It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Who hopes, both anti-EU and pro-EU posters in here, that the UK will be forever gone from the European Union?
My answer: Me.
I don't want the UK to leave. I'm sure it shall in some shape or form and I'm also sure that by the time we're all old men here, the UK will have returned to the EU. I'm sure this will prove a historical blunder, a final act of Europe's unseemly arrogance before the economic heart of this world has at last shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which will happen soon. And then we're just left splintered and fractured and weak, the result of democracy proving to be its own worst enemy.
Hmm, that's a bit contradictory no? You want the UK not to leave the EU, while at the same time you talk about Europe's arrogance. To me what's really arrogant is the process of lying to your people. Which the UK did tremendously when they initiated the Brexit campaign. The Europe's arrogance, like you call it, has more to do with being too distant a voice to its citizens. But to me that's something entirely different.
I prefer the UK to leave, because the UK has always been a heavy millstone on Brussels. Better if the Mainland + Ireland moves on. Currently, in polls, people on the European Mainland, start to realize because of Brexit how pivotal the EU is to maintain long-term prosperity and safety from crumbling powers like the USA and the UK and rising powerhouses like China and Russia.
Now I don't see the EU is ideal. For God sake I am still angry how unvisible the EU is in many nations. But Brexit might have the positive effect that more Europeans start to care about it. We already saw a tremendous rise in tunrout across the continent during the last EU elections.
So it's no good to hope for the UK's return into the EU. It won't happen once they are out. France and Germany make sure that they won't re-enter again. I prefer to move on with the EU without the UK, improve the EU were possible. Regarding democracy proving to be its own worst enemy. You might be correct about that. Authoritarian regimes currently seem to have the winning hand (Russia, China). But I will always support the notion of better our representative democracies, make them stronger by being honest to voters and not promiss too many things. Governments can not alone be the milk and honey of society.
Yeah right, and on top of that Thatcher secured a considerable renegotiation deal of the European budget to secure ‘my money back’ in 1984 through a rebate. That fact alone, and many other agricultural exceptions, eventually angered the EU and made EU budget negotiations forever a precarious thing, often resulting in standstills. All these exceptions created a monster, especially when taking into account the UK. I'm glad that will be over soon.
Is it not still on?
All individual Brits. You're always welcome hehe (make no mistake, there is no solution for them after October 31st). Just not the UK inside the EU.
1) The likes of Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Aaron Banks and odious hedge fund manager Crispin Odley (who made 200 million betting on the pound crashing after the Leave vote). Rees-Mogg made an estimated 7 to 15 million - and his company invests heavily in China and Russia. Hardly the behaviour of people who consider themselves patriots.
2) Donald Trump - a UK out of Europe is vulnerable to US trade demands. (Trump's presidency was helped and is stage managed by Putin).
3) Putin is the big winner and I believe the evidence that Russian Intelligence had a large hand in disinformation muddying the waters and facilitating the Leave win. Putin funded Aaron Banks and thereby the Leave campaign via contributions from a shadowy "company" called Ural Properties and in return he has been offered lucrative mining rights in Russia by the Kremlin (which he still denies). A weaker or destroyed EU makes Russia (and Putin) stronger. Putin hates the EU - politically and economically as it opposes him and especially his territorial "encroachments" in places such as Georgia and the Crimea.
Personally I want Brexit to fail becaue if Brexit benefits Putin (or Trump, or any of the other suckerfish mentioned above) it cannot be good for the UK. The EU has its faults but the alternative is extremely worrying.
Just a day or so ago a Scottish judge threw out a case that Johnson's suspension of Parliament was illegal:
Anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller (along with former PM John Major) is still fighting this cause in the London High Court but I doubt any judge will change the ruling. If the likes of Miller can challenge the government in the courts I think the government should do the same and take legal action against Parliament - both Houses - for trying to stop a no deal Brexit. The simple fact is the referendum voting paper did not mention a 'no deal' Brexit - it was do you wish to remain or leave the EU. Here is the referendum form:
I believe there is a compelling argument that the omission of the words: 'NO DEAL' on the form mean the British electorate were not voting for a DEAL or NO DEAL exit - merely to leave the EU. To put it bluntly: the British public were misled on the terms of our potential exit as defined on the referendum ballot paper. Conclusion, the British public believed that voting to leave was to leave with or without a deal. As Parliament refuses to grant a no deal exit, it is breaking the terms of the referendum and all pertinent legislation that led up to the referendum.
I believe the judiciary would have to come to the same verdict. Parliament has acted illegally, abused its powers, to prevent a no deal exit from the European Union. I'm astonished the government has not considered such legal action.
You're entitled to your opinion but the Mueller investigation proved there was no collusion with Russia.
There is no evidence Trump's presidency was helped/stage managed by Putin. Just saying there is but providing no evidence - you have provided none - doesn't prove your point.
It was a straight question, not a statement. No need for sarcasm.
Well, it wasn't sarcasm really. Everything from what you quoted is fact. I welcome you to prove otherwise (obviously we have to see things into perspective, especially with what you said. But UK's 'elite' position in the EU, as finalized by Thatcher, really prevented the UK from ever behaving like a pro-EU member. Actually Giscard d'Estaing back in 1975 said something like: "You should never bring in that wolf called the UK, because eventually they will be the first to leave". So right he was)
Buddy I don’t want to prove otherwise. I don’t want to prove anything. I just asked a question.
Hence I responded hehe ;-).
Mueller's testimony to Congress specifically refutes your assertion re: "Collusion." The report itself all but URGES Congress to impeach Trump for no less than ten counts of obstruction of justice. Even your summary of the Barr letter admits "Mueller detailed two ways in which Russia attempted to influence the election." Why are you attempting to defend the indefensible?
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/09/donald-trumps-impeachment-will-happen-this-fall-house-democrats-say-i-dont-think-theres-much-doubt-about-that.html
Yadda yadda yadda.
We've read and seen all this nonsense before. It's meaningless. Many Democrats predicted Trump wouldn't even get the Republican nomination let alone win the presidency! They have zero credibility. You honestly think they're going to find this magic evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians or that he's committed some other crime in office? I very much doubt it.
As for Brexit, if there's any truth in the rumour that Boris Johnson has considered quitting as PM rather than give in to Parliament and ask the EU for an extension...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1174293/brexit-news-boris-johnson-resignation-jeremy-corbyn-no-deal-eu-latest-news-update
- then I believe my suggestion makes sense. The government has nothing to lose by taking Parliament to court over its insistence a no deal cannot happen. Let a British court decide which takes precedence - the verdict of the people (majority voting to leave the EU) or the verdict of Parliament (majority trying to remain in the EU).
NO, NO, NO! If my side won it was the will of the people set in stone! If the other side won it wasn't a fair contest and it needs to be set aside immediately!!!
Parliament exercises its democratic powers --> Brexiters cry foul.
It's a sad, sorry state of affairs.
I'm not advocating that. I was merely pointing out that such a suggestion as taking "legal" action against parliament would be utterly futile.
According to Wikipedia: Article 50 does not spell out whether Member States can rescind their notification of their intention to withdraw during the negotiation period while their country is still a Member of the European Union. However, the President of the European Council said to the European Parliament on 24 October 2017 that “deal, no deal or no Brexit” is up to Britain. Indeed, the prevailing legal opinion among EU law experts and the EU institutions themselves is that a member state intending to leave may change its mind, as an “intention” is not yet a deed and intentions can change before the deed is done. So it appears that there would be no consequences at all.
I am rather sure that even at this point, the EU (in spite of the requirement of all remaining 27 having to consent) would welcome a rescission of the Article 50 notification by the Brits, simply because everyone (and most of all the UK) would profit from continued membership. But at the same time, it is clear that once Brexit has been completed, a re-admission to the EU would be far more complicated, and would certainly not be based on the "Thatcher Rebates". Other member states have always pointed out that the Brexiteers' claim that they would achieve a more favourable agreement post-Brexit than simply remaining in the EU was completely ludicrous and a pure delusion from the start. And it's simply not going to happen.
The United Kingdom as an independent nation is less attractive to 'third' parties/countries because it has less to offer as an individual country than as part of the EU. The British negotiating position is weak when it comes to concluding trade agreements.
Trade agreements are about reciprocity and mutual benefits. Foreign companies want guarantees and certainty about British rules with regard to, for example, Certificates of Origin. And the moment you start working with Certificates of Origin, you make it difficult for companies.
Having said that, the UK in the end will be the biggest loser of Brexit. Not just in the short-term, but also the long-term. I also think Brexiteers are way too overconfident. It is true that in a way with Brexit you are more sovereign again. But more sovereignty in today's globalizing world almost never equals power at the negotiating table. It does work for a few big mammoth nations like Russia and China.
Therein lies a big (cultural) problem of pro-Brexit Brits. They are stuck in a time when Brittannia ruled the waves. That moment is long gone and will, for the UK, never come back. The EU, even with all its flaws, is there to stay though. Even if Italy for instance leaves the Euro, then still they are much worse off if they leave the EU.
The world becomes a smaller place. And we, and our kids, really have to adjust to that. And many times it's a difficult tale to tell to those who don't profit from the EU. But perhaps to those people, and many Brexiteers, we have to ask them this question:
Do you prefer to be in your current situation -membership of the EU- which appears to cause a lot of shit? Or do you want to leave the EU and be flooded with not just a lot of shit, but shit times a hundred? Shit that's much nastier to remove than the shit which you get when you stay in the EU?
Those are the questions, choices of what appear to be both shitty sides of a coin, that politicians need to ask themselves more often. Do we get on with it and at least create a better future for our unborn kids? Or do we keep pinching the gut emotions of voters that will on the surface create a deceitful fairytale and as a result make them vote for you, but makes things much worse for your future unborn kids?
But alas, the UK chose its path. At the same time I was happy to see some small patches of light in the tunnel. I was happy to see that much more Europeans were more interested in the European Elections than ever before. But once the UK is outside the EU again, Brussels, with France up front, will never allow the UK back into the EU.
Whether we leave with or without a deal, that will in actual fact only be the start of Brexit. Years, most likely decades of trade and other negotiations will follow. Leaving without a deal will likely actually make the whole process even more fraught than if we got a deal.
A country the size of the UK cannot simply exist in glorious isolation. If we choose to leave the excellent arrangements we currently have with the EU behind then we will have to find new terms going forward, which will inevitably be less favourable to the UK.
And anyone banging on about WTO trade rules should be reminded that only 3 countries in the world trade solely on WTO rules - Sudan and a couple of other economic titans.
Brexit is and always was sold on a pack of lies.
Even the supposed "easy" US trade deal will not materialise for decades. Leavers have so little understanding of the wider world that they fail to appreciate the US has a much stronger sense of loyalty to Ireland than it does to the UK. And as Brexit (particularly no deal Brexit) f**** over Ireland, that makes a future trade deal almost impossible - several US senators have already said they'd veto any US-UK deal that leads to a hard border in Ireland (the inevitable result of no deal).
Frankly anyone still pushing for Brexit (let alone no deal) needs their head seeing to.
It's all so utterly pointless. People like Johnson don't even pretend there are any benefits to Brexit anymore. It was only ever about him becoming PM.
The UK has been shafted by a coalition of extreme right wingers (Rees Mogg) and egotistical authoritarian populists like Johnson.
It's at once depressing and disgusting.
Dear @Getafix. I think you show exactly the same sentiment as I do. I am actually not sure if you are British or not. But if you are British and if it was for pragmatic thinking people like you, I would have loved the UK to stay in the EU.
I might have been harsh about the current situation of the UK amidst all this Brexit chaos. But obviously, I feel very sad that this is happening to the UK. Immensely sad. I am Dutch myself, and since The Netherlands is one of the biggest trade partners of the UK, The Netherlands will also suffer from Brexit. As a matter of fact, culturally the UK and The Netherlands have such tremendously close ties. We are overseas neighbours. And many Dutch are going to miss our bigger buddy. That's a fact.
But this is me talking emotionally. And if it comes to the future of The Netherlands...and the EU at large, I came to terms with a forever 'Adios' to the UK from the EU. And I think the EU can't possibly think anymore about what the UK wants. The UK choose Brexit, even if it was based on a deceitful referendum in which your leaders played bluff poker over the heads of 65 million Brits. And now you will get Brexit. I can only wish the UK lots of luck, because they need it.
And now European Union...move forward. Become a better Union. Learn from Brexit. And may the next European Elections involve even greater interest from European mainlanders as opposed to May :-).
As previously mentioned (sorry for boring people!) the referendum ballot paper didn't mention 'leaving with a deal or no deal' - it was to leave. PERIOD. I think it's fair to say leavers and remainers were duped by the terms of the referendum. The entire electorate were shafted by the politicians because the terms of the referendum were too vague (deliberately or by accident) and we've had three and a bit years of Parliament arguing over what 'leave' actually means and even if they could all agree on what leave means (be it with or without a deal) a large percentage of MPs don't want to leave. They granted us, the mere peasants (!), a right to vote on EU membership when some MPs were never going to honour a 'leave' result.
The whole affair is outrageous and an insult to so-called democracy.
Anyway, we all know what's happened, no point dragging it all up for the billionth time so let's hope we do leave (with or without a deal). We have to leave to honour the result. You can't pick and choose which aspects of democracy you're prepared to honour and which you are not. That is semi-democracy, not full democracy. I accept that democracy is a flawed system - the first part the post voting system means many votes for smaller parties amount to nothing - but it's the system we've got. Every MP has to respect the system otherwise they'll end up like the 21 Tory MPs - booted out of their party.
Waffle waffle rant rant. Let's just leave. Further delay is madness, pointless and damaging to our democracy. For sanity and goodwill, please just leave and try and make the best of it. :)
— Jacob Rees-Mogg apologises after comparing David Nicholl, the consultant who helped draft No-Deal medical plans, to disgraced Doctor Andrew Wakefield. He was challenged by the former to repeat what he said without the shroud of parliamentary privilege.
— West Yorkshire police were duped by being used as a backdrop to Johnson’s cringe-inducing Brexit speal.
— Man in Morley, Yorkshire, approaches Boris Johnson, politely shakes his hand and cordially asks him to “leave my town”, sparking a trend on Twitter.