Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is Brexit actually going to happen?

Will we have a brexit?


  • Total voters
    362
Yet the problem with the Irish border is turning out to be something brexiters ought to have had front and centre of their thinking, because without a solution brexiters are not going to get brexit.

But why should the average British voter care about Ireland's future? I assuming they are concerned about the future of the UK and anything else is very secondary.
 
But why should the average British voter care about Ireland's future? I assuming they are concerned about the future of the UK and anything else is very secondary.
The UK as an institution are party to an international agreement regarding Ireland, so if they care about the future of the UK they should be concerned about the UK living up to the agreement they signed.
 
The UK as an institution are party to an international agreement regarding Ireland, so if they care about the future of the UK they should be concerned about the UK living up to the agreement they signed.

Ah, but that's the UK govt as opposed to the average voter who went out (rightly or wrongly) and cast their vote on June 23rd. I'm pretty sure that Ireland,her borders and her turbulent relationship with Britain were far, far from voters thoughts.
 
Ah, but that's the UK govt as opposed to the average voter who went out (rightly or wrongly) and cast their vote on June 23rd. I'm pretty sure that Ireland,her borders and her turbulent relationship with Britain were far, far from voters thoughts.
Indeed, implicit in somebody asking you for your preference in a decision is the understanding that once you have expressed your preference, the person asking has a way of making it workable. Otherwise, it's a false choice. It's pure pass-agg, in fact.

The UK government asked the UK people whether they would prefer to be in or out of the EU. If the UK government didn't have a way of making one of those options workable in practice, they shouldn't have asked the question. You can't blame people for stating a preference when they are asked for one, based on whatever factors are important to them at the time.
 
Indeed, implicit in somebody asking you for your preference in a decision is the understanding that once you have expressed your preference, the person asking has a way of making it workable. Otherwise, it's a false choice. It's pure pass-agg, in fact.

The UK government asked the UK people whether they would prefer to be in or out of the EU. If the UK government didn't have a way of making one of those options workable in practice, they shouldn't have asked the question. You can't blame people for stating a preference when they are asked for one, based on whatever factors are important to them at the time.
So there shouldnt have been a referendum because its difficult to enact one of the options?
 
So there shouldnt have been a referendum because its difficult to enact one of the options?

Or maybe the groundwork on what exactly leaving the EU would entail and what would need to happen for it to be workable should have been done before any referendum, not after it or (as the current plan seems to be) never.

The referendum was called on the assumption that there was only one possible outcome. This is not a sensible or a democratic way to behave.
 
I watched question time last night, and one feature of the discussion was nitty gritty practicalities. There was mention in relation to Dover quite a lot. Would a small increase in checks lead to a 29 mile lorry tailback, the road transport to Manston to stack lorries, road conditions generally, the notion of dealing with it by placing a string of portaloos along the M20, the specific checks needed on agricultural products and goods, the lack of, or impracticalities of electronic infrastructure either in Dover or Ireland.
What struck me was that local people were concerned by the practicalities.
It may be that each of those practicalities can be overcome, but it takes a plan and investment and infrastructure, and so far there simply isn't one.
If brexit means control of the UK borders then now that the EU is history for the UK, how in practical details will the UK demonstrate that control? And if any practical suggestions are put forward what will be the cost in financial and political terms, and in everyday life?
The question was put to the country without any of those details outlined, yet the country voted for it anyway and the UK is where it is. It won't change the present reality to look back and say it shouldn't have been framed the way it was, the present reality is to seemingly do the impossible.
Brexiters are running out of time to get a grip.
 
Or maybe the groundwork on what exactly leaving the EU would entail and what would need to happen for it to be workable should have been done before any referendum, not after it or (as the current plan seems to be) never.

The referendum was called on the assumption that there was only one possible outcome. This is not a sensible or a democratic way to behave.
Wouldnt that entail showing the potential hand youd have even before the necessary negotiations began? What makes you think that Cameron thought that there was only one potential outcome?
 
You tell me. Is there a meaningful pathway to leaving the EU or not? If not, why the fuck were we asked the question? If so, why is it the voter's fault if the government fuck up that pathway?
I was asking you the question as thats what I thought your post implied.
 
spain are going to do their best to bagsy the rock as well. Presumably with the EU's blessing, like the crushing of catalonia
 
Yet the problem with the Irish border is turning out to be something brexiters ought to have had front and centre of their thinking, because without a solution brexiters are not going to get brexit.

Are you still banging on about this?

Perhaps the establishment are using 'no border' as away of minimising brexit as it will force regulatory alignment.
 
Wouldnt that entail showing the potential hand youd have even before the necessary negotiations began? What makes you think that Cameron thought that there was only one potential outcome?

The type of discussions we are having now (about the Irish border for example) could and should have been had before the referendum. Outlining the options (in/out SM; in/out CU) and the implications wouldn’t have revealed the UK’s hand. It would however have forced politicians to be straight with the public about the trade-offs.
 
The type of discussions we are having now (about the Irish border for example) could and should have been had before the referendum. Outlining the options (in/out SM; in/out CU) and the implications wouldn’t have revealed the UK’s hand. It would however have forced politicians to be straight with the public about the trade-offs.
So there should have been more questions on the referendum voting paper?
 
The type of discussions we are having now (about the Irish border for example) could and should have been had before the referendum. Outlining the options (in/out SM; in/out CU) and the implications wouldn’t have revealed the UK’s hand. It would however have forced politicians to be straight with the public about the trade-offs.
It should have been but wasn't because Cameron didn't believe Leave would win, all this crap is because he wanted to stop his own backbenchers from stabbing him in the back, it descends further into chaos every day because Mayhem doesn't have the will or the strength to control her own party and puts preserving Tory Party unity above all else.
 
Back
Top Bottom