(June 27, 2016 at 7:15 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 7:12 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: I've lived in Germany and Switzerland and, from my experience, your first point could describe any politician in the EU and in no way is that a British phenomenon.

Bingo, Sofa. That's what I'm trying to convey. It's the usual weaseling out of politicians, thereby giving their nationalists leverage. I only adressed UK politicians, since you are from the UK.

OK, where are you from?

(June 26, 2016 at 2:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 2:26 pm)abaris Wrote: It's rather Great Britain for us. Or, if we're lazy, it's only England, although that doesn't cover all of it - as of yet. Hardly anyone uses the equivalent of UK, apart from a few news anchors and journalists to have another word at their disposal. For variety.

Really? When I lived there it was often called the UK, more so than the other words. "Great Britain" was used for the Olympics, which I thought was odd because Great Britain is the name of a single island (admittedly the largest in the British Isles), and presumably we had Northern Ireland competitors, perhaps even competitors from Guernsey, the Shetlands etc.

UK makes more sense as at least it's a shortening of the official name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

The reason for GB in the Olympics is because the OCI (the Irish Olympluc body) is, officially an all-Ireland body as with all sports bodies other than the soccer. There is a provision in place between the BOC & OCI that Northern athletes can represent Team GB if they want, but that precludes the BOC actively canvassing athletes.

(June 27, 2016 at 7:15 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: OK, where are you from?

Austria.

(June 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm)Tiberius Wrote: This Guardian commenter's theory about why Boris Johnson doesn't look particularly happy or as encouraged as he was before the vote is interesting:

Quote:If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was “never”. When Michael Gove went on and on about “informal negotiations” ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

Thoughts?

Can I get link please?

(June 27, 2016 at 7:26 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 7:15 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: OK, where are you from?

Austria.

Lovely place.

(June 27, 2016 at 1:24 am)Aractus Wrote: If Scotland pulls out, and Northern Ireland I'd like it to be known as "The Ununited Kingdom of Great Britain". Or "The United Kingdom of Central and Southern Great Britain". Although TBH the poopyheads will probably decide to name their country "The United Kingdom of England and Wales" LOL.

Legally it'd go back to being just England. Wales is a principality in the Kingdom of England. Scotland was always a seperate kingdom.

(June 27, 2016 at 4:56 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 4:47 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Re democracy, the UK, with its metric fuckton of rotten burroughs, no constituional guarantees, one sided press and emasculated watchdogs, is no better really than the EU. A party can gain a majority on 30 to 35% of the votes cast in a UK election.

You think the referendum was undemocratic?

Twas a farce not too dissimilar to to plebiscites in non democratic countries. Both sides lied, with the honourable exception of Jeremy Corbyn. The only difference was that the vote was free and fair, but the running of it was ridiculous.

(June 27, 2016 at 7:31 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: Lovely place.

But same as the UK, not politically.

(June 27, 2016 at 6:52 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Corbyn seems the most honest. It's rare for a politician. When he admits his weaknesses a lot of people see that admission of weakness as a weakness. It isn't.

His weakness in my view is his unpopularity: It's unfortunate that because the public vote matters even when people are idiots, if people incorrectly see weakness in a politician then that perceived weakness becomes real weakness due to public opinion having relevant power.

Honest, aside from the fact he has been ardent Breixteer for his entire political career and only 'swapped' sides when the ref was declared. It's widely reported that Corbyn actively tried to scupper the remain campaign by refusing to engage in remain events and keeping party lists of labour voters likely to vote leave secret from the official campaign. 

Corbyn is weak, and a liability to the Labour Party. There is no far left support' in the UK, it's a myth. It's he reason why Corbyn is unpopular apart from within the Unions and he £3 labour members. Corbyn's politics has been marketed as 'new', but it's not, and I don't really understand why people think it is. He's an old Trot, and their politics was tried in 70s and 80s by Labour. Didn't work out well then, won't now, won't ever. 

The guy is a buffoon, whose only achievement so far has been to score spectacular own goals even when the Tories have been weak as fuck (remember the Doctor's strike? First PMQs Corbyn didn't even mention them!). As an ardent liberal and progressive voter I will never support him and his racist anti-Semitic allies within the Trotskyite wings.

(June 27, 2016 at 7:35 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 4:56 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: You think the referendum was undemocratic?

Twas a farce not too dissimilar to to plebiscites in non democratic countries. Both sides lied, with the honourable exception of Jeremy Corbyn. The only difference was that the vote was free and fair, but the running of it was ridiculous.

Honestly??  Jeremy Corbyn is looking like he openly lied.  Back in the late 70's and 80's he was an open opponent to the EEC/EU, but found himself, as leader of the Labour party having to back it.  An amazingly lack-lustre campaign from him and leaked emails are showing that he wasn't quite as strong a supporter of the EU as he made out in public, but to be fair, it doesn't really matter.

As for the rest of it....politicians lying to further their own ends??

Say it ain't so.