I will support a move away from English and into Gaelic in Ireland if they and other islanders convert from christianity back to their proto druidic faith.
I remember warlock 2, they are our only hope.
By making this statement, you are implying that Irish Gaelic is somehow less a language of the modern world than English is, which is the same sort of xenophobic bullshit that brought us the Brexit. To be clear, I am not calling you xenophobic; I have no opinion about you as a person. I am calling out the bias in your statement.
You are reading way too much into the statement. Although, now that you mention it, the word Gaelic brings closer connotations to something like “old norse” or latin than english/french/german/chinese/russian/portugese.
Languages of empire tend to get more dumbed down over the centuries as they span geographies and cultures. The more isolated languages tend to be far more difficult to learn and particular.
Irish is not an antique. It went through Old, Middle, and modern stages, just as English did. Christianity on Ireland is way older than the present Irish language.
Unlikely. Boris has made himself very unpopular lately; it’s looking far more likely that we’ll be seeing Prime Minister May instead.
Part of the issue is that it is becoming increasingly apparent that Johnson and Gove didn’t want to leave the EU. Their fiendishly clever plan was to head up a Leave campaign that almost-won-but-not-quite, and then use the resentment of the unrequired Leavers as a boost to put Boris in Number 10 and Gove in some key cabinet post. Except that, like a latter-day Bialystock and Bloom, the failure they were banking on turned out to be a success which left them, personally, fucked. Both know perfectly well leaving the EU will be a disaster, as Boris’ recent sputterings indicate.
Farage has always been pro-Leave, but most of the country rightly thinks he’s an insufferable twat (and Hamilton is an opportunistic carpetbagger). I’d rather see Carswell in Number 10 than Farage.
Um… there’s nothing in Article 50 that says you can change your mind. And while it’s not out of the question, in practice you’d have to get agreement from the rest of the EU to allow you to stop the process, which is a very slim chance indeed. Best to assume that once the trigger is pulled, the bang will follow.
Sitcom!
Fun fact: you know that petition where people are trying to redo the referendum? That was actually pre-emptively started by a Leave campaigner who assumed Remain would win and therefore he wanted to get a start on contesting the result. Here’s your petard, dude; get hoist.
Oh and one more fun note for all those who think Brexit will mean more control of immigration: The mayor of Calais has pointed out that all those refugees piling up in France are there because the 2003 Touquet agreement requires France to stop them. Once the UK leave the EU, France has no reason to hold them anymore. Should be a fun time for the good folk of Dover and Ashford for a while.
So to sum up: leaving the EU means worse trade deals, more illegal immigrants, a weaker economy, less public funding, and potentially the breakup of the United Kingdom. Well done, guys.
There was a very interesting article in the Financial Times yesterday - “I do not believe that Brexit will happen” - which can be read by following this link.
It argues that Brexit will not happen and that a middle ground compromise will be found that will satisfy the moderates and the pragmatists and that will keep the UK in the EU.
The referendum result has given the UK a strong hand in negotiations with the EU. The British electorate has spoken, the situation is clear and the writing is on the wall - the UK will definitely be exiting the EU unless the EU makes concessions to address the British people’s anxieties.
The EU wants the UK to stay in the EU, I believe the majority of the British population wants to stay in the EU (if their concerns are addressed) and I think Boris Johnson, the likely next British Prime Minister, also would prefer to stay in the EU. It makes sense for all parties, except the extremists, to find a compromise solution.
The issue that needs to be worked out is immigration and the free movement of workers. If a solution can be found to this issue then I think the UK will remain part of the EU, endorsed by a second referendum.
I think the UK has an arguable case for the EU to take the immigration issues it faces seriously. Here are population density figures for the larger EU countries:
England - 413 (persons per square kilometer)
Netherlands - 393
Belgium - 337
United Kingdom (as a whole) - 269
Germany - 233
Italy - 192
…
France - 111
…
Spain - 92
England has the highest population density in Europe (not counting the micro-states).
Here’s a bar chart showing net migration to EU countries in 2014 (from a UK Parliament briefing paper). Only Germany had a bigger net inward migration of people and the UK net immigration was almost twice as large as the third-placed country, Italy.
So I think the UK has a tight case for arguing that they are facing the effects of immigration far more acutely than any other EU country. Hopefully a deal can be reached which puts an upper limit on net migration and allows the UK (and perhaps any EU country) to take steps once this ceiling has been hit and therefore the EU can remain intact.
Why should that matter? Norway’s population density is low, but our very few flattish parts are quite crowded.
Norway’s population density is 13 persons per square kilometer, so England (at 413) is almost thirty-two times more densely populated and therefore I’m not sure it’s a fair comparison.
But most of it is not very comfortable to live on. Nearly all of England is. Without taking the quality of the land into account, your numbers are useless
I don’t think a country’s capacity to integrate immigrants can reasonably be measured by how many square feet of empty space they have at their disposal.
Yes, it’s true that Norway has a lot less useful habitable land than the UK, but even in its habitable areas its population density is way lower than England.
Obviously, trying to calculate each individual European country’s capacity to handle population and immigration is much more complicated a matter than simply comparing population densities. Indeed, according to this bar chart, Norway (and several other countries) have higher immigrant numbers per head of population than the UK.
_YB16.png){kind=link}
Personally, I’d like to see the UK stay in the EU. Most sources say that there is zero chance of a straight re-run of the referendum happening. It might, though, if the political conditions change - if the EU will offer a new deal that will satisfy the British people and can be put to them for a vote.
At the moment, it’s looking as though restrictions are going to be put in place regarding immigration to the UK whatever happens - whether UK brexits or whether they stay in the EU after a negotiated deal that the British public will approve by vote. So it looks as though the best road map for the moderates and the people in the middle of the debate is to try and navigate a middle road that accepts this condition, for the time being at least, and tries to preserve the union with the EU.
The Joker in the pack is Scotland and they could still force a whole new set of political circumstances (but I won’t speculate on that now).
I don’t think it is possible for the UK to get a new deal without the free movement of people. That right is very popular in most countries. You might get agreement from Hungary and a few other, but you have to get all of them.
Like here in Scandinavia. Lots of British people have moved here, and lots of us have moved to Britain. We are almost merging, culturally. Almost everyone is fine with this.
Yet now (most of) you want to take away that right from us. If you expect us to just shrug, and still give you free trade, I think you are very naive.
Well, I agree with you and and think the UK, EU and world in general would be a better place if the Leave campaign had not won.
So, what might the options be now?
a) Brexit happens and the UK leaves the EU.
b) The EU makes a concessionary deal with the UK, probably involving a cap to the level of net immigration, and the UK stays in the EU after winning a second referendum.
c) A political will in the UK arises to overrule the referendum result.
This perhaps could be the Labour Party fighting a general election on a platform of staying in the EU. It could be probable next Prime Minister Boris Johnson who, despite campaigning for Leave, is, I do not believe, a Brexiteer in his heart. He is a pragmatic opportunist and, if the political wind changes, I think he could well be prepared to find a way to re-plot the country’s course. Also remember that if an EU exit vote is put to a parliamentary vote, rather than a popular vote, the MPs will vote overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the EU. -
The problem with this is that the Brexiteers are, rightfully since they won the referendum, going to feel cheated by the political class, who are already probably at their lowest ever level of public confidence, if they make any attempt to overrule the will of the people.
So it’s hard to see how that could be successfully achieved without some significant compromise somehow to placate the discontented masses. Again, a deal with the EU is the obvious solution.
d) Scotland are determined to stay in the EU, even if it means seeking a second independence referendum. The very real likelihood of Scotland leaving the Union, with which it has been part for over three hundred years, may focus minds. Personally, I think the Little Englander-type Brexit supporters would prefer to stay in the EU and keep Scotland in the Union, rather than leave the EU and lose Scotland, if it came down to a choice.
I do appreciate that from the European perspective, it may feel like the referendum result saw the British people betraying them, rejecting them or holding them to hostage. As someone who supports European integration, I can sympathize with these views. Remember that although the Leavers won the referendum vote, the majority of the United Kingdom population are still probably pro-EU, since the young did not vote in as high numbers. I just hope it’s possible to find a compromise route that keeps the EU together.
The EU 27 are staying together. You want an arrangement that would keep Britain in as well. You may be mistaken about who will have to make concessions to who, for that to happen.
I think we’re past that. The UK will definitely be exiting the EU, period.
I’d be a remain supporter (if I were a UK citizen), but I agree with those Leave supporters who say that the referendum outcome confers an unquestionable democratic mandate to leave the EU. Legally, could Parliament ignore the referendum outcome? Yes, but politically it cannot. Was the leave campaign fuelled by lies and/or bigotry? Even if it was, the voters have spoken. We can’t argue that the voters’ opinions only count if we agree with their reasons for holding those opinions. Can we make an argument that a fundamental change to the status quo should require endorsement by a supermajority? Yes, but it’s too late to make that argument now. The time for that was when the Bill for the referendum went through Parliament. The terms of the referendum don’t require a supermajority; the major parties went in to the referendum committed to implementing the outcome; the people have spoken. It’s a done deal.
And I think that the EU-27 accept that. Their position is that the next step is for the UK to serve its Art. 50 notice, after which exit talks can begin. Those exit talks will not be a forum for offering the UK ever sweeter terms - on immigration or anything else - to induce them to stay. Once the Art. 50 notice is served, the UK will inevitably leave unless all 28 member states unanimously agree that it should stay. And that’s simply not going to happen, if the perception is that the UK is trying to use its exit vote simply as brinksmanship, to extort yet more rebates and exceptions and carve-outs from EU obligations than it already has.
The only way that the UK doesn’t leave the EU is if it doesn’t serve its Art. 50 notice, not as a stalling or negotiating tactic but because it has announced that it wants to remain. The only way, politically, it can do that is if the democratic mandate conferred by the referendum is superseded by a fresh mandate in favour of staying. I suppose in theory that could happen if a new PM went for an early general election, campaigned on a platform of staying, and won a solid majority. But, really, I don’t see that as very likely.
The UK is leaving. The position it is now in is not a practical one from which to try to negotiate better terms for staying. They should focus on negotiating the best terms for leaving that they can. They would like to participate in the single market, but the notion that they can do that on terms that don’t also involve free movement of persons is not a realistic one. They are going to have to compromise one of these objectives; they must decide which.
No we’re not past that. Before article 50 can even be triggered there has to be legislation passed to enable that to happen. That legislation is not likely to happen until the new leader comes into office in October. Various groups in the parliament will be fighting as hard as possible to prevent that arguing that the changed circumstances (Scotland possibly leaving and the obvious economic downturn which leave said WOULD NOT HAPPEN) gives them a mandate to disregard the referendum. It’s not at all clear that the necessary legislation will get past parliament.
Here is the process laid out by a QC:
With all due respect, this sort of attitude (that a Scandinavian, or for that matter an Englishman, is entitled to move to someone else’s country, regardless of what the people of that country feel about it) is exactly why leaving the EU is worth it to begin with. I’d rather live on baked beans and porridge, if necessary, than live in a world of ‘free movement of peoples.’
Exactly so. I agree with all of that. Yet in the very next sentence you state “The UK is leaving”. You say the same in the first two sentences of the post. I say that there is a vast difference between “not likely” meaning less than 50% odds and “impossible”. I think the scenario you just outlined is not one I’d want to put money on but it’s one that is nevertheless a realistic hope. I think there’s a decent chance that Cameron’s successor could get a majority campaigning on a “Remain and ignore the referendum” platform, and especially so if he presents a much more polished and optimistic outlook on Remain than the slipshod effort that Cameron put forward.
Well the 48% will be fighting your small minded attitude as hard as we can, and we own the future, under 50’s voted to remain, overwhelmingly and its only a matter of time before you’re the 48% and dwindling to irrelevance.