightmare - it might not. But you can vote Corbyn out after 5 years. It's unlikely we would ever be in a position to 'rejoin' the EU again.
I agree that the likelihood of rejoining the EU is remote. Why make things worse by voting for the 1970s?
What is difficult to understand about that?
If enough people vote for the 1970s, then that's what we'll get. The upside of that is that if we don't like it, we can go back to voting for the 1950s again, like we do now.
The point I'm making is that brexit is likely to be a lot more permanent than that..
Like if enough people vote for Brexit, that's what we'll get...
As for Brexit being more permanent, as above, I tend to agree. That's why I can't understand MPs voting against the deal. They were playing the (wo)man and not the ball.0 -
antonyfromoz wrote:Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
I've never really understood this, tbh. A Corbyn government might be a nightmare - it might not. But you can vote Corbyn out after 5 years. It's unlikely we would ever be in a position to 'rejoin' the EU again.
'Twas your link was it not?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 38382a1f7d0 -
If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 30 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
I would suggest that the pre-eminent player in the gathering of intel in Europe is GCHQ and the loss of sharing would impact the EU significantly.
The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
Antony also needs to go away and better understand the difference between the EU and NATO now in terms of 'not being pushed around by other countries' as he puts it.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 30 -
antonyfromoz wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
I would suggest that the pre-eminent player in the gathering of intel in Europe is GCHQ and the loss of sharing would impact the EU significantly.
The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
Antony also needs to go away and better understand the difference between the EU and NATO now in terms of 'not being pushed around by other countries' as he puts it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
You seem to have posted a link without fully reading it, automatically thinking it supported your view.
Less co-operation obviously does impact both sides vis-à-vis security. But, as I pointed out, the EU stands to lose an awful lot.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
I would suggest that the pre-eminent player in the gathering of intel in Europe is GCHQ and the loss of sharing would impact the EU significantly.
The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
Antony also needs to go away and better understand the difference between the EU and NATO now in terms of 'not being pushed around by other countries' as he puts it.
Condescending much? Antony also needs to go away and better understand the difference between the EU and NATO now in terms of 'not being pushed around by other countries' as he puts it.0 -
antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
Well done!
I see you have edited your post to slag off Trump.
Extra brownie points for you on here for that. If we were playing Leftybollox bingo you would be well on your way to a full house, or at least a line.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
You seem to have posted a link without fully reading it, automatically thinking it supported your view.
Less co-operation obviously does impact both sides vis-à-vis security. But, as I pointed out, the EU stands to lose an awful lot.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
Well done!
I see you have edited your post to slag off Trump.
Extra brownie points for you on here for that. If we were playing Leftybollox bingo you would be well on your way to a full house, or at least a line.
Do you feel better now? As a matter of fact, there is plenty of support for the notion that Trump is a useful idiot for Russia, apparently including amongst US security services.0 -
antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
You seem to have posted a link without fully reading it, automatically thinking it supported your view.
Less co-operation obviously does impact both sides vis-à-vis security. But, as I pointed out, the EU stands to lose an awful lot.
Your disagreement with me was about the view that Corbyn as PM was terrifying was it not?
What does Strike 3 of your posted link say. I assume this isn't tainted by your view and is fact.
As I have said, I agree there are security implications, but point out that they are not one sided and that the EU has much to lose.0 -
antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
Well done!
I see you have edited your post to slag off Trump.
Extra brownie points for you on here for that. If we were playing Leftybollox bingo you would be well on your way to a full house, or at least a line.
Do you feel better now? As a matter of fact, there is plenty of support for the notion that Trump is a useful idiot for Russia, apparently including amongst US security services.
Nothing to do with feeling better.
Just don't get why you went back to edit your post to insert a Trump reference that has no bearing on the thread/discussion.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
You seem to have posted a link without fully reading it, automatically thinking it supported your view.
Less co-operation obviously does impact both sides vis-à-vis security. But, as I pointed out, the EU stands to lose an awful lot.
Your disagreement with me was about the view that Corbyn as PM was terrifying was it not?
What does Strike 3 of your posted link say. I assume this isn't tainted by your view and is fact.
As I have said, I agree there are security implications, but point out that they are not one sided and that the EU has much to lose.0 -
antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
You seem to have posted a link without fully reading it, automatically thinking it supported your view.
Less co-operation obviously does impact both sides vis-à-vis security. But, as I pointed out, the EU stands to lose an awful lot.
Your disagreement with me was about the view that Corbyn as PM was terrifying was it not?
What does Strike 3 of your posted link say. I assume this isn't tainted by your view and is fact.
As I have said, I agree there are security implications, but point out that they are not one sided and that the EU has much to lose.
Well do you agree with the links you posted or not?
You can't really post a link about Corbyn, then say that you haven't said anything about him and then chuck your teddy out of the pram because I read the link and pointed out that you had referenced him.
Well, you can coz it's t'internet, but it is not a logical position to take is it?0 -
Ballysmate wrote:
So they wanted a less advantageous deal?
Weird.
If you're broadly in favour of the EU, setting red lines that rule out single market or customs union would surely be viewed as a less advantageous deal.
The whole good/bad deal thing is a woeful way of presenting it anyway.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Jez mon wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
So they wanted a less advantageous deal?
Weird.
If you're broadly in favour of the EU, setting red lines that rule out single market or customs union would surely be viewed as a less advantageous deal.
The whole good/bad deal thing is a woeful way of presenting it anyway.
The Brexiteer position has always been portrayed as "Wanting their cake and eat it". Well, on here at least.
Eroding the "Red Lines" would appear to mean wanting less cake.
As I said, weird.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Jez mon wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
So they wanted a less advantageous deal?
Weird.
If you're broadly in favour of the EU, setting red lines that rule out single market or customs union would surely be viewed as a less advantageous deal.
The whole good/bad deal thing is a woeful way of presenting it anyway.
The Brexiteer position has always been portrayed as "Wanting their cake and eat it". Well, on here at least.
Eroding the "Red Lines" would appear to mean wanting less cake.
As I said, weird.
Eroding the red lines is acknowledging that you cannot simultaneously keep the cake whilst eating it.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Shout out to the Telegraph who is now using Jaak Madison as a columnist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaak_MadisonJaak Madison (born 22 April 1991)[3] is an Estonian politician and a member of Riigikogu, representing the Conservative People's Party of Estonia, widely considered a far-right party.In March 2015, media reported about Madison’s old blog post which defended the economic aspects of the Nazi regime. He had written: "It is true that there were concentration camps, forced labour camps, games with gas chambers were being played, but at the same time such a "strict" order brought Germany at the time out of a thorough shithole, because development, that admittedly concentrated primarily on the development of the military industry, brought the country only within a couple of years to one of the most powerful in Europe."
His blog post further claimed that while Madison did not seek to justify Nazi mass murders, he nonetheless felt that the Holocaust had 'positive aspects'.[7]
If Hitler were around today they’d roll out the red carpet for him.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
I would suggest that the pre-eminent player in the gathering of intel in Europe is GCHQ and the loss of sharing would impact the EU significantly.
The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
Antony also needs to go away and better understand the difference between the EU and NATO now in terms of 'not being pushed around by other countries' as he puts it.
You do accept that as a member of NATO, the U.K. will be forced (if it continues to member) to declare and fight a war if another member is attacked?
Not even the EU can force the U.K. to fight a war.0