London is stuck. They are surrounded by country mice who voted "go" and the country mice control all of your food.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Printable View
London is stuck. They are surrounded by country mice who voted "go" and the country mice control all of your food.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
London has the Thames. And Heathrow and the other airports (making it either the busiest or the second busiest air-served city in the world, depending on your measure). And a fair chunk of the commuter belt is Remain, or only narrowly Leave. The Leave strongholds are up north (eg. London is closer to Calais than to Grimsby).Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
It looks like they actually tried to go with the solution I proposed for the problem.
As for Wales, Scotland, and London, they are not geographically in the same situation, that is why the option is not available to them as we will have to make a hard border between them and rest of England. The idea is to remove a hard border from Southern and Northern Ireland.
Let London and its hinterland secede from England. Our tax money has been supporting them for long enough. If the 350m for the NHS isn't going to appear from the UK government, let's at least save that amount by cutting the freeloaders loose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Where is your solidarity for the common northern prole, comrade?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Are you one of those urban Liberal socialist types?
Feck the Brexiters. London voted overwhelmingly Remain, yet are expected to pay to cushion the crapshow that the north have voted for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You think the City financiers would replicate the NHS and other services for the common Londoner?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
:wink:
Their taxes will. And in any case, as long as our money is denied to the rest of the country that voted Leave, I'm content.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Well, I am currently living outside of the UK, so feel free to dismantle the rest of the Empire once and for all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You lot dismantled the Empire a good chalk back (smoother than many would have expected of such a process to be fair).Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Pan' is talking about dismantling the UK. I don't suppose there are any forts named "Sumter" near the Thames in greater London?
May was suggesting dismantling the UK yesterday. That was why the DUP vetoed the deal. Breaking off Northern Ireland from Britain is a natural consequence of Brexit, as warned by David Cameron before the vote (cf. 15th June 2016 speech). And with the offer to Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and London have consequently queried their status, as I've cited above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
if the only way the UK can survive is with the comfort blanket of EU 'security' then perhaps it is time to let the union fall apart.
I rather suspect, however:
1. That it is not, and we can shuffle along fine in congress for some time to come.
2. That signing up to “regulatory alignment” but only if there are “no other agreed solutions” and only in areas which support “north-south cooperation”, is some way short of cutting NI adrift.
I'm sure May will feel reassured by your reassurances. However, her direct words with Arlene Foster and subsequent actions indicate she believes the situation to be otherwise from how you state it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Could it be that *gasp* May is playing politics and looking to blame the DUP for everything if there is no deal? Blame the one party that the UK, Southern Ireland and the EU dislikes intensely?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The more time that passes, the more likely WTO seems on the cards. I wonder how many years 50 billion would help soften the blow to industry?
~:smoking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZYQuote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I hope its that, and not that may is so stupid she thinks putting the northern irish on the other side of the uk's border controls would be a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Actually it is a pretty good idea if the goal is to have unrestricted border access between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland. It places the border controls around the island opposed to on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
A solution would be to have an EEA type agreement then this won't become an issue anyway due to being in the single market.
Another idea would be to grant them independence which solves the Irish issue all together as far as the UK government is concerned if they insist on this path. Nirexit.
A very poor idea, with so much agonizing over fears brexit would restart the troubles; I'd think making it a certainty by reuniting would have such a proposition removed from the remainers playbook, yet here we are.
I doubt it is. A mix of ignorance / incompetence and desperation has led to delusion that the DUP would secretly love to rejoin Southern Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I doubt anyone in Northern Ireland wants Independence. They love the subsidies that the UK gives - not even the EU would lavish that amount of money on them: one lot want to be part of Southern Ireland and the other lot want to be part of the UK. Lucky, lucky us...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
AN EEA type agreement - unlike NAFTA or the TTP - would require to pay a vast sum of money and obey all the rules set by the EU. Better look into joining NAFTA frankly - make it the North Atlantic Trade Agreement.
Sadly time travel is not possible - I think that the troops should never have been sent over when the Troubles kicked off. Leave them to kill each other as opposed to British soldiers - if you want, get the UN to send some Bluehats to get shot at.
~:smoking:
And so the minister in charge of Brexit admits that he hasn't handed over detailed reports because he hasn't commissioned any, because he doesn't believe in having them. There are quotes from him stating that there were reports of the kind, in "excruciating detail". The speaker has indicated that there are grounds for action against the minister, if the select committee gives him the go ahead.
Apparently 25% who voted for Leave had their decision highly influenced by that bus. Whilst the Brexhiteers say people should have recognised it as a lie, telling the remoaners to shut up, the fact a large percentage saw it as a campaign promise they believed in meant that it's current exposure of being an open lie puts the mandate in doubt and if it was known before the vote, remain would have easily won on this fact alone (never mind the distastors since).
That should be good enough reason to get them to rescind their right to vote - to be swayed by a promise which at best could only be accomplished at the end of negotiations 2 years with a party who has repeatedly said the UK can not be better off outside of their gang - hence is clearly not a certainty.
~:smoking:
Oh my.
Votes being influenced by a lie.
~;)
It's all getting a little more real:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/1...081006783.html
I guess they forgot to say that the money to reboot the NHS is actually the alimony this divorce is going to cost...
Didn't Churchill cover this with his "best argument against democracy?"Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Back in the day politicians were a tad less cavalier with their promises, and they held themselves responsible for their promises and actions. Hence after his Gallipoli disaster, Churchill atoned by stepping down and taking up a position as a front line officer (Lt.Col). If the Brexiters had the same mentality, they'd have exiled themselves long ago after their manifest failures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Wiki (German version, English appears less detailed) says he did ask to be made marine minister (or first lor of the marine or what it was called) again in March 1916 but parliament only laughed at him. Then he went to the front in May 1916. It does not sound entirely like he took responsibility, apparently he also stepped down in the first place under heavy pressure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
While I would agree that such qualities are desirable, I'm not sure he's the best example. :sweatdrop:
Well, he went to the front, which is more than most of the current lot would do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
At the front, how close does a Lt Col get?
~:smoking:
AFAIK Lt.Cols were supposed to be able to see enemy lines with the naked eye. Brigadier-generals were encouraged to get forward too, but there was less expectation as was the case with Lt.Cols. Major-generals were the first rank who were supposed to be somewhat in the rear.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Battalion and Regimental HQs were generally well set up dugouts integral with the third trench line. While significantly less likely to get waxed by artillery -- only the largest shells and only with a very lucky direct vertical hit could wipe out a headquarters -- it would be hard to label it as safe. Moreover, officers who didn't at least periodically show up in the front trench would get a bad rep I imagine. Never heard that WC was considered a chairwarmer type from what I have read. Never heard of anyone who doubted his physical courage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian