Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YABO713

Brexit

Recommended Posts

We're drawing near of the March 29th deadline for the UK to leave the EU.

 

I heard some chilling news from my cousins in Ireland yesterday. There are rumors of IRA recruitment skyrocketing and waiting until March 29th if hard check points are once again installed between Ireland and Northern Ireland. 250 years of conflict, followed up by 20 years of fragile peace per the Good Friday Accord is all at risk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, 327 said:

Waiting... to do what?

 

The entire reason why the 1998 Agreement actually put an end to the Troubles is that allowed Northern Ireland some autonomy to work in unison with the Republic of Ireland. For example, the Irish flag flies over Belfast City Hall as well as the Union Jack. The cooperation on island of Ireland was enough to pacify those that believed the UK was an occupational force looking to quell the rights of Catholic Unionists. Much of the sectarian violence was based on Irish traditions being limited or squelched in places like Derry and Belfast. With both Unionists and Loyalists regularly stoking the fire. Most notably, the IRA would carry out attacks on checkpoints coming into Northern Ireland, as it was seen as a direct transgression of Irish sovereignty. Elimination of these checkpoints was a MASSIVE portion of the peace agreement. 

 

Brexit, absent a plan that would provide to the contrary, would see these checkpoints reinstalled, as Northern Ireland would no longer be a part of the European Union. Sectarian conflict has already started to flare up, and will get much bigger if these checkpoints are reinstalled. Just last month, a neighbor of my parents went through a Catholic neighborhood in Belfast wearing an orange Browns hoodie and was told to live immediately or risk being hurt, as orange is the color more strongly affiliated with the Protestants in Northern Ireland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brexit is just as horrifying to realize is happening as Trump's takeover of SCOTUS and our courts. Brexit seems more permanent. I just can't believe they won't call a second referendum. At this rate, they're headed for no-deal Brexit and the ripples will be felt around the world, but Britain will suffer from its self-inflicted wound more than anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zyrokai said:

Brexit is just as horrifying to realize is happening as Trump's takeover of SCOTUS and our courts. Brexit seems more permanent. I just can't believe they won't call a second referendum. At this rate, they're headed for no-deal Brexit and the ripples will be felt around the world, but Britain will suffer from its self-inflicted wound more than anyone.

 

The UK's finance minister projects Brexit will shrink the UK's economy by 3.9% in two years. And nothing brings out Sectarian violence like economic strife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like instituting free religion on both sides might solve a lot of this.  What are the chances of that happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 327 said:

I feel like instituting free religion on both sides might solve a lot of this.  What are the chances of that happening?

 

To be fair to the UK, as someone that believes an Ireland divided will never be at peace, religious freedom is pretty liberal. What is monitored by military are the "St Patricks Parade" and parades for Loyalist holidays. That's where violence flares up.

 

Moreover, there was a car bombing already last month in Derry, which was the epicenter of the Troubles. (For reference, the name isn't even agreed upon - Protestants refer to it as Londonderry, Catholics refer to it as Derry) Car bombs mean military patrols. Military patrols mean the feeling of an occupation. The feeling of an occupation = active and often violent resistance. 

 

These aren't old pictures, this is 2019 - after 20 years of fragile peace

 

image.png.c5262a18c7bce606fc9047a61bf2c475.png

 

image.thumb.png.e68bbc10aa0a453c62287813c8996a2e.png

Edited by YABO713

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article about the many challenges Europe is facing currently, the least of which is Trump.

 

https://outline.com/4vSJWf

 

"Europe continues to drift toward irrelevance on the global stage. Josef Joffe, longtime editor and publisher of Die Zeit and one of Europe’s most seasoned and respected diplomatic observers, argues in the February issue of Commentary that the Soros warning may be too late. The grand project of building the EU into a superpower has already imploded: At the level of world politics, “ ‘Europe’ does not exist.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 327 said:

I feel like instituting free religion on both sides might solve a lot of this.  What are the chances of that happening?

 

Thanks in part to the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is less of an integral part of life in Ireland today, so that may help.  There is a younger generation that grew up after the Troubles.  I've seen some BBC interviews and most of the younger generation just want to keep living they way they are, it's the older generation who start with "there's no way in hell . . . ." 

 

I wonder whether if the question came down to border walls vs. some sort of guaranteed autonomy within the Irish Republic how much of the Protestant vote would be to stay in the Republic.  And yes, I'm talking out of my ass on that one because who knows how representative those interviews were relative to the voting public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@YABO713 just want to make the distinction that UK government forecasts that the economy would shrink by 3.9% under Theresa May's Brexit deal, but under a no deal Brexit it would shrink by 9.3% [source].

 

And I think John Oliver's show does a nice overview (from 5:10 to about 9:55) of the issues any form of Brexit will create between Ireland and Northern Ireland (and a brief history). Either border outcome between Ireland and Northern Ireland would also have implications on trade between Ireland, the UK, and the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all like to rail against dictators and wannabes, but isn't it remarkable how many of the current sh** leaders around the world were fully endorsed by a moronic public who freely used their vote to crap all over out future.  What a species we are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jonoh81 said:

We all like to rail against dictators and wannabes, but isn't it remarkable how many of the current sh** leaders around the world were fully endorsed by a moronic public who freely used their vote to crap all over out future.  What a species we are. 

 

The mechanism is also at fault here - I don't think a 51% vote should carry something of this magnitude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

The mechanism is also at fault here - I don't think a 51% vote should carry something of this magnitude. 

 

You mean like our presidential elections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2019 at 12:45 PM, YABO713 said:

We're drawing near of the March 29th deadline for the UK to leave the EU.

 

If UO viewers want a concise look at the Brexit situation, go to NSFW John Oliver:

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the two best explainers I've seen for Brexit.

This one from the Washington Post is just a series of questions that plainly explains what is known and what is not known about Brexit:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/11/15/can-brexit-be-stopped-guide-those-just-waking-up-britains-political-nightmare/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.19f35e2df662

This one is a little more comical, but a great analogy:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While people talk about Brexit, the EU could undergo a more profound split, with  the Visegrad group, Austria, and Italy forming an arc across the eastern reaches.   

Along with the USA, they are the main nations that refused to sign the UN's latest migration compact, for rather obvious domestic reasons.    The UK signed, but "Visegrad Plus" would be natural allies for a Conservative government wanting to maintain some international synergy but unwilling to accept separatist-minded Islamist migrants.   If this takes place, Slovenia, Croatia, and even Ukraine might decide to cast their lot with these more sensible neighbors.  Where the USA would land would depend on the party holding the Presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The end of May came a few days early:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9144415/theresa-may-resigns-brexit-tory-leadership-election/

 

Boris Johnson, likely the next prime minister, has pledged to get out of the EU by the end of October, with or without a deal. Exciting times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris Johnson - when he got stuck on a zipline during the 2012 Olympics - while he was Mayor of London.  So exciting!

 

1557165252_borisjohnson-stuckonzipline.png.0f1de217684dc42774535b3d14b277ef.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump promising a big US-UK trade deal for post-Brexit as well as promoting the Brexit benefits for Ireland.  

 

Securing the Irish border still open-ended.  Another GB chicken coming home to roost on this one for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Oxford19 said:

Trump promising a big US-UK trade deal for post-Brexit as well as promoting the Brexit benefits for Ireland.  

 

Because Trump is known for being an honest broker lmao


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2019 at 12:51 PM, YABO713 said:

 

The entire reason why the 1998 Agreement actually put an end to the Troubles is that allowed Northern Ireland some autonomy to work in unison with the Republic of Ireland. For example, the Irish flag flies over Belfast City Hall as well as the Union Jack. The cooperation on island of Ireland was enough to pacify those that believed the UK was an occupational force looking to quell the rights of Catholic Unionists. Much of the sectarian violence was based on Irish traditions being limited or squelched in places like Derry and Belfast. With both Unionists and Loyalists regularly stoking the fire. Most notably, the IRA would carry out attacks on checkpoints coming into Northern Ireland, as it was seen as a direct transgression of Irish sovereignty. Elimination of these checkpoints was a MASSIVE portion of the peace agreement. 

 

Brexit, absent a plan that would provide to the contrary, would see these checkpoints reinstalled, as Northern Ireland would no longer be a part of the European Union. Sectarian conflict has already started to flare up, and will get much bigger if these checkpoints are reinstalled. Just last month, a neighbor of my parents went through a Catholic neighborhood in Belfast wearing an orange Browns hoodie and was told to live immediately or risk being hurt, as orange is the color more strongly affiliated with the Protestants in Northern Ireland. 

To clarify...Unionist and Loyalists in N Ireland are the same and both are Protestant.  Catholics are Nationalists or Republicans.

 

The border post-Brexit will have to include checkpoints.

 

as for your neighbor, wearing orange in a catholic belfast ‘hood is just plain naive and stupid...even in peaceful times in N Ireland. How could she not know this traveling in Belfast or n Ireland generally?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Because Trump is known for being an honest broker lmao

Gotta try and throw a bone to the soon to be isolated Brits I guess. Wonder if the brits will walk away from the $50 billion Brexit bill? 

 

Who said Europe was finally a settled and happy family? Exciting times!

Edited by Oxford19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Because Trump is known for being an honest broker lmao

If it’s as off-hand bogus as you state, the brits and Irish won’t fall for it.  The brits will have to enhance their relationship with their True and long standing ally though. US-UK v. EU.  Gee, anyone think Putin sees an opportunity here? Exciting times.

Edited by Oxford19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump will probably negotiate a deal with the UK, and then slap a 5% tariff on them because the Mayor of London said something mean about him or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Trump will probably negotiate a deal with the UK, and then slap a 5% tariff on them because the Mayor of London said something mean about him or something.

Nah, Trump wants to save the Brits...the U.S. has done it before...speaking of that, today is the 75th anniversary of D-Day. Truel ANTIFA soldiers from the greatest generation

 

I’m most  curious to see if GB pays the $50 billion penalty. Can’t see Boris Johnson paying this but we’ll see.

Edited by Oxford19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2019 at 3:55 PM, YABO713 said:

 

The mechanism is also at fault here - I don't think a 51% vote should carry something of this magnitude. 

 

There has been an ebb-n-flow with GB and the EU for decades...general sentiment going to and from pro and anti-EU since the get go. What burned at GB citizens is they didn’t get to vote on joining the EU unlike other member countries, we saw the results of “to leave or not to leave”?

 

would you have had a problem if it was 51-49 to join or only because it was 51-49 to leave? Same thing if Brexit was defeated 51-49. 

 

Not sure what other mechanism would work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Oxford19 said:

 

There has been an ebb-n-flow with GB and the EU for decades...general sentiment going to and from pro and anti-EU since the get go. What burned at GB citizens is they didn’t get to vote on joining the EU unlike other member countries, we saw the results of “to leave or not to leave”?

 

would you have had a problem if it was 51-49 to join or only because it was 51-49 to leave? Same thing if Brexit was defeated 51-49. 

 

Not sure what other mechanism would work.

 

 

51-49 to stay is more appropriate because it doesn't change anything. When you're talking about a fundamental change to the citizenship of the people of a nation, it'd be appropriate, say, to have a 2/3 requirement to leave and therefore 1/3 of the people can block it.

 

Matter of fact, this is exactly what the Senate has, it's called a filibuster. There's a higher bar in the USA to make big changes to laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Oxford19 said:

To clarify...Unionist and Loyalists in N Ireland are the same and both are Protestant.  Catholics are Nationalists or Republicans.

 

The border post-Brexit will have to include checkpoints.

 

as for your neighbor, wearing orange in a catholic belfast ‘hood is just plain naive and stupid...even in peaceful times in N Ireland. How could she not know this traveling in Belfast or n Ireland generally?

 

 

Yeah I made a mistake drafting my prior post.

 

My point stands, however, as I spoke to my

cousin yesterday who said IRA recruitment is up dramatically in all Western counties, using the hard border as a recruiting tool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be a disaster if in five years we're back to car bombings in London and assassinations attempts on the royal family when they come over to Ireland.  If it does all flare back up, the Brexit defenders will twist history and claim that it was actually going on during the open border period, when quite obviously it has not been.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

Slightly off topic, but I suppose Germany did "take part" in D-Day...

 

ramrruussw231.jpg

 

Being originally from East Germany, perhaps she was representing the Soviets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jmecklenborg said:

 

Ouch.  

 

 

And in reference to D-Day, specifically, this week I heard a historian on the radio assert without hesitation that if the D-Day invasion had failed, within two years all of continental Europe would have been under the control of the Soviet Union, not Germany.  So there never would have been an East Germany or East Berlin, and Great Britain would have faced a grim future with Soviet forces staring across at them from the French beaches.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

It'll be a disaster if in five years we're back to car bombings in London and assassinations attempts on the royal family when they come over to Ireland.  If it does all flare back up, the Brexit defenders will twist history and claim that it was actually going on during the open border period, when quite obviously it has not been.  

 

 

It's not Brexit, it's gerrymandered N Ireland; another British chicken coming home to roost.  N Ireland is a sham country.

 

Never a wise move to visit enemy territory, especially in Connacht province, which outside of Ulster, was the most anti-British. When you are a member of the British political and military power structure and a relation of the Queen of England, you had a target on your head.  In this era, bombs were going off all over the place and the Royal Family was indeed a target.

 

Mountbatten was also involved in that ''we're outta here, so here's your new borders. good luck with that" British policy of partition.  Cuz you never hear about any nuclear tension at the Kashmir border between those 2 friendly nations India and Pakistan.

 

GB left the world with lots of baggage, from Iraq, the middle east, to N Ireland, to name a few.

Edited by Oxford19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jmecklenborg said:

 

And in reference to D-Day, specifically, this week I heard a historian on the radio assert without hesitation that if the D-Day invasion had failed, within two years all of continental Europe would have been under the control of the Soviet Union, not Germany.  So there never would have been an East Germany or East Berlin, and Great Britain would have faced a grim future with Soviet forces staring across at them from the French beaches.  

 

Eh, Soviets couldn't have taken all of Europe without the U.S. and British stopping them. Allied  leaders would not have allowed that to happen.  No way was Churchill going to let the Soviets sit on the beaches of Normandy.

 

The Soviets may have taken more of Europe since they couldn't be trusted, but taking all of Europe is dubious. 

 

We should have listened to Gen Patton and taken care of the Soviets in 1945.  Then there wouldn't have been an East Germany or East Berlin, or a Soviet bloc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

Yeah I made a mistake drafting my prior post.

 

My point stands, however, as I spoke to my

cousin yesterday who said IRA recruitment is up dramatically in all Western counties, using the hard border as a recruiting tool

 

Wonder who will be supplying the guns and explosives to the New IRA?  Gadaffi and Arafat are gone.  Doubt the $$ will be flowing to the New IRA like it did from the U.S. Irish Republican stronghold cities like Cleveland.  Those CLE folks are pretty much gone.

 

The logistics of arming the IRA are vastly different from the 1970s. The Irish Republic is a different country and economy now; it's hardly the isolated poor European outlier it once was.

 

Don't see CLE Millennials being into the New IRA and taking up this cause.  The whole ethnic identity thing is dying-to-gone and everyone is just plain old ''white'' now.

 

There will have to be checkpoints between N Ireland and the EU-Ireland.  Should be interesting going forward.  There could very well be trouble in Northern Ireland; irish car bombs (not the drink) in London again?  Not so sure about that as I don't know how riled up the new and international Irish Republic will get over this.

 

Regardless, Ireland must be united!

Edited by Oxford19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Oxford19 said:

Eh, Soviets couldn't have taken all of Europe without the U.S. and British stopping them. Allied  leaders would not have allowed that to happen.  No way was Churchill going to let the Soviets sit on the beaches of Normandy.

 

The Soviets may have taken more of Europe since they couldn't be trusted, but taking all of Europe is dubious. 

 

We should have listened to Gen Patton and taken care of the Soviets in 1945.  Then there wouldn't have been an East Germany or East Berlin, or a Soviet bloc.

 

There are many possible what-if's.  Some German generals were ready to surrender to the Allies and Soviets well before their forces reached their eastern and western borders, which was the best-possible scenario, but only possible if one of the Hitler assassination attempts had been successful.  Germany could have avoided the destruction of Berlin, its other big cities, and various towns.  The killing in the concentration camps would have ceased 6 months earlier than it did.  

 

If the D-Day invasion had been unsuccessful, with the Allies pushed back into the English Channel within a month or two of their landing, it again would have required a successful assassination attempt on Hitler to motivate Germany to surrender before the Soviets reached the German border.  If Hitler had been killed sometime in the second half of 1944, then Germany could have invited the Allies to help defend Germany and all of Western Europe against the Soviets.  It's likely that the Soviets would have agreed to a ceasefire well east of Germany, meaning Poland and some of the other small countries could have avoided 50 years of Soviet occupation.  

 

As an aside, my grandfather was stationed in Czechoslovakia in April of 1945 and was there the day they were ordered to march out and let the Soviets have the place.  So we were all about keeping chunks of Germany but nobody cared about the eastern countries.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mu2010 said:

 

51-49 to stay is more appropriate because it doesn't change anything. When you're talking about a fundamental change to the citizenship of the people of a nation, it'd be appropriate, say, to have a 2/3 requirement to leave and therefore 1/3 of the people can block it.

 

Matter of fact, this is exactly what the Senate has, it's called a filibuster. There's a higher bar in the USA to make big changes to laws.

The British people were never offered the vote to join the EU, unlike in other member nations.  The Senate rules don't translate to the populace voting though.

 

The fundamental change to citizenship was never offered to the people to decide.  It was offered to them to leave though, and they chose to leave.

 

Who knows if at the time of a general vote to join it would have passed at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Oxford19 said:

The British people were never offered the vote to join the EU, unlike in other member nations.  The Senate rules don't translate to the populace voting though.

 

The fundamental change to citizenship was never offered to the people to decide.  It was offered to them to leave though, and they chose to leave.

 

Who knows if at the time of a general vote to join it would have passed at all.

 

The "they" who chose to leave comprised far less than half of the electorate.  At bare minimum, 51% of possible voters should need to approve such a profound move, no matter how many actually show up to the polls.  

 

State referenda and municipal tax increases have often required supermajorities in the United States, up to 2/3.  For example, Bay Area voters had to approve BART by a 66.7% majority back in 1958~, and they did.  

 

Cincinnati's airport ended up in Kentucky because Cincinnati voters voted 55% instead of the required 60% for bonds to buy more land in Blue Ash.  

 

So the fate of an airport once required a supermajority vote, but not leaving the EU.  

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...