Brexit :(

Pro EU manifesto

Brown 8,609,527

Miliband 9,347,273

 

Pro brexit manifesto

Corbyn 12,878,460

Edited March 14, 2019 by worms

So you can't back it up then, fine. Those vote numbers say nothing about brexit, and nearly 1 million of the difference predates brexit anyway.

Corbyn was my 9pm wank today

 

his wee hat, pulling him in by his shit tie, breath of cheese & pickle sarnies, so dry, so so dry

 

then Rees-Mogg & Amber Rudd emerge & we all tag team her til i jizz in her eyes, when i came it was pure fnnnnnnnnnn fnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, Rees-Mogg wanted to get into his watersports rinse down but you've got to draw the line somewhere

Edited March 14, 2019 by cwmbrancity

The facts speak for themselves. Did you know Dianne Abbot used to get bummed in the arse by Corbyn? True story.

Christine Hamilton, Christine Hamilton

BUT WE COULD STILL LEAVE THE E.U AT THE END OF THE MONTH!

 

If only we didn't have a bunch of cunts running the country.

  On 3/14/2019 at 10:53 PM, worms said:

Pro EU manifesto

Brown 8,609,527

Miliband 9,347,273

 

Pro brexit manifesto

Corbyn 12,878,460

 

I'd wager it's probably not quite so cut and dry, but I'm just a simple colonial.

No, you're right for a change. In fact, Corbyn didn't even run the last election on a pro-brexit manifesto, it was more of a 'pretend brexit isn't a thing' manifesto (not wanting to show his true colours to the great majority of labour voters who are remainers); and what brexit policies they did have were in stark contrast to the Tories', focusing on remaining in the single market (or as close as possible) and customs union - hardly what you'd call pro-brexit positions. He also "campaigned" for remain during the referendum, though it's hard to tell whether that lame effort was down to his personal pro-brexit stance, or more due to his general fecklessness (probably a bit of both, he actually decided it would be a good idea to go on holiday in the middle of the campaign), but regardless, it was hardly a position which would have endeared the party to hardline brexiteers. Taken as whole it's pretty obvious he was just trying to walk the line and not piss off anyone too much, but the longer it's gone on the more he's managed to piss off both extremes.

Well what I actually meant was it’s probably not so simple as 12.8M - 9.3M = 4M difference because voter preference will change. But I’m sure some of the stuff you said applies too.

I guess I knew that the UK politics were a bit convoluted, that's in any country I guess, but the Brexit has really revealed how totally fucked it really is. I thought the politicians were at least somewhat competent or something for a western European country of that size.

i still quite like corbyns ideals, but he is definitely no longer a viable alternative. i read an interesting article outlining his possible reasons for being so pro brexit though, which is essentially that european law would make it very difficult for him to implement the level of socialist policies that he intends. i cant remember where it was though, if i find it il post it. 

If you're supporting old school socialism then I guess EU would be you're enemy because it's more like a liberal capitalist project with maybe some welfare state stuff and controls over business thrown in.

 

Well, unless you're master plan is to turn the whole EU into a socialist union..

What kind of socialist policies would go against EU law?

 

I find it hard to believe there's anything worthwhile that's not possible. 

  On 3/16/2019 at 11:37 AM, goDel said:

What kind of socialist policies would go against EU law?

 

I find it hard to believe there's anything worthwhile that's not possible. 

 

Nationalizing industries and preventing other EU nations competing the said industries by banning imports I would guess?

Might be an example, I guess. But this is something all countries in the EU seem to struggle with. Regardless of political colour, btw. Even the governments which favor business, so to speak, tend to favor national businesses over foreign businesses. And although there is some law - I'm not a specialist! - there seem to be a lot of grey area. Or perhaps, governments pushing the limits of those laws. There's probably also a lot of laws protecting people against foreign businesses taking over national functions. So it works both ways.

 

Often, EU law is very different to, say US "free market capitalism" laws, for example. Typically, there's more law protecting people against negative "free market" consequences. Socialist policies which wouldn't fit within these laws have to be pretty extreme, I believe. Which would be more extreme than say, implementing a basic income.

I'm not an expert either but to my knowledge also when a public administration inside EU is looking to purchase some services or products it has to be opened to public bidding to any company within EU and they need to choose the cheapest option available.

 

In a socialist economy the government owned business (if available) would provide whatever is needed and that's it.

 

But yeah, I'm talking about really old school, hardcore socialism. In a "pure" socialist system there is no need for things like basic income because everybody gets a job automatically from the government. In Soviet Union it was actually illegal to be unemployed. 

  On 3/16/2019 at 2:00 PM, mokz said:

I'm not an expert either but to my knowledge also when a public administration inside EU is looking to purchase some services or products it has to be opened to public bidding to any company within EU and they need to choose the cheapest option available.

 

In a socialist economy the government owned business (if available) would provide whatever is needed and that's it.

 

I currently work in government (Netherlands) and although it's true that some ("third party") services require public bidding available to any party within the EU, it's not the case you're forced to choose the cheapest. The procedure is such that you need to explicitly define how you choose beforehand. And make that transparent toward all potential bidders. Economic factors often play a role, of course. But there's room for more factors. So there's a lot of room to play with. And in practice you'll rarely have any interest from outside the borders.  

 

This procedure is explicitly aimed at government buying services like IT and what not, btw. That's different to the government owned businesses. Like a government business maintaining the energy grid, or the railroad system, for example. 

 

Not sure how it works here. I do expect some EU law here, but I'd expect those to be distinctly different to the laws with respect to government institutions buying third party services. Again, I'd expect there to be law protecting both the people and the open EU market.

Edited March 16, 2019 by goDel

John Bercow potentially saves the day by not allowing May to bring the same deal back to parliament to be voted on for the 3rd time, after being defeated twice already. She has to show a material change in what she is bringing to any meaningful vote, which she can't do easily.

 

So as things stand:

 

May's deal has been rejected and that's pretty much the end of that idea.

We 100% can't leave with any sort of deal on March 29th.

We must, and are asking for an extension.

Extension now needs to be a long one, at least 20 months. Probably more.

Brexit is dead for all intents and purposes and the most likely outcome is remaining.

 

Things that could yet happen:

 

May defies the Speaker of the House and brings her deal to be voted on anyway. This would be unconstitutional and very likely fail again in any case.

May brings a different meaningful vote to the house - most likely a vote on a second referendum or to withdraw Article 50 entirely.

Everyone goes mad and opts for No Deal and we crash out on March 29th in a big ball of flames.

EU refuses to grant any extension meaning we either choose No Deal (big ball of flames) or cancel Brexit at the last minute.

 

Again, in my opinion, taking all of the above into account, most likely outcome now is no Brexit at all. Woo-hoo!

Edited March 19, 2019 by BCM

I took it the other way.  No-deal is more likely.

 

Ball of flames? Nah, better to get out now m8 before the EU collapses.

 

Let's not forget that any delay needs to unanimously approved by all of the 27 remaining EU countries. Any single country can veto the delay. For example Italy or Hungary may try to extort the rest of the EU to get their own demands through by threatening to veto the delay.

 

Good luck with that..

  On 3/19/2019 at 11:25 AM, fletcher said:

I took it the other way. No-deal is more likely.

 

Ball of flames? Nah, better to get out now m8 before the EU collapses.

lol

Edited March 19, 2019 by BCM

  On 3/19/2019 at 11:41 AM, mokz said:

Let's not forget that any delay needs to unanimously approved by all of the 27 remaining EU countries. Any single country can veto the delay. For example Italy or Hungary may try to extort the rest of the EU to get their own demands through by threatening to veto the delay.

 

Good luck with that..

an extension is likely to be granted from what i've heard, pressure would be brought to bear on any dissenting member states, as it's much better for the EU (and of course the UK) if we remain. however if for whatever reason an extension is not granted, we then rescind article 50 and stay in.

 

nobody with any sense wants no deal, on either side.

remaining at this point would just be fucking annoying. i cant even deal with having to read brexiteer media frothing at the mouth at how its a flagrant insult to the will of the people for the next fucking 5 years, and blaming every single bad thing that happens to britain on remaining. i want no deal now, just so we have a chance at reform. 

https://www.thelocal.it/20190314/no-italy-is-not-about-to-help-bring-about-no-deal-brexit

  On 3/19/2019 at 12:10 PM, messiaen said:

remaining at this point would just be fucking annoying. i cant even deal with having to read brexiteer media frothing at the mouth at how its a flagrant insult to the will of the people for the next fucking 5 years, and blaming every single bad thing that happens to britain on remaining. i want no deal now, just so we have a chance at reform. 

 

I also hope this would be over soon but any way this goes the shitshow will drag on for a looooong time.

 

Extension -> more of the same shit that's going on now

No-deal brexit -> all the fallout and renegotiating the trade deals which can take years

Canceling the brexit -> more of the same shit that went on before the referendum

May's deal -> all the political fallout of this, possibly UK's major parties break up and/or new elections?