So Blackleaf, if the UK adopts a soft Brexit, will you be campaigning of a hard-Brexit referendum?
Split over Bexit....Chaos in UK.
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
There's no such thing as "soft Brexit" and "hard Brexit." Both are terms invented by the Remoaners after they lost the referendum. Neither term existed before and during the referendum.
So-called "hard Brexit" is Brexit - the thing that the people voted for.
So-called "soft-Brexit" is keeping us in the EU in all but name against the people's democratic wishes.
The nation hating nazicommietyrants are SO dishonest.
but then we nicknamed her "may not" for a reason.
After the way she lied about the skripals, we knew she was, like hoid, a total sellout.
Much like the way Blair lied about Iraq too...not to mention a-hole bunch of other liars.
but then we nicknamed her "may not" for a reason.
After the way she lied about the skripals, we knew she was, like hoid, a total sellout.
Much like the way Blair lied about Iraq too...not to mention a-hole bunch of other liars.
If you read the referendum question, it clearly fails to clarify what would replace EU-membership. Based on a simple reading of that referendum paper, it's clear that Brexit could reasonably be defined in many ways including the Norwegian model.
With that, it would make sense to hold a second referendum with more competent writers writing clearer options to reduce ambiguity, no?
Here we go again, that old Remoaner chestnut: "The British people didn't really know what they were voting for."
The truth is we know exactly what we voted for: A return to full control of our borders, our laws and our trade. We voted for Brexit - not a "sort of Brexit."
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
with the responses to the question to be (to be marked with a single (X)):
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Quote me where it says anything of the sort.
The British people voted to leave the European Union.
They didn't vote "to sort of leave but not really leave at all". They didn't vote to "leave the European Union and then become its vassal state" as May wants.
They voted to leave the European Union. It really is that simple.
Anyone who reads the referendum question and takes it at face value can see the glaring vagueness of the 'leave' option. Taken at face value, withdrawing membership is already 'leaving' the EU. I agree the government probably did not intend to the option to be left so ambiguous. I think that just came down to incompetence on the part of the writer of the question.
It should have specified a clear alternative, be it the Norwegian model, unilateral free trade, or at least something so as to give some indication of what 'leave' was supposed to mean beyond just withdrawing membership from the EU.
I foresee a referendum take 2 coming to a UK near you.
Get out of the EU? Of course. Dump the USA? Definitely! PETER HITCHENS on why Britain should declare independence from BOTH the EU and the States
By Peter Hitchens for The Mail on Sunday
15 July 2018
The time has come for Britain to declare independence from the USA. If our two countries do, in fact, have a ‘special relationship’, it is now an especially bad one.
Our internal affairs are none of Washington’s business. Many people rightly denounced Barack Obama’s crude attempt to influence the EU referendum by saying we would be at ‘the back of the queue’ for an American trade deal if we voted to leave.
The same people must logically also denounce Donald Trump’s gross and ill-mannered intervention in our private affairs on Friday, which he then pretended, totally unconvincingly, not to have meant.
Donald Trump (pictured) committed a 'gross and ill-mannered affair' on Friday, writes Peter Hitchens
Both Presidents may well have been speaking something like the truth, though in fact trade and investment between us and the USA are pretty healthy in any case, mainly thanks to our similar laws and languages.
But it is our affair, not theirs. The two Presidents should have known better, and so should whoever in Britain advised them to poke their noses into our affairs.
The Obama interference backfired so badly that it probably swung the vote to Leave. Mr Trump’s meddling, especially his mischievous endorsement of ‘Boris’ Johnson (his real name is Al), may possibly help save Mrs May from her own Tory Party.
What do I think about it all? As one of the most longstanding campaigners for a British departure from the EU, I am in near-despair at the way an honest, patriotic cause has been hijacked by frantic free-traders, mini-Trumps who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, and have no real interest in this country at all.
I want to preserve our liberties, unique laws and form of government, our Christian culture, our beautiful, flexible language, our unrivalled landscape, the irreplaceable gifts of a thousand years free from invasion.
I want my maps measured in yards and miles and my groceries in pounds and ounces; and I hope in the end to be laid in 6ft of English earth, not two blasted metres. But I couldn’t care less about our supposed freedom to import GM foods and chlorine-washed chicken from the USA.
'Mr Trump’s meddling, especially his mischievous endorsement of "Boris" Johnson (his real name is Al), may possibly help save Mrs May from her own Tory Party,' writes Peter Hitchens
In fact, I strongly suspect that people who think this is the most important issue are as much of a threat to my kind of Britain as the EU is. What’s more, I cannot see that creepy obeisance to the USA is any better than crawling to Brussels. It does not matter what kind of President the USA has.
Franklin Roosevelt stripped us of wealth and empire. Truman broke promises to share nuclear technology with us. Eisenhower humiliated us at Suez. LBJ loathed us for refusing to join his mad adventure in Vietnam. Reagan wanted us to sell out the Falklands to Argentina. Clinton actually made us sell out to the IRA. George W. Bush made us his lapdog. Obama was pretty openly our enemy.
In most cases, they were not personally hostile to Britain. Some of them actually quite liked us. But in US politics, if you can offer the President’s party neither votes nor money, you don’t count.
Trump cares little about this country. His arrogant rudeness towards us suits some domestic game he is playing, for he is the most brilliant politician since Princess Diana – not especially intelligent or knowledgeable, but cunning beyond belief. He knew what he was doing when he said what he said, and you may be sure it was for his benefit, not ours.
PETER HITCHENS on why Britain should declare independence from Europe and US* | Daily Mail Online
By Peter Hitchens for The Mail on Sunday
15 July 2018
The time has come for Britain to declare independence from the USA. If our two countries do, in fact, have a ‘special relationship’, it is now an especially bad one.
Our internal affairs are none of Washington’s business. Many people rightly denounced Barack Obama’s crude attempt to influence the EU referendum by saying we would be at ‘the back of the queue’ for an American trade deal if we voted to leave.
The same people must logically also denounce Donald Trump’s gross and ill-mannered intervention in our private affairs on Friday, which he then pretended, totally unconvincingly, not to have meant.
Donald Trump (pictured) committed a 'gross and ill-mannered affair' on Friday, writes Peter Hitchens
Both Presidents may well have been speaking something like the truth, though in fact trade and investment between us and the USA are pretty healthy in any case, mainly thanks to our similar laws and languages.
But it is our affair, not theirs. The two Presidents should have known better, and so should whoever in Britain advised them to poke their noses into our affairs.
The Obama interference backfired so badly that it probably swung the vote to Leave. Mr Trump’s meddling, especially his mischievous endorsement of ‘Boris’ Johnson (his real name is Al), may possibly help save Mrs May from her own Tory Party.
What do I think about it all? As one of the most longstanding campaigners for a British departure from the EU, I am in near-despair at the way an honest, patriotic cause has been hijacked by frantic free-traders, mini-Trumps who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, and have no real interest in this country at all.
I want to preserve our liberties, unique laws and form of government, our Christian culture, our beautiful, flexible language, our unrivalled landscape, the irreplaceable gifts of a thousand years free from invasion.
I want my maps measured in yards and miles and my groceries in pounds and ounces; and I hope in the end to be laid in 6ft of English earth, not two blasted metres. But I couldn’t care less about our supposed freedom to import GM foods and chlorine-washed chicken from the USA.
'Mr Trump’s meddling, especially his mischievous endorsement of "Boris" Johnson (his real name is Al), may possibly help save Mrs May from her own Tory Party,' writes Peter Hitchens
In fact, I strongly suspect that people who think this is the most important issue are as much of a threat to my kind of Britain as the EU is. What’s more, I cannot see that creepy obeisance to the USA is any better than crawling to Brussels. It does not matter what kind of President the USA has.
Franklin Roosevelt stripped us of wealth and empire. Truman broke promises to share nuclear technology with us. Eisenhower humiliated us at Suez. LBJ loathed us for refusing to join his mad adventure in Vietnam. Reagan wanted us to sell out the Falklands to Argentina. Clinton actually made us sell out to the IRA. George W. Bush made us his lapdog. Obama was pretty openly our enemy.
In most cases, they were not personally hostile to Britain. Some of them actually quite liked us. But in US politics, if you can offer the President’s party neither votes nor money, you don’t count.
Trump cares little about this country. His arrogant rudeness towards us suits some domestic game he is playing, for he is the most brilliant politician since Princess Diana – not especially intelligent or knowledgeable, but cunning beyond belief. He knew what he was doing when he said what he said, and you may be sure it was for his benefit, not ours.
PETER HITCHENS on why Britain should declare independence from Europe and US* | Daily Mail Online
ROD LIDDLE
This is Brexit in name only to keep the plebs happy
Rod Liddle
Boris Johnson (image: Getty)
Rod Liddle
14 July 2018
The Spectator
My wife has decided she likes Dominic Raab, the latest poor sap to be despatched from a hamstrung, spasticated government to negotiate our exit from the European Union before a plethora of sniggering pygmies from the Low Countries. I think it’s the sound of his surname, those consecutive vowels, because I’ve noticed she also likes aardvarks and once expressed a wish to visit Aachen. I can’t think of many other reasons to like the chap. He surely knows what we all know, Leavers and Remainers alike — that the route our Prime Minister dreamed up one night while out of her box on skag, presumably, is not Brexit at all and would leave us in a far worse position than if we remained within the confines of that increasingly totalitarian bureaucracy.
It is in fact that thing which has become a hallmark of the staggeringly hapless May’s administration, the botched quick-fix designed solely to keep her in office for a few more weeks. Everybody knows this — in Europe and inside our government and out. It would have been better if she had said simply: ‘We’re not leaving the EU. That referendum counts for nothing, so stuff it. We, the establishment, know better, and we’re staying in.’ That would be far more honest, and preferable for the country too. These cosmetic genuflections to the will of the people become more emetic with every day that passes. Brexit in name only, to keep the plebs — the thick northerners, the racists, the England supporters, the, er, democrats — happy, because they know no better.
New Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab
May was a Remainer, of course, so we understand that she does not have an ideological investment in Britain leaving the EU. It is why she should never have become Prime Minister. But she ascended to that hugely unlikely role because of political failures more grave than her own: the Tory Brexit-eers and, in particular, Boris Johnson.
I like Boris, personally. He is indeed capable of being witty and is good company. He has chutzpah. I don’t mind the buffoonish stuff, either — hell, not every senior politician needs to be as deathly boring as Douglas Hurd or Norman Fowler. And he gave me a column in this magazine, so I should be much more grateful.
But there is a strand of intense dimness running through that family which, when allied to an almost bizarre sense of entitlement occasioned by the most expensive upbringing that money can buy, plus a surfeit of ambition and an almost complete absence of principle, leads us to where we are now. The least effective foreign secretary in 60 years resigns and is hunkered down with his simpering groupies preparing for what he thinks is his birthright, i.e. to lead the country.
You must be joking, Boris. Is anyone convinced that Boris is a committed Brexiteer? Sure — I know from first hand his genuine disdain for the rules and regulations of the EU. But I suspect he opted for ‘out’ in 2016 because he thought there was more chance of personal advancement in taking that position. Which is also why I think he has now resigned. (‘Does another resignation weaken her fatally? Or will it weaken me if I do it?’ That was the calculation.) I don’t think leaving the European Union came into it.
And remember the debacle once we had voted to Leave — the complete absence of any senior figure from the Leave camp capable of stepping forward, a catastrophe of vaulting ambition, spite, misplaced hubris and real stupidity which left the Conservative party with a choice between Theresa May and some woman called Andrea.
I cannot remember a time when the British public — both the decisive majority who voted Leave, and the Remainers — have been more let down. Stupidity particularly — a familiar trope for the Tories, I suppose: the stupid party. Exacerbated by May’s decision to foist an unwanted election upon the country, with the result that her previously tricky position has now become patently impossible and untenable.
I see May’s current difficulty. I do get that. No working majority. A party and parliament (and establishment) which is for Remain, an electorate which expresses a clear majority for Leave. How to square the two? And the answer — pay lip service to Leave and the public will, while remaining. But that doesn’t work. And it plays into the hands of those with whom we are negotiating.
It should never have been quite this problematic. The European Union is itself in utter disarray. One by one the countries of central Europe are rebelling against the diktat from Brussels — primarily over immigration, but also over their rights to run their own countries as they see fit without being chastised by a perpetually zonked Luxembourgish panjandrum and threatened with sanctions.
And one by one, Eurosceptic parties or coalitions are winning elections. This is something we should have exploited from day one. We should make common cause with the Hungarians and the Greeks and Czechs and the Poles and the Austrians and the Italians. Oh, and of course the Catalans. Support them in their struggles against the very machine which we voted to be rid of. Tell Barnier we will pay not a single penny to the EU and that he can do his worst. Strike an immediate trade deal with the USA, Australia and China. If the EU threatens tariffs against our exports, do the same back: they lose more than we do. If this leads to a ‘hard border’ in Northern Ireland, so be it. We should leave the border soft, because that is what our people want. If the EU wishes to police it and set up customs posts from Donegal to Newry, let them, and then let the people of that island see who, exactly, is causing the problems. Call their bluff. It would be bumpy for a while. But scarcely less bumpy than it is now.
Spectator.co.uk/Rodliddle
The argument continues online.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/this-is-brexit-in-name-only-to-keep-the-plebs-happy/
This is Brexit in name only to keep the plebs happy
Rod Liddle
Boris Johnson (image: Getty)
Rod Liddle
14 July 2018
The Spectator
My wife has decided she likes Dominic Raab, the latest poor sap to be despatched from a hamstrung, spasticated government to negotiate our exit from the European Union before a plethora of sniggering pygmies from the Low Countries. I think it’s the sound of his surname, those consecutive vowels, because I’ve noticed she also likes aardvarks and once expressed a wish to visit Aachen. I can’t think of many other reasons to like the chap. He surely knows what we all know, Leavers and Remainers alike — that the route our Prime Minister dreamed up one night while out of her box on skag, presumably, is not Brexit at all and would leave us in a far worse position than if we remained within the confines of that increasingly totalitarian bureaucracy.
It is in fact that thing which has become a hallmark of the staggeringly hapless May’s administration, the botched quick-fix designed solely to keep her in office for a few more weeks. Everybody knows this — in Europe and inside our government and out. It would have been better if she had said simply: ‘We’re not leaving the EU. That referendum counts for nothing, so stuff it. We, the establishment, know better, and we’re staying in.’ That would be far more honest, and preferable for the country too. These cosmetic genuflections to the will of the people become more emetic with every day that passes. Brexit in name only, to keep the plebs — the thick northerners, the racists, the England supporters, the, er, democrats — happy, because they know no better.
New Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab
May was a Remainer, of course, so we understand that she does not have an ideological investment in Britain leaving the EU. It is why she should never have become Prime Minister. But she ascended to that hugely unlikely role because of political failures more grave than her own: the Tory Brexit-eers and, in particular, Boris Johnson.
I like Boris, personally. He is indeed capable of being witty and is good company. He has chutzpah. I don’t mind the buffoonish stuff, either — hell, not every senior politician needs to be as deathly boring as Douglas Hurd or Norman Fowler. And he gave me a column in this magazine, so I should be much more grateful.
But there is a strand of intense dimness running through that family which, when allied to an almost bizarre sense of entitlement occasioned by the most expensive upbringing that money can buy, plus a surfeit of ambition and an almost complete absence of principle, leads us to where we are now. The least effective foreign secretary in 60 years resigns and is hunkered down with his simpering groupies preparing for what he thinks is his birthright, i.e. to lead the country.
You must be joking, Boris. Is anyone convinced that Boris is a committed Brexiteer? Sure — I know from first hand his genuine disdain for the rules and regulations of the EU. But I suspect he opted for ‘out’ in 2016 because he thought there was more chance of personal advancement in taking that position. Which is also why I think he has now resigned. (‘Does another resignation weaken her fatally? Or will it weaken me if I do it?’ That was the calculation.) I don’t think leaving the European Union came into it.
And remember the debacle once we had voted to Leave — the complete absence of any senior figure from the Leave camp capable of stepping forward, a catastrophe of vaulting ambition, spite, misplaced hubris and real stupidity which left the Conservative party with a choice between Theresa May and some woman called Andrea.
I cannot remember a time when the British public — both the decisive majority who voted Leave, and the Remainers — have been more let down. Stupidity particularly — a familiar trope for the Tories, I suppose: the stupid party. Exacerbated by May’s decision to foist an unwanted election upon the country, with the result that her previously tricky position has now become patently impossible and untenable.
I see May’s current difficulty. I do get that. No working majority. A party and parliament (and establishment) which is for Remain, an electorate which expresses a clear majority for Leave. How to square the two? And the answer — pay lip service to Leave and the public will, while remaining. But that doesn’t work. And it plays into the hands of those with whom we are negotiating.
It should never have been quite this problematic. The European Union is itself in utter disarray. One by one the countries of central Europe are rebelling against the diktat from Brussels — primarily over immigration, but also over their rights to run their own countries as they see fit without being chastised by a perpetually zonked Luxembourgish panjandrum and threatened with sanctions.
And one by one, Eurosceptic parties or coalitions are winning elections. This is something we should have exploited from day one. We should make common cause with the Hungarians and the Greeks and Czechs and the Poles and the Austrians and the Italians. Oh, and of course the Catalans. Support them in their struggles against the very machine which we voted to be rid of. Tell Barnier we will pay not a single penny to the EU and that he can do his worst. Strike an immediate trade deal with the USA, Australia and China. If the EU threatens tariffs against our exports, do the same back: they lose more than we do. If this leads to a ‘hard border’ in Northern Ireland, so be it. We should leave the border soft, because that is what our people want. If the EU wishes to police it and set up customs posts from Donegal to Newry, let them, and then let the people of that island see who, exactly, is causing the problems. Call their bluff. It would be bumpy for a while. But scarcely less bumpy than it is now.
Spectator.co.uk/Rodliddle
The argument continues online.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/this-is-brexit-in-name-only-to-keep-the-plebs-happy/
UK's 'no-deal' Brexit plans warn of credit card fees
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45274972?ocid=global_bbccom_email_23082018_top+news+stories
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45274972?ocid=global_bbccom_email_23082018_top+news+stories
I'm pretty sure the UK would have already split if it was going to happen (allowed to). It will end up like Scotland wanting to bail and that was never going to happen. When the Queen says, 'It would be Bad' is not any different when the head of the KKK says, 'peaceful protest, . . or else'.
The South had slaves, the North had Company Towns, there is no difference. Perhaps the Slaves actually had it better as the Boss was in the field every day also. A wheat farmer never makes it to the Palace to have the Queen congratulate him for his service.
The South had slaves, the North had Company Towns, there is no difference. Perhaps the Slaves actually had it better as the Boss was in the field every day also. A wheat farmer never makes it to the Palace to have the Queen congratulate him for his service.