If there is a second referendum ...

Arklight

Tromking wrote: »

I think you’re going to have to tell me where I’ve romanticised Britain’s relationship with its closest neighbours on our continent. I have a feeling such is your annoyance at Brexit, your trying to apply a overly negative narrative about Britain in this regard.
As an example of your negative attitude, I’m not aware of a history of most of Britain’s former colonies “kicking us out” as you describe.
It’s my understanding that in the post war era, a bankrupted Britain quite laudably gave up its imperialist tendencies in a reasonably progressive fashion.
You’ll concede Herzlos that Britain did bankrupt itself in saving our continent from the forces of facism?

I think you need to revisit your history. Maybe instead of looking at British colonialism through the prism of British perspective, try accessing sources from countries that actually lived under it. I would start with Ireland and move outward from there. The USA perhaps.

The British Empire, did dismantle itself with relative sanity, if you consider the chaos and hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the Partition to have been unavoidable. For the most part they didn't resort to attempting to just murdering everyone who opposed them until they ran out of bullets, like the French. But considering that actually was a tactic the British were quite happy to employ beforehand, one can assume that this was more down to pragmatism rather than any ethical reluctance to wipe out Her Majesty's disagreeable overseas subjects.

BLB53

But if May's deal is voted down it becomes a real possibility because parliament won't allow leaving with no deal.

I thought Parliament had already passed legislation to provide for leaving with no deal in the absence of agreement on the meaningful vote. If this is the case then they would need to pass more legislation for any replacement of that situation and surely that would be unlikely as they do not seem to be able to agree on anything.

As it stands we leave with or without a deal on 29th March.

andrewf75

BLB53 wrote: »

I thought Parliament had already passed legislation to provide for leaving with no deal in the absence of agreement on the meaningful vote. If this is the case then they would need to pass more legislation for any replacement of that situation and surely that would be unlikely as they do not seem to be able to agree on anything.

As it stands we leave with or without a deal on 29th March.

I think that's right, but I also think the consequences of no deal are so severe that it would be averted somehow, probably with an extension to the deadline. If we were a week away with no deal done, that would surely happen.

qwert_yuiop

cogito wrote: »

To do that, they would need the support of people that they have been calling ignorant, racist gammons for the past two and a half years. Best of luck with that.

I’d say they could crack it if they got those who thought Remain was a forgone conclusion in 2016 to turn out. Remember London voted remain on a bad turnout.

Tromking

Arklight wrote: »

I think you need to revisit your history. Maybe instead of looking at British colonialism through the prism of British perspective, try accessing sources from countries that actually lived under it. I would start with Ireland and move outward from there. The USA perhaps.

The British Empire, did dismantle itself with relative sanity, if you consider the chaos and hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the Partition to have been unavoidable. For the most part they didn't resort to attempting to just murdering everyone who opposed them until they ran out of bullets, like the French. But considering that actually was a tactic the British were quite happy to employ beforehand, one can assume that this was more down to pragmatism rather than any ethical reluctance to wipe out Her Majesty's disagreeable overseas subjects.

I did use the words ‘most former colonies’ advisedly, not surprisingly you chose two countries that chose to engage in military fisticuffs to force their independence from Britain. Again the desperation to portray Britain in an unabashedly negative light in order to make broadly irrelevant point about Brexit does for you.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Matt_L wrote: »

Although that may sound good, I am of the opinion that there isn't much parliament can do. If by the 29th March we haven't had an agreement in Parliament about what deal we want then by default we leave without a deal. Even if an MP wins a vote (amendment) stating we can't leave without a deal, if one isn't forthcoming before March 29th then we still leave with no deal..

Heres hoping May's deal fails because if it does all the better for WTO...:beer:

Why would you want to be the only large country in the world without any trade deals? Why would that be a cause for celebration...... We haven't agreed terms with the WTO. So we'd just be a 3rd country. Why would anyone trade with us if they can trade for less elsewhere???

Tromking

badgerhead wrote: »

I'd say more saving ourselves from the forces of fascism on the continent,

Possibly.
However plenty of prominent and powerful voices post Dunkirk were in favour of a pragmatic (how very Remain) deal with Nazi Germany in 1940.
Remoaner self-loathing really is a thing.

Arklight

Tromking wrote: »

I did use the words ‘most former colonies’ advisedly, not surprisingly you chose two countries that chose to engage in military fisticuffs to force their independence from Britain. Again the desperation to portray Britain in an unabashedly negative light in order to make broadly irrelevant point about Brexit does for you.

I just thought in 2019 we could all agree that invading other countries, plundering their wealth, killing people who try and resist, and forcing the ones that are left to accept your monarch and rule, is generally a bad thing.

Apparently not.

Arklight

Tromking wrote: »

Possibly.
However plenty of prominent and powerful voices post Dunkirk were in favour of a pragmatic (how very Remain) deal with Nazi Germany in 1940.
Remoaner self-loathing really is a thing.

I don't think it's themselves that Remainers loathe...

Tromking

Arklight wrote: »

I just thought in 2019 we could all agree that invading other countries, plundering their wealth, killing people who try and resist, and forcing the ones that are left to accept your monarch and rule, is generally a bad thing.

Apparently not.

Those things are undoubtedly a bad thing, I’m just highlighting the Remainer Historical Revisionists who in order to make an anti Brexit argument tend to make sh*t up or resort to hyperbole.