Toronto Escorts

May's Brexit plan overwhelmingly rejected

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
Interesting read:

https://www.businessinsider.com/britain-enters-greek-fallacy-phase-of-brexit-2018-11

"The EU isn't a democracy. It's a system of laws and rules that are designed to not be changed (...) Brussels doesn't care about elections inside individual countries (...) that's not because they are inherently evil. It's because of the way the EU is structured.

The EU is a very difficult body to negotiate with, the Union consists of 28 countries (Britain plus 27 others) who all have their own democratic mandates. To pass any new laws or enter into any trade deals is very difficult, with a "super-qualified majority" of the EU council required to agree any changes to the Withdrawal Agreement.

The EU, therefore, exists mostly as a system of rules, policies, and laws that are incredibly difficult to change or break. There is no way to negotiate with a body that cannot change its mind if just one of its 28 members won't go along. "
Canada has successfully negotiated with the EU. But now since Canada is a part of USMCA, it cannot negotiate any deals with other nations without the approval of the USMCA. This happens to all the countries that are signatories to similar bodies. But if the EU was such a liability, why is the UK not rejecting this latest Brexit offer and walking away, to become "Great Again"??
 

kstanb

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2008
1,283
90
48
EU is based on 4 freedoms:
freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital over borders.

that is the cost of membership, and of course countries can get out if their local democracies elect so
 

omegaphallic

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2010
3,003
42
48
How about a second referendum, but this time it absolutely, positively is the final choice? :popcorn:
A second referundum with a clearer question on what type of Britexit is on the table, May's Plan, Hard Britexit, or Stay. I think alot of people where conned Into what they were buying, now that the public has had a taste of the reality it's time to see if their desire is still there.
 

niniveh

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2009
1,108
199
63
For a refreshing piece on Brexit see the lead in today's NYTimes by Pankaj Mishra: Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling Class.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
For a refreshing piece on Brexit see the lead in today's NYTimes by Pankaj Mishra: Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling Class.
Thank you. That is a very well written piece.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Sounds objective.
Those who don't know the article was an an opinion piece in the Review Section -— which is entirely editorials and op-eds — may have misunderstood your intended irony.

Of course no one who's aware enough to recognize fictional characters from Bertie Wooster through Colonel Blimp to the Pythons' Upper Class Twits would be at all surprised by that relatively mild characterization. Least of all the British Ruling Class. Take a look at the pic from elsewhere in the paper:

 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I watched the movie. Yes, it was very interesting how it implicates the crooked ways of the "Leave Campaign":

[/QUOTE]

I didnt see anything crooked in their tactics. A simple compelling message and targeting an under served constituency, I wonder where that idea came from.

Remain made the same mistake Clinton did, they didn’t put forward a compelling argument, only a rebuttal of their opponent with a heavy dose of distain.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I didnt see anything crooked in their tactics. A simple compelling message and targeting an under served constituency, I wonder where that idea came from.

Remain made the same mistake Clinton did, they didn’t put forward a compelling argument, only a rebuttal of their opponent with a heavy dose of distain.
The difference being that Clinton beat her opponent, albeit by a similarly small percentage to the Brexit 'win'.

When you're picking one person for one job, even a single vote margin is decisive, but a 'win' that falls within the margin of error, on a complex question of preferences — neither of them defined — is just another form of debate, and no decision at all.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
I didnt see anything crooked in their tactics. A simple compelling message and targeting an under served constituency, I wonder where that idea came from.

Remain made the same mistake Clinton did, they didn’t put forward a compelling argument, only a rebuttal of their opponent with a heavy dose of distain.
You see nothing wrong with violating the campaign laws??

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/b...d-illegal-brexit-referendum-overspend-n891931

Well I guess you try to justify such violations as there are more to come, and you know what this is in relation to. But the only credit I give the Leave Campaign is that they got away with blatantly lying to the people with a number of false campaign ads!!
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
You see nothing wrong with violating the campaign laws??

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/b...d-illegal-brexit-referendum-overspend-n891931

Well I guess you try to justify such violations as there are more to come, and you know what this is in relation to. But the only credit I give the Leave Campaign is that they got away with blatantly lying to the people with a number of false campaign ads!!
You are right, with the ruling that two organizations were corridinated they overspent by 10%, I’m not sure I’d call that crooked as much as subject to an adverse ruling.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113

azeri99

Banned
Sep 19, 2018
949
1
0
The difference being that Clinton beat her opponent, albeit by a similarly small percentage to the Brexit 'win'.

When you're picking one person for one job, even a single vote margin is decisive, but a 'win' that falls within the margin of error, on a complex question of preferences — neither of them defined — is just another form of debate, and no decision at all.
In what universe did Clinton beat her opponent? She won the popular vote which means nothing, that's not the system they use. She would have beaten her opponent if she actually campaigned in the states that mattered instead of being lazy and taking voters for granted. She was either lazy or didn't want to go because it would have been too much for her, she might have collapsed would have had to have been held upright by campaign aides during her visits.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
In what universe did Clinton beat her opponent? She won the popular vote which means nothing, that's not the system they use. She would have beaten her opponent if she actually campaigned in the states that mattered instead of being lazy and taking voters for granted. She was either lazy or didn't want to go because it would have been too much for her, she might have collapsed would have had to have been held upright by campaign aides during her visits.
If we ignore the post I replied to, about the British popular vote, and pretend we're discussing the US Presidency you may perhaps be right about all that American detail about how Clinton played their "rigged" system worst and got Donny his job.

Since we are not discussing that stuff, but a very rare plebiscite and following events in a country that operates by an entirely different system, I didn't read those details closely won't argue them as they have no relevance across the two votes.

The popular vote in both Britain and the US does compare in almost every aspect. On that head-count Clinton beat her opponent by a percentage quite comparable to the Brexit 'majority'. If such minor percentages were sufficient to settle things and persuade the half of the population hating the result that they should move on to other concerns, neither country would be roiling in acrimony now. Another way of stating the point about Brexit I offered above.

If all you wanted to say was that the US vote winner campaigned as ineptly as the UK vote loser, I've said it for you. So what? When such small margins mean winning is indistinguishable from losing in its power to settle the question at issue and enable progress, it bolsters my point.
 
Last edited:
Toronto Escorts