EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

As an aside, the NI football supporter club manager actually did a lot to end sectarian and racist chants.

Took a few years and lots of difficult talks but they got there.

.

1 Attachment

Elizabeth 1st, the last English Queen only raided the Spanish and Portuguese colonial trade routes, her attempts at colony and empire were largely unsuccessful.
It was King of the Scots James VI/1st who after the treaty of London set about the job of creating British Colonies and the foundations of Empire.

So yes you’re right that Scotland shouldn’t bear equal responsibility in the blame game, it should shoulder the lions share.

Can’t find radio clip but they turned it into an article

I respectfully disagree: How to argue constructively about Brexit https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49648119

That article is largely undermined by this little section:

"If you lose an argument it doesn't mean you change your mind but you have to accept the decision," she says.

"You would then say: 'I accept that decision, I'm going to regroup and win more people over to my side to my argument in the future.'"

Yeah, except that doesn't work for Brexit does it? Once we're out, we're very unlikely to get back in because we won't get a deal like we currently have. It's very difficult to be magnanimous about a one-off decision that will be effectively irreversible for the foreseeable future.

Nah, I'll reckon we'll be back in, Euro and all, within ten years of leaving.

Tx!

They give a huge amount of space to Claire fox...of the Brexit party, using the term losers who defended a car bomb attack of the ira.

Why not invite Gerry Adams next time as "controversial peacemaker" 🙄

Too bad as article could have been more useful.

I should caveat. All I did was find link, I haven’t read the article as conflict resolution and constructive argument isn’t really my cup of tea.

Agreed. If we do leave, the campaign to rejoin will kick off the very next day. Bring on the full-fat EU federal superstate, I say - combined armed forces, single currency, Schengen, the lot.

conflict resolution and constructive argument isn’t really my cup of tea.

No say

No worries, it is more a criticism of the BBC.

They pick a rather controversial figure here (they do seem to love her) and fill more space with Leave on an article supposed to learn how to talk constructively.

Bravo

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/the-dogs-in-the-street-know/?fbclid=IwAR2GwAU4hj0PkXpSOY7_JM2RGQgxd2Nedj2gmbMVpp1XiHotE93PDyYGock

Oh dear. The problem with historical revisionism is that you need to know what you would be revising before you do it, Ramsaye, even if you are just trying to troll...

The English East India Company was established in 1600, over a century before James took the English throne. James IV, being made James 1 of England, because of was the closest descendant of English King Henry VIII, and who visited Scotland once after ascending the throne sitting instead as head of the English parliament, who was unpopular for trying to pursue a policy of pacifism in the face of the hawkish English lords' continual desire to go to war with Spain or lock up Catholics, his refusal to so so inspiring Guy Fawkes to attempt to blow up Parliament?

You can pursue this historical whataboutery as much as you want, but none of it really makes much odds. War was already underway in Ireland, "discovery" of the Americas already happened and the bones of Empire were already in place:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_overseas_possessions

The most relevant fact is that there was huge resistance to Unionism in Scotland from a population that hadn't been consulted and whose parliament was-much like Brexit today-undermined by a wealthy clique who stood to gain financially. If anything, the Union also underlined the fundamental differences between England and Scotland that endure today and still make the case for independence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobean_debate_on_the_Union

You might also care to read Andy White man's The Poor Had No Lawyers to brush up on how Scotland's clan system was broken up as a means to remove resistance to the Union and what was tantamount to mass deportation or displacement of a huge percentage of the population then took place...

This is bollocks though...

To repeat what I have repeatedly explained, it was unconstitutional for the Queen to appoint Boris Johnson in the first place when it was plain as a pikestaff that he could not command a parliamentary majority.

He had a majority (albeit of 1) when appointed.

“But, but The Highland Clearances yeah? Those Jocks didn’t want to have a house or any land. They done it to themselves!”

I think if we're going to go back in time, we should go back to the Normans. It was their fault.

He had a majority (albeit of 1) when appointed.

Technically, yes, although of course only under May's 'confidence and supply' arrangement. It is true, if perhaps not 'plain as a pikestaff' to everyone, that it was clear not all Tories would support him, even if the scale of the rebellion was a surprise.

Sort of - he did technically have have a majority, but could he "command a majority?" Clearly not, as Conservative rebels had prevented the party from winning any meaningful vote for ages, and that situation was only getting worse.

Oh, and it's obviously a great time to be messing around with things in Ireland, as there's clearly not the slightest chance of renewed trouble:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/10/bomb-found-in-northern-ireland-to-be-used-to-attack-police

Yeah, but it's obviously bollocks to say that the dogs in the street know. I know a few things about dogs, and I know they don't know that Johnson shouldn't have been appointed PM.

But that is viewed through a Brexit lens. On 'normal' parliamentary business Johnson still had the DUP and a technical majority. I don't think there would ever be a chance that the queen would say "Nah, mate. Your MPs might rebel so do one."

Right, but Claire Fox only joined the bxp to be an EMP off the back of the failure to implement Brexit. Supporting Brexit doesn't preclude her from having an opinion about how to argue on the subject.

Although I don't especially like her, she is capable of holding a well reasoned argument and on the Brexit side, so I don't think it is that odd a choice.

who defended a car bomb attack of the ira.

Technically the bombs were in bins. It is very strange though that a lot of those who vilify Corbyn for his links to Irish terrorists were quite happy to vote for her.

Totally.

And now all the libitards wank themselves silly over the Scandinavians.

"Supporting Brexit doesn't preclude her from having an opinion about how to argue on the subject." No it does not, it is just the choice of her and giving her so much space that I don't like.

They could have picked another Brexiter from a less contentuous party (because what a lot of what Farage has come out with it is not exactly reasoned argument...non agression pact refers to actual historical fascists) to make the arguments.