Great post Francis and one which confirms to me why I'm a Brexiteer.

At the core this whole rotten mess lays at the shed door of Dodgy Dave who gave us the referendum and after losing what did he do? He took the easy road out stepped down as PM and MP, now rewriting history in his shed some where in England.

Maybot was a remainer and a internal control freak while bowing down to the EU and not fighting for the UK. She caved in like a pack of cards. Bojo has taken bad advice from psycho Dominick and now has paid the price.

Parliament has failed and all of them should be swept away time for a change and cut the rotten deadwood away.

As for the bigger picture Europe would be better off without the EU.

Surprised Gideon didn't get a mention.

He was busy in his other three or four jobs at the time. I hear he's up to around seven or eight now, do I hear ten? :haha:

This is where an arguable flaw with the 1707 act of Union between England and Scotland rears it's head.

One of the stipulations was that the Scottish Legal System would remain separate from England's (likewise the same applied to the the Church of Scotland) otherwise it's highly likely that the Scottish social elite would not have agreed to the Union with England.

That the UK has three distinct legal systems, that for England and Wales, the Scottish one and one for Northern Ireland isn't well known, even within this country. How they interact with each other within the whole UK legal system has, as far as I'm aware, never been set in stone.:hmmm:

You also have another problem in that the pro-UK side in Scottish politics has always sold the idea that the UK is a Union of equals, ergo, Scotland, a nation of 5 million, is the equal of England, a nation of 55 million. Naturally, England, where the concept of the individual is ingrained culturally, has difficulty accepting this concept when it becomes aware of it. Most English people seem to automatically interpret such an idea as meaning that one Scot equals ten Englishmen and resent it accordingly. For Scots, where, traditionally, the group or community rates higher than the individual, this is interpreted simply as one community being the equal of another, regardless of the size disparity.

This is where EU membership for Scotland is attractive for it's supporters - all nations, regardless of size are (nominally) treated as having an equal voice, hence each country has a veto. In comparison, the UK isn't set up that way. It, is confusingly, both a single Nation and a Union of nations at the same time. This wasn't a problem when you had a single government (Westminster) but New Labour's devolution drive for the non-English parts of the UK upset and broke the balance that existed previously. Even moreso as England itself doesn't have a single voice of it's own.:hmmm:

Mike.

Good point Mike, I remember during my time as Police Officer, my authority was only valid in England and Wales.

Likewise when I had a Personal Alcohol Licence (I was a Store Trainer), mine was only valid in Scotland.

It's interesting to see some of the comment's for Henry Hill's article of the legal ruling: LINK. Ignorance of the subtlety of what constitutes the UK legal system appears widespread amongst the Tory Party's Hard Right.

Lord Ashcroft's polling for Northern Ireland:

Lord Ashcroft: My Northern Ireland polling. Six out of ten voters there accept the backstop. But only one in five Unionists do so.

No doubt uncomfortable reading for the DUP, but it also highlights the continuing effects of religious sectarianism on NI political process.:hmmm:

Mike.

I expect the Supreme Court to do as above but whatever happens next is anyone's guess.

Either way....what an almighty mess.

That decision shows the whole problem with Courts trying to second guess political decisions.

The Court rules that the advice the PM gave was unlawful, but under the UK Constitution, the PM has no power, he only advises the Queen who has all the powers, but is obliged to follow the PM's advice.

For the order to have any teeth, the Court would have to order the Queen to recall Parliament, but the Courts are deemed to be an extension of the Crown, do they have the power to force the Queen to take a political decision?

Can the Court "order" the PM to advise the Queen to recall Parliament? Would that be legal under the UK Constitution?

It is a political minefield, no doubt why the Court said the advice was "unlawful", but ordered no remedy.

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-joh...ction-11807175

Way to go to loose more votes Bojo who told you to say no to Nigel, psycho Dominick? :hmmm:

Meanwhile this....

https://news.sky.com/story/operation...eased-11807339

a) I admit i have no idea what brexiters think now, and i refuse to call them brexiteers, because musketeers or buccaneers are a completely different breed, something brexiters surely have not.

They have been lied to, they believed it, they are too proud to admit that after having tons of evidence for the lies being sold to them, and they are turning at least England into a chaos (if Scotland and/or Ireland have the guts to leave the 'UK')

b) Ukip propaganda and the brexit project fear against immigrants (anyone remembers Farage's big poster?) sure influenced them, whether "UKIP went somewhere" or not. And UKIP, Farage and some others certainly knew how to spread propaganda of the lowest sort, and it hit home. In a way i would never have believed, this was a genuine surprise for me.

c) I do believe that brexit will damage the UK or at least England (if the rest breaks away), it is not only Cameron's papers published after the referendum (lmao) but also what is described in new publications, or even in Johnson's "Operation Yellowhammer" no deal scenario just posted by Steed. Really, what will they think of next, operation chastise again, The Blitz? Is there any non-war language left? Or is "yellowhammer" Johnson's frozen pee?

Yes there are tons of evidence of lies on the benefits of brexit, and i could prove it just by quoting pages from this thread, but all has been said about that ages ago. I admit i am losing my patience. It is obviously a nationalist Thing, it is clearly not about economy. And it defies all of what people like Cecil Lewis hoped and wrote for more than hundred years ago.

*(quote from link below) "The only positive is that Brexit has at last broken the political and social hegemony that kept our population subdued and somewhat apathetic. They are no longer apathetic, and their rage has become unbearable to the Westminster political and media chattering classes. They simply do not know what to do with this rage: they are used to being left in peace as they cause havoc in people’s lives. Now they are being challenged on what they do, and what they say."
Alright, but then.. Johnson???

This article* https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/...an-blame-them/ made me understand the rage and fury of the "lower classes" as they are still being identified in England or so it seems, but even when i understand frustration and the urge to change the existing political landscape, which has ignored them for ages, at all cost, why for heaven's sake do they think that just of all leaving the EU will help them? It was just of all the EU that introduced better conditions for working classes, one of the major reasons for Right wingers like Rees-Mogg to get away from such ideas asap.

I have no idea what will be better in England (or the UK if it holds) after a brexit, you can tell me, and we will see.

Its so strange - or not strange at all - that you accuse Brexiteers of this and that dialectical or political trick and practice - and when the same ways are being practiced on behalf of pro-EU issues and interests, you have nothing to complain about. Double standards. But why not, if not even the EU commission has problems with double standards, and confessing to cheatign and misleading.



You do not complain about cheap tricks. They are fully acceptable to you - as long as not being used against what you want, but are beign used in favour of what you want.



Quite some of the things you complain about, by now are known by more people in the UK than were known three years ago. And still: pro-Brexit is strong in opinion shares, if there were a new referendum, it is anything but certain that anti-Brexiteers would now collect a majority. You should wonder why that is so. And come to the conclusion that your premisses and factors that you tend to weigh heavily, maybe are not as important for many Brits as you think. And from here you maybe should reach for a conclusion that there are interests on their mind that have little to do with your motives you assume they have.



Germans are always knowing so damn well what motives, interests and morals other people and countries should have. A nerve-killing deformation of a deeply servile, state-believing national character. Maybe explainable after Prussia and two world wars. But not excusable.

The Leave and Remain campaigns were so bad in places, I almost didn't vote at all.
The leavers have been mislead in part, as likely have remainers, we will see if the sky falls in as they predicted, i guess.

but i wont say 'lied to' because its unproven, we still don't have an outcome and who's to say that those who 'lied' didn't believe it them selves? false conviction is not the same as lying - another thing you and nobody else can really prove.
the Leave poster and NHS claim were propaganda, as are claims of empty supermarkets, and chlorinated chicken. Those kinds of stunts and claims only add to mess of confusion and divert peoples attention away from the more sensible points and principles. Would I use those examples to undermine a persons reasons for wanting to leave or remain? No - not unless they were attempting to press those exact points as valid reasons for there choice.

My bottom line for why i lean on the leave side is simple, our current democratic system free from the EU increases our right to self determination (as a people), while being an EU member restricts it.
I prefer to be ruled by electable democrats (and their lobbyist mates), and not unelectable bureaucrats (and their lobbyist mates). Sorry I'd just rather not take the chance with politicians who are virtually accountable to no one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwzXi6niHW8

None of us know what will happen in the immediate aftermath or ten years down the line, after a no deal or a deal. we are all hedging bets on what we think will happen or what we hope will happen, nothing more.
And you are no exception.

I highly doubt you can prove anything by 'quoting from this thread'.
Its likely what you have is the same as the rest of us, speculation, links to media hit pieces that make various accusations (written by people no more honest than those they have in their cross hairs), and a certain amount of faith in your own narrative.
What we believe we we know and what we actually know are often not the same thing.

Only time will tell if you or I were right or not. So yes - we'll see indeed.

Good reading JU_88 :up:

Some very insightful reading here.