Wow, I knew sky news was reaching the peak of trash msn but that really sets a whole new bar. I bet Sarah Jane 'it's all about' Mee is panic buying cushelle now
I do and they did. no one voted for the partition of Ireland. by that logic: Dundee and Glasgow would be Independent London, Scotland and Northern Ireland would be staying in the EU.
who wants to read somit from the Dug? all of you? cool. Bookmark the permalink. Quo vadis? Oct8 by weegingerdug There’s Dungeon and Dragons, there’s Minecraft, there’s World of Warcraft, but Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson’s favourite game is The Stupid Blame Game. The EU has clearly had enough with the not so clever clever tactics of the British Prime Minister, driving Donald Tusk, the Polish politician who is the President of the EU Council, to use some very undiplomatic language in a tweet. He tweeted: “@BorisJohnson, what’s at stake is not winning some stupid blame game. At stake is the future of Europe and the UK as well as the security and interests of our people. You don’t want a deal, you don’t want an extension, you don’t want to revoke, quo vadis?” . Interestingly, and here we go with yet more of the Latin, Donald Tusk finished his quote with the Latin tag quo vadis? Quo vadis is Latin for “Where are you going?” and as such ought to resonate with our famously Classical snob of a Prime Minister. More importantly in this context the phrase was also the title of a very famous Polish novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz, who is one of the giants of Polish literature. Sienkiewicz won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1906. Quo Vadis is his best known work, and the Polish original has been translated into dozens of languages. The novel was made into a TV miniseries in 1985, and turned into a movie no less than five times, most famously in 1951 with Holywood stars Robert Taylor, Deborah Kerr and Peter Ustinov, an adaptation which was nominated for eight Academy Awards. Set during the Roman Empire the story deals with a meeting between St Peter and the infamously crazed Emperor Nero. The novel’s title comes from the question put to Jesus by St Peter, who appeared to him in a vision as the saint attempted to flee from Rome. St Peter asked “Quo vadis, domine?” Where are you going Lord? To which Jesus replied, “If thou desertest my people, I am going to Rome to be crucified a second time” and shamed St Peter into returning to Rome to accept martyrdom. . The question quo vadis doesn’t just ask where a person is going physically, it’s a question about their moral and ethical destination. In this context it is a question about the ethics and morals of the British Prime Minister. It’s saying that Johnson is putting himself and his own interests before those of the UK. It’s not so much a question as it is a statement calling him a coward and a hypocrite. Boris Johnson is fleeing from his responsibilities. This reference would be very clear to a Polish audience. It’s not just Donald Tusk who seems to have reached the limits of their patience with the game playing of the British Government. Angela Merkel seems to have had enough too. Until now, the German Chancellor has been one of the strongest voices within the EU calling for patience with the UK, but today we learned that there was apparently a “frank exchange” between her and Johnson in a phone call. A “frank exchange” is diplomatic speak for an argument. According to reports the German Chancellor told the British Prime Minister that a Brexit deal was looking “esstentially impossible”. Which is pretty much what we’ve all known all along. . This is not a Prime Minister who wants a Brexit deal. He wants the UK to crash out without a deal, in order to shore up the Conservative party’s vote amongst leavers and prevent them from drifting off to Nigel Farage in the General Election that is coming soon. He just wants to ensure that it’s the EU which gets the blame for it. The entire economic and diplomatic future and reputation of the UK is to be sacrificed for the short term electoral interests of Boris Johnson and the Conservative party. Quo vadis, indeed. What makes this all the more galling is that the British Government is risking all our futures in pursuit of a lie. Crashing out of the EU without a deal is not “getting it done”, it is not “getting it over with”. Crashing out of the EU without a deal means disruption and a frantic process of trying to negotiate some sort of deal with the EU from a position of extreme weakness. Crashing out with no deal guarantees that Brexit and the UK’s relationship with the EU will dominate and toxify British politics for many years to come. . This entire episode, these past three years, is a failure of the British state. For Scotland however, it also represents a historic failure for unionism. It’s the final proof that Scottish Unionism is incapable of success even on its own terms. Compare and contrast the achievements of Ireland during the Brexit process with that of Northern Irish Unionists. The only friends that Northern Ireland’s Unionists have got left are in the Conservative party – a party which we all know will sell them out the second that the Conservatives no longer need to rely on the DUP’s votes in the Commons. They have zero friends and zero influence in Europe. Ireland on the other hand, has the whole of Europe standing with it in solidarity. Ireland has ensured that its diplomatic ties to other EU states have been used to good effect. Within the UK, Scotland and Northern Ireland have only a British Prime Minister who has become a byword for lies and deceit and who has no interest at all in standing up for our particular interests. . What has British diplomacy achieved for Scottish and Northern Irish unionism? How have the efforts of the British state ensured that the interests of Scotland have been recognised, protected, and defended during the Brexit process? The UK has achieved precisely the square root of hee haw in that respect. It has gained less than zero. British diplomacy has trashed the reputation of the entire UK and every constituent part of it. At every stage along the way the interests of Scotland have been marginalised, ignored, ridiculed, and dismissed by a Westminster which refuses to acknowledge that any consideration can stand in the path of rampant English nationalism. In Northern Ireland only one faction in that divided polity has been listened to, that sole minority faction which supports Brexit, and even then only because the British Government is dependent upon the votes of the DUP. As soon as that consideration no longer applies and the arithmetic of the House of Commons changes, Northern Ireland’s Unionist interests will be as disposable as Scotland’s. . Brexit has taught Scotland that unionism is morally and politically bankrupt. Westminster is not willing to stand up for Scotland either domestically or internationally. The question now for Scotland’s unionists is – Quo vadis?
Except Norther Ireland did. ‘MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN, We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Senators and Commons of Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, having learnt of the passing of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, being the Act of Parliament for the ratification of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, do, by this humble Address, pray your Majesty that the powers of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland.’: the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland took the opportunity to opt out of that Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922.
Quo Vadis (“where are you going”) was my school’s motto. Unfortunately for quite a lot of the pupils, the answer to that question was “The Job Centre” and for more than a few of them, “Jail”
“This is not a Prime Minister who wants a Brexit deal. He wants the UK to crash out without a deal, in order to shore up the Conservative party’s vote amongst leavers and prevent them from drifting off to Nigel Farage in the General Election that is coming soon. He just wants to ensure that it’s the EU which gets the blame for it. The entire economic and diplomatic future and reputation of the UK is to be sacrificed for the short term electoral interests of Boris Johnson and the Conservative party. Quo vadis, indeed.” This ^^^ And what makes me chuckle is that this ultra-privileged narcissist BoJo has managed to co-opt the unwavering support of the very people, ie: “ordinary hard working families”, “the great British taxpayer” (insert your own cliche) who he, his allies and his backers utterly despise and who will be hit hardest by a no deal Brexit. And what is even more amazing is that these very same people routinely lambast anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their extreme viewpoint as “sheep”.
I agree with your assessment of Bojo. But the entrenched view of Brexiteers started long before 2016. N Farage gave them a voice, a voting voice no less, and now Bojo is trying to get at those votes. So in my view the 2016 campaign probably swung a tiny minority of votes, everyone elses mind was made up long before the vote. They're, not going to change their minds now. The same logic applies to remainers, unfortunately, for them they're in the minority. TB
Totally agree, I've been wanting out for as long as I can remember, the referendum couldn't have come soon enough, my mind was made up years ago.
I think boris and the tories are aware if they don't provide what was voted for, it will effect the tory party but to assume it will only be the tories is too narrow a scope. ALL parties will have let their voters down in some way so the g.e. will be an interesting reflection of the current mood The referendum was certianly needed. We were taken into the eu first with no vote, then only as an election promise we had a vote but were told the eec was only ever going to be a trade body. Some on the remain side would vote with their feet if their tv channel package changed by two or three channels but the eec changing to the eu central government , leavers apparently are not allowed a vote for 40 years? I think its more both sides took part, both sides said they would respect the decision to remain or leave and when the result came in, there has been no respect of the decision most of all from our politicians who have to the large part, acted in the eu's best interests rather than our own.
I suspect you’re right in respect of a fair proportion of the voters on either side but I don’t think there was a “tiny minority” of fence sitters. Tbh, I was open to persuasion* as were quite a lot of other people I spoke to (it all feels like a very long time ago now!). I’m also not sure I agree that nobody has/will change their minds. I suspect there is a flow in both directions - some ambivalent Leavers will have been appalled by finding that they were lied to and the subsequent utter and embarrassing chaos. On the other hand, some uncommitted Remainers will have gone over to Leave because they just want shot of this clusterf*ck ASAP and/or they don’t like the way the EU has handled the negotiations. I tend to discount the prospective GE opinion polls (which show the Tories are ahead) as a measure of support for/against Brexit as I think they’re probably skewed by dislike for and distrust of Corbyn. If Labour had a different leader (Kier Starmer?) the results might be quite different and they’d nick a lot of votes from the Lib Dem’s. I’ve not seen any recent opinion polls on the likely outcome of a second Ref, so I might be wrong in my assessment of which way things will go. In any event, as 2017 showed, opinion polls can be very wide of the mark. * Although my views are repeatedly misrepresented on here, I was/am not an unwavering dyed in the wool EUphile. In general terms I strongly support the EU project (and that includes it going beyond just being a trade bloc) but I had/have concerns about certain issues, for example, the “democratic deficit”, the way Greece was treated after the financial crash, and, would you believe it, unfettered movement of people. However, I believe that Remaining and fighting for change from within is infinitely preferable to leaving and being left behind. Interestingly, one of Mrs Thatcher’s closest former advisors has said that would have been her stance (before anyone jumps in with “Yeah but, so and so said she would have been pro-Leave”, I know there are people close to her - her biographer Charles Moore being one - who say the opposite).
It's not that fin, the snp has behaved like the rest of the vultures in removing the democratic vote from the bone but theirs is more questionable. Their wish for indi 2 is they say the caveat of "if something major changed", inserted into the indi 1 vote would mean they would ask for another indi vote. By continually trying to stop leaving the eu, it would appear at first that the snp have shot themselves in the foot as if we don't leave, then the excuse for indi 2 goes away. Why would you seek to stop the vote you are telling your nation you are desperate to have? There are games being played for sure but most are from those in the commons are playing games for their own parties and not the country.
tough shit. vote No to remain in the EU. compromise offered and rejected. the big powers re reserved. the YES movement are not the SNP. the people will decide when the next indi reff will be. by voting for partys that propose it. wanna wee looksee at what happened up here on saturday because of brexit? https://www.thenational.scot/news/17952792.watch-worlds-media-reacted-auob-independence-march/
Oddly enough, the Brexit debate prior to the 2016 Referendum had a pivotal role in amending my opinion on the EU and thus, on British Independence. The failed Scottydog rebellion of 2014 started the process off for me. It triggered an interest in politics that up until then had been a very academic, fatalistic, laissez-faire approach - "they are all crooks, I cannot be bothered" was my attitude and that was sufficient for me. The 2014 referendum made me begin to examine my beliefs and started my inexorable roll towards my current position. Politicians are crooks, almost to a man/woman/fluidic entity. Belief that you can somehow elect the right kind of people into public office still eludes me. The efforts to bring about, first Scottish Indy, and then British Indy, made me examine more closely what it is I want from politicians. And that can be summed up, but not delineated as, as little as possible without introducing anarchy. Opinion: Limitation of government should always be the first principle. It should be the default position. It should be the guiding light and end-game of every political endeavour. Fact: What we have now though is, the exact opposite. Excuses and reasons for increasing the scope of government, in every conceivable area of human experience, are frequent, regular, unceasing and over-whelming. If the people who make up the Government could be relied upon to act honourably, in the best interests of citizens ... perhaps loss of freedoms, loss of self-reliance, loss of personal responsibility could be argued as a good thing - could be, but I am not sure I would be persuaded. However, in the real world, you can only ever rely on Government to make things worse, through the inevitability of unintended consequences, if not downright malfeasance and corruption. Government's ill-conceived and ill-fated attempts at social experimentation, fiscal manipulation ... together with its propensity for "looking after its chums", dooms most governmental activity to contributing to the worsening of the human condition. Of course, talking about the human condition, you need to define what represents an improvement and what represents detriment, otherwise people will be confused by my statement here. I will provide a hint - there is more to quality of life than being able to live into your 90s and have your arse wiped by an uncaring care-assistant in a rest home. The issue of EU membership left me questioning many, many things. I went from an almost Scottish "Anyone but fecking Westminster, please" to limited government is essential to staving off our headlong rush towards Idiocracy and the inevitable death of civilisation. The EU represents rulership at the largest scale imaginable short of "World Government". With its grand gestures and grand schemes, it represents the triumph of the hive mind, the corporatists, the Marxists, over the individual. The power and privilege of the European Commission, with its rich, almost nameless backers, funders, strategists and lobbyists ... when people in the UK start yelling about rich "toffee-noses" like JRM, BoJob, and Co, I literally laugh out loud. These "rich and powerful folk" are chancers and barrow-boys compared to someone like Soros. It is fucking hilarious to watch. Anyway, that is the description of my personal journey from Yeah, sure, Brussels, why not? to I prefer Westminster, at least they are within range there. I doubt that many here will identify with me : o ) TL;DR: The Brexit debates of 2015/2016 cemented a change of attitude for me towards British Independence. Your mileage may vary. TopTotty included in accordance with forum regulations.
I have said before that it would be sad if as a result of our leaving the EU became the organisation I wanted it to be. However, while its an economists wet dream and the theory sounds nice as soon as Politicians and bureaucrats get involved it all gets fucked up. As for change. The inertia is too great, and I always think of Sep Blatter and FIFA. That corrupt twat bribed the footballing toe rag members so that they would keep voting for him and I can't help feeling something similar is happening now in the EU to maintain the staus quo. TB
