The Brexit aftermath thread

[Demolitia]

Sigh, the EU will grant them the extension and then jack shit will happen during that time, and then the U.K will ask for ANOTHER extension and this shit will go on.

I'm not too sure. France is not too keen on granting extensions for the sake of it and it only takes one country to refuse.
Everyone thought that by now we would be negotiating the future relationship, and the UK is still bickering with itself over the withdrawal agreement. I can see other countries getting tired of it, especially if refusing the extension can end this farce in a way that suits them.
If no deal is made impossible by law, the EU could refuse the extension on the 10th, and the government would have very little options but the repel A50 by the 12th

[Skroe]

It's not "good luck with that", it's going to happen unilaterally from the Irish side. I wonder how your face will look when that happens and you realise the UK is actually not the centre of all things and the world can do things that will break UK's agreements without the UK having the power to stop it.

- - - Updated - - -



To be honest, those two things seem more unlikely than a no deal at this point.

I've been watching on Youtube, Parliament's proceedings on Brexit regularly for the last few weeks.

Basically the only people in the room taking Brexit seriously are the SNP.

For the ERG, this is a game, to live out a fantasy.
For May, it's a last ditch effort to safe the Conservative Party she loves so dearly from a split that SHOULD happen.
For people around May, it's jockying for her job.
For Corbyn, it's trying to constantly get an early General election and Blockade May's deal, while simultaneously blockading a people's vote.
For Labour Back benchers, it's all over the place.

Only the SNP is clear what it wants, and clear how it wants to do it, and is taking the economic and political threat that Brexit is seriously.

A few years ago when the Scottish referendum was held, I was overjoyed when it was defeated. I thought it extremely ill advised to hold. I thought David Cameron almost lost the union because he was too stupid and too lazy to campaign properly until Gordon Brown bailed him out. I though one of the US's closest allies had dodged an existential bullet that would consume it. I thought the SNP was promising what they couldn't deliver.

What a difference a few years makes.

The way in which Tories in particular talk about Scotland is distasteful and arrogant. The Scottish Referendum was a lot closer than it should have been. And it's not surprising why. Tories, in particular, seem to talk about Scotland like its property. There is a sense of entitlement to it. And a sense of utter disregard for the very legitimacy of the argument that the SNP is making (agree or disagree). The way they talk to SNP MPs is with contempt and disrespect. It would never fly in the US House or Senate, the former of which can get rough. Dare I say, in the voice of Tory MPs, I hear the faint echo of British Imperialism, and British control over Scotland is the last redoubt of a broken empire.

The SNP plays hardball in Parliament - Ian Blackford is great to watch - but nothing they've said in everything I've seen is remotely outlandish. But they're talked down to, all the time, by the Government, that talks with utter contempt at the very presence of the SNP in the room.

Individuals still in favor of a United Kingdom better hope that another Scottish Referendum is denied for decades to come, or is so far in the future, that the Brexit episode is a distant bad memory. Because as it stands now, the best advertisement for why Scotland should leave the UK, is watching the Government response to SNP questions, which basically treats them as, again, illegitimate representatives of English property.

My 2 cents: if the UK somehow manages to avoid Brexit at this late date, this will be another sorry episode that'll be moved past by shared economic interests. But if Brexit actually happens the United Kingdom won't be a thing within our life times. We'll be back to the Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (for a little while, before that's let go of too).

This is a fascinating exercising in watching people rail-road themselves through a series of terrible ideas and actions that will do nothing but fatally undermine their country.

[Pann]

A few years ago when the Scottish referendum was held, I was overjoyed when it was defeated. I thought it extremely ill advised to hold. I thought David Cameron almost lost the union because he was too stupid and too lazy to campaign properly until Gordon Brown bailed him out. I though one of the US's closest allies had dodged an existential bullet that would consume it. I thought the SNP was promising what they couldn't deliver.

You keep bringing this up but Cameron not campaigning in the IndyRef had nothing to do with laziness or stupidity and everything to do with it being a Scottish referendum and it would have been highly inappropriate for Cameron, the English PM, to become involved.

[Skroe]

You keep bringing this up but Cameron not campaigning in the IndyRef had nothing to do with laziness or stupidity and everything to do with it being a Scottish referendum and it would have been highly inappropriate for Cameron, the English PM, to become involved.

Cameron was the British Prime Minister, not English PM and the Scottish Referendum was organized under an agreement between the devolved Scottish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom. The "British" side most definitely had a stake and was a political participant in a side.

Cameron did campaign, but only at the 11th hour when the polls looked bleak. The result of the referendum has been widely credited to a late intervention by former PM, and Scot, Gordon Brown.

But then again, holding votes he didn't know he could win was Cameron's special move. He did it with Syria in 2013 in a vote he didn't even need to hold, and blew it along with NATO unanimity. He narrowly avoided disaster with the Scottish referendum in 2014. And in 2016, he completely shit the bed with Brexit, which he did also not take nearly seriously enough until it was too late.

If Brexit goes through, Cameron will go down in history as the PM who dug the ditch that the corpse of the UK was tossed in. Because it will make another Scottish referendum inevitable, and "Better Together 2.0" won't have a prayer given how Scottish interests have been handled with respect to Brexit.

[Pannonian]

Cameron was the British Prime Minister, not English PM and the Scottish Referendum was organized under an agreement between the devolved Scottish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom. The "British" side most definitely had a stake and was a political participant in a side.

Cameron did campaign, but only at the 11th hour when the polls looked bleak. The result of the referendum has been widely credited to a late intervention by former PM, and Scot, Gordon Brown.

But then again, holding votes he didn't know he could win was Cameron's special move. He did it with Syria in 2013 in a vote he didn't even need to hold, and blew it along with NATO unanimity. He narrowly avoided disaster with the Scottish referendum in 2014. And in 2016, he completely shit the bed with Brexit, which he did also not take nearly seriously enough until it was too late.

If Brexit goes through, Cameron will go down in history as the PM who dug the ditch that the corpse of the UK was tossed in. Because it will make another Scottish referendum inevitable, and "Better Together 2.0" won't have a prayer given how Scottish interests have been handled with respect to Brexit.

Isn't it ironic how EU-membership was one important argument of Better Together?

[Slant]

Cameron was the British Prime Minister, not English PM and the Scottish Referendum was organized under an agreement between the devolved Scottish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom. The "British" side most definitely had a stake and was a political participant in a side.

Wow, this is the first time that I see a non-British person educate a British person about the differences between England, Great Britain and the UK. It seems, after decades of pointing it out, we finally got the hang of it.

[zealo]

You keep bringing this up but Cameron not campaigning in the IndyRef had nothing to do with laziness or stupidity and everything to do with it being a Scottish referendum and it would have been highly inappropriate for Cameron, the English PM, to become involved.

England is the part of the UK that doesn't have it's own devolved parliament.

What the UK constituents that do have a devolved parliament are doing most certainly concerns Westminster, especially when it's a topic with as far reaching potential consequences as a vote on independence.

[Kronik85]

Cameron was the British Prime Minister, not English PM and the Scottish Referendum was organized under an agreement between the devolved Scottish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom. The "British" side most definitely had a stake and was a political participant in a side.

I don't want to put words in Pann's mouth but I think he meant that Cameron is English. Cameron campaigning north of the border is pretty toxic, he's pretty much everything Scotts hate so he was best keeping the fuck out of it.

[dribbles]

Cameron was the British Prime Minister, not English PM and the Scottish Referendum was organized under an agreement between the devolved Scottish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom. The "British" side most definitely had a stake and was a political participant in a side.

You foreigners just don't understand or have a clue about the topic you are posting in, they are just words for words sake. But in the interests of education, eurochums take note...

Cameron didn't campaign in the Scotland independence referendum for the same reason Juncker didn't in the EU/UK Brexit one.

[Pann]

I don't want to put words in Pann's mouth but I think he meant that Cameron is English. Cameron campaigning north of the border is pretty toxic, he's pretty much everything Scotts hate so he was best keeping the fuck out of it.

Thank you.

Cameron explicitly stated in his speech prior to IndyRefy campaign that this was an issue for the Scottish people.

"If people vote yes in September, then Scotland will become an independent country.

There will be no going back.

As I have made clear, this is a decision that is squarely and solely for those in Scotland to make.

I passionately believe it is in their interests to stay in the UK.

That way Scotland has the space to take decisions, while still having the security that comes with being part of something bigger.

From Holyrood they can decide what happens in every hospital, school and police station in Scotland and in the UK, Scotland is part of a major global player.

These are the arguments we will keep on putting til September 18th.

It is their choice, their vote."

- - - Updated - - -

Cameron was the British Prime Minister, not English PM and the Scottish Referendum was organized under an agreement between the devolved Scottish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom. The "British" side most definitely had a stake and was a political participant in a side.

Cameron did campaign, but only at the 11th hour when the polls looked bleak. The result of the referendum has been widely credited to a late intervention by former PM, and Scot, Gordon Brown.

But then again, holding votes he didn't know he could win was Cameron's special move. He did it with Syria in 2013 in a vote he didn't even need to hold, and blew it along with NATO unanimity. He narrowly avoided disaster with the Scottish referendum in 2014. And in 2016, he completely shit the bed with Brexit, which he did also not take nearly seriously enough until it was too late.

If Brexit goes through, Cameron will go down in history as the PM who dug the ditch that the corpse of the UK was tossed in. Because it will make another Scottish referendum inevitable, and "Better Together 2.0" won't have a prayer given how Scottish interests have been handled with respect to Brexit.

Cameron was an English MP, no English MPs campaigned in the Scottish Referendum, although the Scottish wings of the UK parties did there English counterparts steered clear for, what should be, obvious reasons.

Cameron was following protocol that was introduced under Blair when the House voted on taking action in Syria.

[Elegiac]

You foreigners just don't understand or have a clue about the topic you are posting in, they are just words for words sake. But in the interests of education, eurochums take note...

Cameron didn't campaign in the Scotland independence referendum for the same reason Juncker didn't in the EU/UK Brexit one.

Incompetence?

[Dhrizzle]

You foreigners just don't understand or have a clue about the topic you are posting in, they are just words for words sake. But in the interests of education, eurochums take note...

Cameron didn't campaign in the Scotland independence referendum for the same reason Juncker didn't in the EU/UK Brexit one.

Well that's nonsense. Juncker didn't campaign for the EU referendum because the UK is a sovereign state. Scotland is not a sovereign state and it should have been absolutely appropriate for the Prime Minister of the United to Kingdom to campaign against one of its constituent countries leaving.

[Elegiac]

It is astonishing to me that we have four adults in this thread who still can't get this simple fact right.

So your contention is that Skroe is using pretty commonplace shorthand. Kay.

Still doesn't exonerate Cameron of derelicting his job by letting the Union go to pot.

[Slant]

It is astonishing to me that we have four adults in this thread who still can't get this simple fact right.

The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister Of The United Kingdom. The full title of the United Kingdom is "The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland".

Ok, so semantics aside, Skroe's correct then? Thank you for pointing it out.

Oh yeah, while we're talking about semantics, define "neo-liberal" for me please. Nevermind, people like you never do. :P

[Mormolyce]

So we're back to finger pointing?

Blame the racists. Not all Brexiteers are racists, but take out the racists and they wouldn't have been close to 50%. And if you couldn't manipulate a bunch of racist idiots, you'd have to advance actual sound arguments for leaving the EU, along with a realistic cost/benefit analysis and a clear political path to success. Which I doubt they could've done, but if they had then Brexit wouldn't be the fucking shambles it is.

Everything else is window dressing really.

[Slant]

And Pann is also correct that Cameron himself campaigning in Scotland would be viewed poorly so Tories deferred campaigning on the IndyRef on Scottish Tory MPs.

True, but really all of this just shows how the UK oppresses the Scottish people.

- - - Updated - - -

No, he is not right. Britain and the United Kingdom are not the same thing. Fucking hell. It is like talking to a tree.

Ok, so Great Britain is not part of the United Kingdom then? What's the United Kingdom a kingdom of again? And you still owe me that "neo-liberal" definition...

[Elegiac]

That cuts both ways. There's a lot of middle/upper-class people that voted Remain that wanted migration so they could exploit foreign workers to get cheap goods. Those people are arguably worse than the Brexiteer isolationists.

I'm in favour of immigration personally, but not just as a way to exploit people to produce cheap goods.

I can guarantee you there are vastly more racists than there are people gung ho about exploiting Eastern Europeans for cheap labour.

But by all means keep dying on that "but Britain and the UK aren't the same thing" hill despite the fact in common and even in academic parlance they are almost always synonymous. Kek.

[Shalcker]

I can guarantee you there are vastly more racists than there are people gung ho about exploiting Eastern Europeans for cheap labour.

You can be both racist AND be gung ho about exploiting Eastern Europeans for cheap labour.

That is quite more usual historically for racists to exploit "lower races" then just keeping them out entirely.

[AeneasBK]

You can be both racist AND be gung ho about exploiting Eastern Europeans for cheap labour.

That is quite more usual historically for racists to exploit "lower races" then just keeping them out entirely.

The distinction was the side of the referrendum they'd have voted for.

[Shalcker]

The distinction was the side of the referrendum they'd have voted for.

You could vote remain for racist reasons.