The British European Referendum

Should Britain leave the EU?


  • Total voters
    53

Martin Mayers

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
4,134
Reaction score
1,108
Location
The Gulag
First name
Gulagwanker
Country
llRussia
I'm beginning to see what will happen.

May's clucking around like a mother hen making assumptions that the EU will negotiate on the backstop. But the EU won't. Because they can't. Because Ireland will veto anything that puts the Good Friday Agreement into doubt and/or could lead to a hard border.

An amendment was passed last night stating that Parliament will not accept a no deal Brexit. It was, however, none binding. That could change of May's negotiations turn to shit. It could be re-tabled and moved towards Law.

There will be no Brexit. Because Parliament cannot deliver it. They tried. But could not make it happen.

I sincerely now live in hope of this.

The only alternative I see is exiting on WTO terms. Which we would I'm sure survive. But I do believe it would crash us for a period.

Is there anything I'm totally missing here?
 

Delirium

ASL Fanatic
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
2,147
Reaction score
438
Location
Wexford
Country
llIreland
I
Is there anything I'm totally missing here?
I think the EU’s apparent unwillingness to meaningfully revisit the withdrawal agreement isn’t simply motivated by fear of an Irish veto. I’m not at all sure Ireland would veto in the face of agreement among London, Brussels, Berlin and Paris. I think the EU is also concerned about the integrity of the single market, perhaps more so than the Good Friday Agreement. Also in the mix is the signal which would be sent to other potential exits among current EU members.

Interesting times. It’s difficult to estimate econometrically, but the anticipated damage (in % terms) to the Irish economy far exceeds that to the UK, under a no deal, according to the macro and trade wonks.
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,694
Reaction score
1,040
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
I think the EU’s apparent unwillingness to meaningfully revisit the withdrawal agreement isn’t simply motivated by fear of an Irish veto.
Reciprocally i think no one would have challenged Ireland if it had stated: "ok, we accept a hard border as a consequence of Brexit but let's work out a bilateral treaty with the UK to mitigate the political consequences the new situation will have on N.Ireland/Ulster."
 

Delirium

ASL Fanatic
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
2,147
Reaction score
438
Location
Wexford
Country
llIreland
I don't think an Irish government could be seen to accept a hard border due to the obvious economic and security impacts. Political suicide. Hence the cross-party unanimity regarding the backstop in Dublin, which is a rare sight.
 

Proff3RTR

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
612
Location
Cornwall
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Fix it for you

A 500+ page draft withdrawal Treaty has been agreed after months of negotiations between the legitimate UK government and the EU. If the government can't convince its own parliament whereas they are supposed to have a functionning majority, it's their problem.
BTW each and every 27 EU Member States have to agree to the draft as well.
You are simply a cunt, full stop end of story. a Sanctimonious cunt (and that is a shame as I like Cunts!) who feels he is far better than he actually is. I agree that our Government and our Parliament in general have done Fuck all but Fuck this whole thing up but you, you mate are just a snivelling little runt who sums up the average European, Weak willed and willing to surrender at the drop of a hat, and loves to bleat on about the whole European dream. I agree 100% with Martin, I do so hope we recover before you lot of toss pots, who the Fuck do you think you are gloating like a little child. Just remember mate if it was not for this country holding on until even more outside help arrived a slack hand full of decades ago you'd be still under FULL German control, and not just German control via the F'ing EU.
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,694
Reaction score
1,040
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
Oops! Although it's early in the evening, he has already one too many.

Is this a kind of test for the new system of reputation?! 🤣
 

Martin Mayers

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
4,134
Reaction score
1,108
Location
The Gulag
First name
Gulagwanker
Country
llRussia
Oops! Although it's early in the evening, he has already one too many.

Is this a kind of test for the new system of reputation?! 🤣
I get you're trying to be funny but what does "Is this a kind of test for the new system of reputation?" even mean.
 

Paul_RS

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
443
Location
United Kingdom
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I'm beginning to see what will happen.

May's clucking around like a mother hen making assumptions that the EU will negotiate on the backstop. But the EU won't. Because they can't. Because Ireland will veto anything that puts the Good Friday Agreement into doubt and/or could lead to a hard border.

An amendment was passed last night stating that Parliament will not accept a no deal Brexit. It was, however, none binding. That could change of May's negotiations turn to shit. It could be re-tabled and moved towards Law.

There will be no Brexit. Because Parliament cannot deliver it. They tried. But could not make it happen.

I sincerely now live in hope of this.

The only alternative I see is exiting on WTO terms. Which we would I'm sure survive. But I do believe it would crash us for a period.

Is there anything I'm totally missing here?
The amendment is a waste of time and effort. Utterly worthless. If the WA is not ratified we crash out on 29th March and all the trade deals and treaties that applied when we were in the EU cease with immediate effect. The EU may limit the immediate damage because it suits them to do so. WTO would be pretty disastrous as no country trades on WTO alone.

  1. May’s deal,
  2. no deal or
  3. no Brexit.
There isn’t a majority for any of those options but the second happens by default.

Risks of WTO: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/no-deal-the-wto-option/
 
Last edited:

Paul_RS

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
443
Location
United Kingdom
Country
llUnited Kingdom
You are simply a cunt, full stop end of story. a Sanctimonious cunt (and that is a shame as I like Cunts!) who feels he is far better than he actually is. I agree that our Government and our Parliament in general have done Fuck all but Fuck this whole thing up but you, you mate are just a snivelling little runt who sums up the average European, Weak willed and willing to surrender at the drop of a hat, and loves to bleat on about the whole European dream. I agree 100% with Martin, I do so hope we recover before you lot of toss pots, who the Fuck do you think you are gloating like a little child. Just remember mate if it was not for this country holding on until even more outside help arrived a slack hand full of decades ago you'd be still under FULL German control, and not just German control via the F'ing EU.
We're stockpiling foods and medicines, planning to deploy the reserves, plans are being put in place to evacuate the Royals to safe locations and there is talk of ration books. As a reminder; this is in 2019 not 1940... we aren't being bombed or blockaded and nobody is threatening to invade us.

But to continue the World war 2 analogy, I believe it is accepted that Russians, in general terms consider themselves to be European, certainly those West of the Urals which encompasses the area where the majority of the population lives. I think you'll struggle to find any book covering 'The Great Patriotic War' that regards the Russians as 'weak willed or willing to surrender at the drop of a hat'. Pretty much any other nation on the planet would have surrendered in 1941 following the catastrophic losses incurred in the immediate aftermath of Barbarossa, but they didn't. They fought on with a stubborn ferocity that the Germans had not encountered in their victories in the West.

The Russian Army in 1944 was at c7.5 million men strong the largest army the world has ever seen and had they chosen to , could have, barring some form of nuclear intervention, rolled the Western Allies back to the Channel. So no, if the Western Allies hadn't invaded what are now the 'EU countries' they would more likely have endured Russian/Soviet control in the immediate aftermath of WW2 not German.
 

Martin Mayers

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
4,134
Reaction score
1,108
Location
The Gulag
First name
Gulagwanker
Country
llRussia
We're stockpiling foods and medicines, planning to deploy the reserves, plans are being put in place to evacuate the Royals to safe locations and there is talk of ration books. As a reminder; this is in 2019 not 1940... we aren't being bombed or blockaded and nobody is threatening to invade us.

But to continue the World war 2 analogy, I believe it is accepted that Russians, in general terms consider themselves to be European, certainly those West of the Urals which encompasses the area where the majority of the population lives. I think you'll struggle to find any book covering 'The Great Patriotic War' that regards the Russians as 'weak willed or willing to surrender at the drop of a hat'. Pretty much any other nation on the planet would have surrendered in 1941 following the catastrophic losses incurred in the immediate aftermath of Barbarossa, but they didn't. They fought on with a stubborn ferocity that the Germans had not encountered in their victories in the West.

The Russian Army in 1944 was at c7.5 million men strong the largest army the world has ever seen and had they chosen to , could have, barring some form of nuclear intervention, rolled the Western Allies back to the Channel. So no, if the Western Allies hadn't invaded what are now the 'EU countries' they would more likely have endured Russian/Soviet control in the immediate aftermath of WW2 not German.
To be fair I think you are doing your own country down massively there and completely under-estimating the extent to which we held out in 1940.

And, you are massively under-estimating the strength of America when talking of Russia rolling us back. Both sides by 1945 were completely exhausted. The American industrial power would have held the Russians.

By the way, even the Russians have, of late, acknowledged that they would not have survived the war without lend-lease. Not necessarily the supply of vehicles and arms (of which the Western Allies supplied plenty), but stuff like copper wiring for radios, foods, and other ancillary stuff which enabled Russia to focus on building the tools of war.
 

Paul_RS

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
443
Location
United Kingdom
Country
llUnited Kingdom
To be fair I think you are doing your own country down massively there and completely under-estimating the extent to which we held out in 1940.

And, you are massively under-estimating the strength of America when talking of Russia rolling us back. Both sides by 1945 were completely exhausted. The American industrial power would have held the Russians.

By the way, even the Russians have, of late, acknowledged that they would not have survived the war without lend-lease. Not necessarily the supply of vehicles and arms (of which the Western Allies supplied plenty), but stuff like copper wiring for radios, foods, and other ancillary stuff which enabled Russia to focus on building the tools of war.
Just remember mate if it was not for this country holding on until even more outside help arrived a slack hand full of decades ago you'd be still under FULL German control, and not just German control via the F'ing EU.

The Lend-Lease act of 1941 was an act of the United States Congress that authorized President Franklin Roosevelt to sell, lease or lend military equipment to any country whose defence he deemed vital to American security. It provided a way for the U.S. to assist its allies in World War II without officially breaking neutrality and entering the war.

The OP suggested that if Britain had not held out, then Europe, or at least those countries conquered by the Nazis, would still be under German rule today. I disagree. Lend lease plus Russian manpower and an almost casual disregard for casualties would have beaten the Nazis, eventually.

That is not 'doing my own country down massively', or not recognising the sacrifices made by the armed forces and merchant navy during 1940 and the Battle of the Atlantic.

The Soviet Union refused to co-operate in the staging of free elections throughout the zones of occupation in post 1945 Germany, Stalinism was imposed east of the Elbe and although the Soviet Union demobilised its military forces in Europe as quickly, if not as completely, as did the United States and Britain and its Allies after August 1945. Even at 1/3 of the original strength it outnumbered the occupying US and British forces many times over.

Yet that disparity did not tempt the Soviet Union to exert its influence West of the Elbe. There are a number of theories put forward for this, the distinct legalism of Soviet foreign policy, despite its coarseness and brutality. the US preponderance in Nuclear weapons and, more convincingly is that the trauma of war had extinguished the will of the Soviet people and their leadership to repeat the experience.

Lend lease started before Germany declared war on the US. Without the USA Britain would never have contemplated invading Europe, I can't envisage a scenario where we would have had a large enough army, but I could be wrong.

I have a huge amount of time and respect for Perry BTW. The fact that we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on Brexit doesn't diminish that one bit.

All this WW2 discussion is making me sound like Brexiteer. Must stop....
 
Last edited:

Martin Mayers

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
4,134
Reaction score
1,108
Location
The Gulag
First name
Gulagwanker
Country
llRussia
Just remember mate if it was not for this country holding on until even more outside help arrived a slack hand full of decades ago you'd be still under FULL German control, and not just German control via the F'ing EU.

The Lend-Lease act of 1941 was an act of the United States Congress that authorized President Franklin Roosevelt to sell, lease or lend military equipment to any country whose defence he deemed vital to American security. It provided a way for the U.S. to assist its allies in World War II without officially breaking neutrality and entering the war.

The OP suggested that if Britain had not held out, then Europe, or at least those countries conquered by the Nazis, would still be under German rule today. I disagree. Lend lease plus Russian manpower and an almost casual disregard for casualties would have beaten the Nazis, eventually.

That is not 'doing my own country down massively', or not recognising the sacrifices made by the armed forces and merchant navy during 1940 and the Battle of the Atlantic.

The Soviet Union refused to co-operate in the staging of free elections throughout the zones of occupation in post 1945 Germany, Stalinism was imposed east of the Elbe and although the Soviet Union demobilised its military forces in Europe as quickly, if not as completely, as did the United States and Britain and its Allies after August 1945. Even at 1/3 of the original strength it outnumbered the occupying US and British forces many times over.

Yet that disparity did not tempt the Soviet Union to exert its influence West of the Elbe. There are a number of theories put forward for this, the distinct legalism of Soviet foreign policy, despite its coarseness and brutality. the US preponderance in Nuclear weapons and, more convincingly is that the trauma of war had extinguished the will of the Soviet people and their leadership to repeat the experience.

Lend lease started before Germany declared war on the US. Without the USA Britain would never have contemplated invading Europe, I can't envisage a scenario where we would have had a large enough army, but I could be wrong.

I have a huge amount of time and respect for Perry BTW. The fact that we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on Brexit doesn't diminish that one bit.

All this WW2 discussion is making me sound like Brexiteer. Must stop....
Had the German Wehrmacht in World War Two been fighting a one front war against Russia, Russia would have been broken. That's pretty irrefutable based on historical evidence. They came very close to complete collapse as a nation during the early parts of Barbarossa. In fact, at one point, Stalin was in the process of abandoning Moscow to fly into exile, they were such desperate times.

You're completely under-estimating the extent to which Britain's stoic defence, and more importantly our willingness to take the fight to Germany (example, North Africa), and then subsequently America's help in doing the same, prevented a complete Russian collapse.

Britain (with support of course) holding out during the early parts of World War Two helped the Allies win the war. If we had collapsed, Germany would have won. They would have crushed Russia.

I'm reading a book right now called 'Russia's War'. You should read it. I never realised just how close Russia came to the brink. A very illuminating read.
 

RRschultze

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
361
Reaction score
133
Location
Chester, UK
First name
Ian
Country
llUnited Kingdom
You are simply a cunt, full stop end of story. a Sanctimonious cunt (and that is a shame as I like Cunts!) who feels he is far better than he actually is. I agree that our Government and our Parliament in general have done Fuck all but Fuck this whole thing up but you, you mate are just a snivelling little runt who sums up the average European, Weak willed and willing to surrender at the drop of a hat, and loves to bleat on about the whole European dream. I agree 100% with Martin, I do so hope we recover before you lot of toss pots, who the Fuck do you think you are gloating like a little child. Just remember mate if it was not for this country holding on until even more outside help arrived a slack hand full of decades ago you'd be still under FULL German control, and not just German control via the F'ing EU.
Perry... Say what you mean, don't sit on that fence!. Good to see you on the forums!. How's the medication holding up :)
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,940
Reaction score
1,779
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Had the German Wehrmacht in World War Two been fighting a one front war against Russia, Russia would have been broken. That's pretty irrefutable based on historical evidence. They came very close to complete collapse as a nation during the early parts of Barbarossa. In fact, at one point, Stalin was in the process of abandoning Moscow to fly into exile, they were such desperate times.

You're completely under-estimating the extent to which Britain's stoic defence, and more importantly our willingness to take the fight to Germany (example, North Africa), and then subsequently America's help in doing the same, prevented a complete Russian collapse.

Britain (with support of course) holding out during the early parts of World War Two helped the Allies win the war. If we had collapsed, Germany would have won. They would have crushed Russia.

I'm reading a book right now called 'Russia's War'. You should read it. I never realised just how close Russia came to the brink. A very illuminating read.
I'm not so sure of this. The latest evidence is that the German High Command knew by the end of 1941 the jig was up. Of course that was with a two front war...
 

Martin Mayers

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
4,134
Reaction score
1,108
Location
The Gulag
First name
Gulagwanker
Country
llRussia
I'm not so sure of this. The latest evidence is that the German High Command knew by the end of 1941 the jig was up. Of course that was with a two front war...
Both sides did. The Russians were spent. The Germans didn't have enough to quite get over the line.

Why? Well, you answered the question yourself....because they were fighting a two front war. Why? Because Britain and our Dominions held on and then, whence able, took the fight to the Germans and agitated as best we could.

And in the meantime the US (mainly) kept the Russians fed, trucked, and wired with ships (crewed by British/Allied seamen) so that they could keep knocking out T34s.

I get annoyed by this casual, pithy "Russia won the war" statement. Because, basically it's absolute bollocks. Usually it's trotted out by people who really should keep shtum on subjects they know nothing about (I would NOT rank PaulRS in this group I should add). A bit like the old "Ringo was a crap drummer" spiel. Equally bollocks. in fact they are my two largest bugbears in my two respective hobbies as it happens :)
 
Last edited:

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
3,086
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I get annoyed by this casual, pithy "Russia won the war" statement. Because, basically it's absolute bollocks. Usually it's trotted out by people who really should keep shtum on subjects they know nothing about (I would NOT rank PaulRS in this group I should add). A bit like the old "Ringo was a crap drummer" spiel. Equally bollocks. in fact they are my two largest bugbears in my two respective hobbies as it happens :)
Do you include me? You must, because I'm in the "USSR won the war" camp.

Let's say England dropped out in '40. Stalin would have been at least partly shocked out of his assumption that the Germans would be wary of a two front war, a delusion that he stuck to until German troops had crossed the frontier. As it was, the fall of France was a major shock to him. Even he would have recognised that the USSR was next on the list and far sooner than he originally thought. No "war holiday" under those circumstances.

The likelihood is that there would have been little or no support for Greece which would have discouraged the Yugoslavs from dumping their pro-Axis alliance which in turn would have meant no Balkan diversion for Germany.

That would have meant Barbarossa starting a couple of months early and anything I have read is that that the spring and early summer in Eastern Europe-Western USSR was particularly wet and muddy. The initial advances would have been slower and there would have not been the same shock induced command paralysis in the first few weeks. I have always felt that the German pace of operations was a major weapon in its own right and that would have been somewhat blunted. My estimate is that though the Germans would have had an extra 6-8 weeks campaigning they would actually get a bit less far than they historically did in '41. There would still have been massive encirclement battles but with less pace and shock the westernmost ones would have been less successful, leaving more of the westernmost Soviet forces uncaptured.

I would not expect Germany to have gone under by mid-'45, more likely late '46 or '47, but Germany would still have gone down and the Rivera would rival the Crimea as a Soviet tourist resort.

That's my best estimate of the alternate history, YMMV.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,940
Reaction score
1,779
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Both sides did. The Russians were spent. The Germans didn't have enough to quite get over the line.

Why? Well, you answered the question yourself....because they were fighting a two front war. Why? Because Britain and our Dominions held on and then, whence able, took the fight to the Germans and agitated as best we could.

And in the meantime the US (mainly) kept the Russians fed, trucked, and wired with ships (crewed by British/Allied seamen) so that they could keep knocking out T34s.

I get annoyed by this casual, pithy "Russia won the war" statement. Because, basically it's absolute bollocks. Usually it's trotted out by people who really should keep shtum on subjects they know nothing about (I would NOT rank PaulRS in this group I should add). A bit like the old "Ringo was a crap drummer" spiel. Equally bollocks. in fact they are my two largest bugbears in my two respective hobbies as it happens :)
I believe the "he's not even the best drummer in the Beatles" line was from Japser Carrot.

I don't think any of these "alternative hsitories" idea can ever work out. The changes needed for Germany to have defeated the Soviet Union are so great that iof they had existed, the conflict would never have happened in the first place.
 

Martin Mayers

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
4,134
Reaction score
1,108
Location
The Gulag
First name
Gulagwanker
Country
llRussia
I believe the "he's not even the best drummer in the Beatles" line was from Japser Carrot.
Debunked.

In fact Phil Pope is credited for it during an early 1980s comedy show on BBC Radio.

The shite one picks up through a lifetime :)
 
Top