Chat Forum
It is currently Thu May 25, 2017 11:40 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893 ... 1004  Next

Whether you can or can't actually vote IRL, In, or Out
In 62%  62%  [ 227 ]
Out 38%  38%  [ 137 ]
Total votes : 364
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 2590
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


I think Geoghegan's thesis would be that all of these elections/referendums are polarizing the English and Scottish populations. The 2014 referendum which saw UK politicians pander to the Scots, led to rise of English nationalism in the 2015 elections/Brexit referendum. In the upcoming election the Tory's are going to have an even stronger focus on winning the English vote, which will lead Scots to feel even more alienated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:40 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 38624
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
openclashXX wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


Well the UK is definitely not richer than the EU, and the existence of an independent Ireland (or the USA, for that matter) rather belie your other point


perhaps I didn't word myself clearly - in per capita terms we are richer than the EU as a bloc ($42k vs $37k) and are net contributors in terms of our budgetary contributions. the same way that England is a net subsidiser of Wales, Scotland and NI


Ah, per capita. Fair enough. I still suggest that the USA and Ireland both clearly indicate (as with Brexit, for that matter) that believing that economics shapes public opinion has some major holes in it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17860
Location: Investigating racism in the NHS
Chuckles1188 wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


Well the UK is definitely not richer than the EU, and the existence of an independent Ireland (or the USA, for that matter) rather belie your other point


perhaps I didn't word myself clearly - in per capita terms we are richer than the EU as a bloc ($42k vs $37k) and are net contributors in terms of our budgetary contributions. the same way that England is a net subsidiser of Wales, Scotland and NI


Ah, per capita. Fair enough. I still suggest that the USA and Ireland both clearly indicate (as with Brexit, for that matter) that believing that economics shapes public opinion has some major holes in it


the US doesn't really have any relevance here since there was no secession/independence debate in the last US election. Brexit if anything proves my point. Ireland I'm not sure what point you're trying to make


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:44 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 38624
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about the War of Independence


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2418
TranceNRG wrote:
Rising fuel costs
And pound has been even lower in the past. A lot of economists also agree that Pound was overvalued and since it's lost some ground, it's given the economy a boost.

But lets blame Brexit for everything.


What rise in fuel costs?

Petrol at my local supermarkets is the lowest its been for more than 6 months.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 7349
MorseCode wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


I think Geoghegan's thesis would be that all of these elections/referendums are polarizing the English and Scottish populations. The 2014 referendum which saw UK politicians pander to the Scots, led to rise of English nationalism in the 2015 elections/Brexit referendum. In the upcoming election the Tory's are going to have an even stronger focus on winning the English vote, which will lead Scots to feel even more alienated.

2015 was the best Welsh Tory election for 30 years. If that holds, and the Conservatives may make some good headway in Scotland during this election it could be argued that the UK is actually coming together rather than being polarised.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 7349
Glaston wrote:
TranceNRG wrote:
Rising fuel costs
And pound has been even lower in the past. A lot of economists also agree that Pound was overvalued and since it's lost some ground, it's given the economy a boost.

But lets blame Brexit for everything.


What rise in fuel costs?

Petrol at my local supermarkets is the lowest its been for more than 6 months.

It is referred to in the article Chuckles posted.

Quote:
The largest price rises came from petrol stations, which saw prices rise by 16.4 per cent year-on-year. Petrol prices have soared since oil cartel Opec (the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries) agreed to cut production in November.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17860
Location: Investigating racism in the NHS
MorseCode wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


I think Geoghegan's thesis would be that all of these elections/referendums are polarizing the English and Scottish populations. The 2014 referendum which saw UK politicians pander to the Scots, led to rise of English nationalism in the 2015 elections/Brexit referendum. In the upcoming election the Tory's are going to have an even stronger focus on winning the English vote, which will lead Scots to feel even more alienated.


that's one way of framing it. not sure it's true though, trying to conflate English/Scottish nationalism with a Europhile/Eurosceptic vote seems odd

personally I see it as the United Kingdom, a status quo that has existed for 200+ years, faced by two decisions - a) a breakup at an internal level, and b) an absorption at a supra-national level - and rejecting both


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:00 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 38624
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Rugby2023 wrote:
MorseCode wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


I think Geoghegan's thesis would be that all of these elections/referendums are polarizing the English and Scottish populations. The 2014 referendum which saw UK politicians pander to the Scots, led to rise of English nationalism in the 2015 elections/Brexit referendum. In the upcoming election the Tory's are going to have an even stronger focus on winning the English vote, which will lead Scots to feel even more alienated.

2015 was the best Welsh Tory election for 30 years. If that holds, and the Conservatives may make some good headway in Scotland during this election it could be argued that the UK is actually coming together rather than being polarised.


I don't know what you have in your mind as "good headway in Scotland" but if the Conservatives pick up any seats up there I will be very surprised. Is Davidson even standing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17860
Location: Investigating racism in the NHS
Rugby2023 wrote:
MorseCode wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


I think Geoghegan's thesis would be that all of these elections/referendums are polarizing the English and Scottish populations. The 2014 referendum which saw UK politicians pander to the Scots, led to rise of English nationalism in the 2015 elections/Brexit referendum. In the upcoming election the Tory's are going to have an even stronger focus on winning the English vote, which will lead Scots to feel even more alienated.

2015 was the best Welsh Tory election for 30 years. If that holds, and the Conservatives may make some good headway in Scotland during this election it could be argued that the UK is actually coming together rather than being polarised.


tbf that's more of an illusion of unity created by FPTP - in terms of polarisation we're still at 52-48, even if hypothetically each of the 650 seats votes 52-48 in favour of the Tories, we'd get 100% unity in terms of the Tories holding every seat but the same perfectly polarised society


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17459
Location: Sarnath in the land of Mnar
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
MorseCode wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


I think Geoghegan's thesis would be that all of these elections/referendums are polarizing the English and Scottish populations. The 2014 referendum which saw UK politicians pander to the Scots, led to rise of English nationalism in the 2015 elections/Brexit referendum. In the upcoming election the Tory's are going to have an even stronger focus on winning the English vote, which will lead Scots to feel even more alienated.

2015 was the best Welsh Tory election for 30 years. If that holds, and the Conservatives may make some good headway in Scotland during this election it could be argued that the UK is actually coming together rather than being polarised.


I don't know what you have in your mind as "good headway in Scotland" but if the Conservatives pick up any seats up there I will be very surprised. Is Davidson even standing?



Thought the Scots had gotten rid of the dual mandate? Certainly there's no current double jobbers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:36 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 38624
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Woops, missed that she is an MSP. Never mind then, zero Scottish Conservative seats it is


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17459
Location: Sarnath in the land of Mnar
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Woops, missed that she is an MSP. Never mind then, zero Scottish Conservative seats it is



If the Greens decide not to contest DCT then that is likely given the SNP candidate was less than 800 votes behind Mundell last time around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:02 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8018
Location: Bucks
Hellraiser wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
MorseCode wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


I think Geoghegan's thesis would be that all of these elections/referendums are polarizing the English and Scottish populations. The 2014 referendum which saw UK politicians pander to the Scots, led to rise of English nationalism in the 2015 elections/Brexit referendum. In the upcoming election the Tory's are going to have an even stronger focus on winning the English vote, which will lead Scots to feel even more alienated.

2015 was the best Welsh Tory election for 30 years. If that holds, and the Conservatives may make some good headway in Scotland during this election it could be argued that the UK is actually coming together rather than being polarised.


I don't know what you have in your mind as "good headway in Scotland" but if the Conservatives pick up any seats up there I will be very surprised. Is Davidson even standing?



Thought the Scots had gotten rid of the dual mandate? Certainly there's no current double jobbers.

There's a few Tory MSPs standing.

The bar for the Tories is so low that just about anything is a good result compared to the last 20 years. You'd assume Mundell will hold his seats and all the borders are marginal with a unionist majority. Combined with a bit of tactical voting 5-10 seats is very achievable, and probably likely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1465
openclashXX wrote:
MorseCode wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


I think Geoghegan's thesis would be that all of these elections/referendums are polarizing the English and Scottish populations. The 2014 referendum which saw UK politicians pander to the Scots, led to rise of English nationalism in the 2015 elections/Brexit referendum. In the upcoming election the Tory's are going to have an even stronger focus on winning the English vote, which will lead Scots to feel even more alienated.


that's one way of framing it. not sure it's true though, trying to conflate English/Scottish nationalism with a Europhile/Eurosceptic vote seems odd

personally I see it as the United Kingdom, a status quo that has existed for 200+ years, faced by two decisions - a) a breakup at an internal level, and b) an absorption at a supra-national level - and rejecting both


I have an old passport of my grandfather's and it says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" on it. That doesn't exist anymore. The current United Kingdom is less than 100 years old.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm
Posts: 5025
mikerob wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
MorseCode wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


I think Geoghegan's thesis would be that all of these elections/referendums are polarizing the English and Scottish populations. The 2014 referendum which saw UK politicians pander to the Scots, led to rise of English nationalism in the 2015 elections/Brexit referendum. In the upcoming election the Tory's are going to have an even stronger focus on winning the English vote, which will lead Scots to feel even more alienated.


that's one way of framing it. not sure it's true though, trying to conflate English/Scottish nationalism with a Europhile/Eurosceptic vote seems odd

personally I see it as the United Kingdom, a status quo that has existed for 200+ years, faced by two decisions - a) a breakup at an internal level, and b) an absorption at a supra-national level - and rejecting both


I have an old passport of my grandfather's and it says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" on it. That doesn't exist anymore. The current United Kingdom is less than 100 years old.


If you hand in the membership of your rugby club today will they have to change the badge to say est. 2017 by the weekend. Or does the unit continue with one less member?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:14 am
Posts: 2677
Image

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:54 pm
Posts: 2025
Image

But we were going to get such a good deal :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:14 am
Posts: 2677
I like haggis wrote:
Image

But we were going to get such a good deal :(

Reality bites.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11240
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
MrDominator wrote:
Image

:lol:


John Redwood was right!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 7349
I like haggis wrote:
But we were going to get such a good deal :(

Reads like Times remoaner fluff tbh. Paul Ryan was in London on Wednesday saying they were ready to go with a UK deal asap and Navarro restated the preference for bilateral deals when questioned on TTIP.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 35930
I just shake my head in sadness.

http://www.dublinbikes.ie/Magazine/Repo ... st-figures


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm
Posts: 5025
Rugby2023 wrote:
I like haggis wrote:
But we were going to get such a good deal :(

Reads like Times remoaner fluff tbh. Paul Ryan was in London on Wednesday saying they were ready to go with a UK deal asap and Navarro restated the preference for bilateral deals when questioned on TTIP.


It does doesn't it, a quick look at Ryan's Twitter will show he's been glowing about Britain and a potential trade deal recently.

20/04/17
Quote:
We stand ready to forge a new trade agreement with Great Britain so that we may further tap into the great potential between our people.


In fact if you watch the video he claims to speak for the Dems. and Reps. Who stand in agreement and are raring to go on a UK deal. But no some opinion piece has more insight.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/ ... nge-london


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5179
Location: Still at the end of the world
dr dre2 wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
I like haggis wrote:
But we were going to get such a good deal :(

Reads like Times remoaner fluff tbh. Paul Ryan was in London on Wednesday saying they were ready to go with a UK deal asap and Navarro restated the preference for bilateral deals when questioned on TTIP.


It does doesn't it, a quick look at Ryan's Twitter will show he's been glowing about Britain and a potential trade deal recently.

20/04/17
Quote:
We stand ready to forge a new trade agreement with Great Britain so that we may further tap into the great potential between our people.


In fact if you watch the video he claims to speak for the Dems. and Reps. Who stand in agreement and are raring to go on a UK deal. But no some opinion piece has more insight.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/ ... nge-london


That's all right then, we all know the Yanks will bail us out, after all, they only have our welfare at heart. :roll: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1465
dr dre2 wrote:
mikerob wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
MorseCode wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


I think Geoghegan's thesis would be that all of these elections/referendums are polarizing the English and Scottish populations. The 2014 referendum which saw UK politicians pander to the Scots, led to rise of English nationalism in the 2015 elections/Brexit referendum. In the upcoming election the Tory's are going to have an even stronger focus on winning the English vote, which will lead Scots to feel even more alienated.


that's one way of framing it. not sure it's true though, trying to conflate English/Scottish nationalism with a Europhile/Eurosceptic vote seems odd

personally I see it as the United Kingdom, a status quo that has existed for 200+ years, faced by two decisions - a) a breakup at an internal level, and b) an absorption at a supra-national level - and rejecting both


I have an old passport of my grandfather's and it says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" on it. That doesn't exist anymore. The current United Kingdom is less than 100 years old.


If you hand in the membership of your rugby club today will they have to change the badge to say est. 2017 by the weekend. Or does the unit continue with one less member?


Shit analogy given they did actually change the name of the country when Ireland left.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13159
MrDominator wrote:
Image

:lol:


A little OTT, but it does seem to address the general attitude of the Brexiteer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22166
I like haggis wrote:
Image

But we were going to get such a good deal :(


I don't see how this affects anything much to be honest. The "deal" with the USA would still be a "deal" based on self-interest.

It might be OK, it might not. Pillock's like Liam Fox make out that trade deals are a licence to print money rather than a lengthy series of negotiations where a larger country/economy would be working to get the best possible terms for itself.

I fully accept that the UK could be more flexible than the EU, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the UK would welcome the terms with open arms.

I find the thought of morons like Fox negotiating with the USA quite scary. Put us at the back of the queue please.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 15749
I've not read the article, but surely the USA cannot negotiate with the UK for 2 years, whereas they can negotiate with the EU immediately? It sort of makes sense that they'd deal with the people they can deal with first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22166
Raggs wrote:
I've not read the article, but surely the USA cannot negotiate with the UK for 2 years, whereas they can negotiate with the EU immediately? It sort of makes sense that they'd deal with the people they can deal with first.


I thought everyone had been "dealing" for years to no avail.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm
Posts: 5025
mikerob wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
mikerob wrote:
MorseCode wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
for the threat of independence to mean something the region threatening to leave has to generally be richer than the union it's leaving and self-sufficient without the subsidisation of the union. Brexit and Catalonian independence make sense in that regard but Scottish independence really doesn't

that's why May doesn't really need to pander to the Celts in this election, because she knows the threat of independence isn't a credible one


I think Geoghegan's thesis would be that all of these elections/referendums are polarizing the English and Scottish populations. The 2014 referendum which saw UK politicians pander to the Scots, led to rise of English nationalism in the 2015 elections/Brexit referendum. In the upcoming election the Tory's are going to have an even stronger focus on winning the English vote, which will lead Scots to feel even more alienated.


that's one way of framing it. not sure it's true though, trying to conflate English/Scottish nationalism with a Europhile/Eurosceptic vote seems odd

personally I see it as the United Kingdom, a status quo that has existed for 200+ years, faced by two decisions - a) a breakup at an internal level, and b) an absorption at a supra-national level - and rejecting both


I have an old passport of my grandfather's and it says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" on it. That doesn't exist anymore. The current United Kingdom is less than 100 years old.


If you hand in the membership of your rugby club today will they have to change the badge to say est. 2017 by the weekend. Or does the unit continue with one less member?


Shit analogy given they did actually change the name of the country when Ireland left.[/quote]

Yeah from UK of GB & I to UK of GB & NI. They removed the bit that left, they did not form a new union.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 15749
SamShark wrote:
Raggs wrote:
I've not read the article, but surely the USA cannot negotiate with the UK for 2 years, whereas they can negotiate with the EU immediately? It sort of makes sense that they'd deal with the people they can deal with first.


I thought everyone had been "dealing" for years to no avail.


Trump got rid of the last agreement though didn't he? The transatlantic trade thingyjig.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1465
dr dre2 wrote:

Yeah from UK of GB & I to UK of GB & NI. They removed the bit that left, they did not form a new union.


They did need to form a new union. NI had no constitutional status and parliament as part of the UK of GB&I and so when the rest of Ireland left, they needed to define from scratch the responsibilities of the new parliament in Stormont and its relationship with Westminster.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13235
Location: South Oxfordshire
mikerob wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:

Yeah from UK of GB & I to UK of GB & NI. They removed the bit that left, they did not form a new union.


They did need to form a new union. NI had no constitutional status and parliament as part of the UK of GB&I and so when the rest of Ireland left, they needed to define from scratch the responsibilities of the new parliament in Stormont and its relationship with Westminster.


Which they did with the Government of Ireland act of 1920 - although this was intended to cover the whole of Ireland, the institutions that were set up then remained for NI until 1972

By your argument, the change in status that came about with devolution in Scotland and Wales resulted in a new "country".

And for that matter, the USA is now only 60-odd years old


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:54 pm
Posts: 2025
Raggs wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Raggs wrote:
I've not read the article, but surely the USA cannot negotiate with the UK for 2 years, whereas they can negotiate with the EU immediately? It sort of makes sense that they'd deal with the people they can deal with first.


I thought everyone had been "dealing" for years to no avail.


bubblefart got rid of the last agreement though didn't he? The transatlantic trade thingyjig.


Paul Ryan was talking about moving it along, we all know trump wasn't too bothered about his campaign promises.

I read the article this morning and it was basically clickbait, had little substance on why we're at the back of the queue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1465
Saint wrote:
mikerob wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:

Yeah from UK of GB & I to UK of GB & NI. They removed the bit that left, they did not form a new union.


They did need to form a new union. NI had no constitutional status and parliament as part of the UK of GB&I and so when the rest of Ireland left, they needed to define from scratch the responsibilities of the new parliament in Stormont and its relationship with Westminster.


Which they did with the Government of Ireland act of 1920 - although this was intended to cover the whole of Ireland, the institutions that were set up then remained for NI until 1972

By your argument, the change in status that came about with devolution in Scotland and Wales resulted in a new "country".

And for that matter, the USA is now only 60-odd years old


So the Government of Ireland act of 1920 was in effect, a new union applied to NI. There was no option but to do this as the 1801 Act of Union would have been completely meaningless anyway if the larger part of the island had simply buggered off without a new union being defined with NI.

I don't see the analogy with the US. The US constitution allows for the incorporation of additional states. I presume it allows states to bugger off as well without renaming the country. The UK was the union of GB and I and when a large part of the I bit as originally defined by the 1801 Act of Union, buggered off, they renamed the country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm
Posts: 5025
mikerob wrote:
Saint wrote:
mikerob wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:

Yeah from UK of GB & I to UK of GB & NI. They removed the bit that left, they did not form a new union.


They did need to form a new union. NI had no constitutional status and parliament as part of the UK of GB&I and so when the rest of Ireland left, they needed to define from scratch the responsibilities of the new parliament in Stormont and its relationship with Westminster.


Which they did with the Government of Ireland act of 1920 - although this was intended to cover the whole of Ireland, the institutions that were set up then remained for NI until 1972

By your argument, the change in status that came about with devolution in Scotland and Wales resulted in a new "country".

And for that matter, the USA is now only 60-odd years old


So the Government of Ireland act of 1920 was in effect, a new union applied to NI. There was no option but to do this as the 1801 Act of Union would have been completely meaningless anyway if the larger part of the island had simply buggered off without a new union being defined with NI.

I don't see the analogy with the US. The US constitution allows for the incorporation of additional states. I presume it allows states to bugger off as well without renaming the country. The UK was the union of GB and I and when a large part of the I bit as originally defined by the 1801 Act of Union, buggered off, they renamed the country.


Yeah, nah. The country didn't cease to exist because of a rebrand, a member leaving and a constitutional tidy up. What we have today is a continuation of what we had before however it's modified. What it owned and owed before outside the necessary practical amendments remained afterwards.

A new union, applied to the the old union.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8311
Location: Sunny London
EU plum Verhofstadt is at it again.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... negotiator


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 197
MrDominator wrote:
I like haggis wrote:
Image

But we were going to get such a good deal :(

Reality bites.


Why is this of any surprise is a mystery.

The world consists of three trading Golliahs: the US, the EU and China. Then daylight... then Japan... more daylight... and the cluster that the UK will join: India and Brazil.

The UK will of course remain a globally important economy but when prioritizing trade deals, all that matters is size and the EU (after the UK leaves) will represent a market about 6 times that of the UK. Nobody cares if you're sixth or fifth when the distribution is so skewed: the top 3 represent 65% of the global economy while countries 4 5 and 6 barely represent about 8%.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13235
Location: South Oxfordshire
TranceNRG wrote:


Do you ever get the feeling that he and Junker don't actually talk to each other?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8311
Location: Sunny London
:lol: So first we were told (hard line remainers) T.rump doesn't care about the UK even though he and members in his adminstration said they are keen to have a FTA with the UK.
Now we are told Trump cares more about having a FTA with EU.

By the way the trade talking between the US and EU have been going on for a long time just like with most EU trade deals. They are really not good at making trade deals. Other countries are able to discuss and sign trade deals in a couple of years.

Edit - Jesus PR, automatically changing T.rumps name to Bubblefart? I don't like the guy but that's pathetic and childish.


Last edited by TranceNRG on Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893 ... 1004  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 4071, bacon2, Bindi, Bing [Bot], Bogbunny, Brazil, Chuckles1188, Cookie Monster, croyals, dam0, DragonKhan, duke, elcamino, geordie_6, Google Adsense [Bot], Grizz Wyllie, hermie, HighKingLeinster, Homer, HurricaneWasp, Jensrsa, kiweez, Lobby, lorcanoworms, Margin_Walker, Market Square Hero, Mullet 2, MungoMan, nardol, Ogre, Peaches, penguin, Petros, Porterbelly1, rabble, RuggaBugga, Santa, Silver, Silvio Berlusconi, swc, theo, The Sun God, Tony Blair's Therapist, tonycurrysrightleg, Turbogoat, Wilson's Toffee and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group