• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#7426]How will Brexit go?***W:46]***

How will Brexit go?


  • Total voters
    114
Jimmy Buchan. A Scottish skipper lamenting the fact that he has to sell his catch to Europe because nobody here eats it! FIVE YEARS ago!

Er, I do when in the UK.

Great Googling, but do you really think that your Jiimmy speaks for an entire industry?
 
Express? HAHAH, you actually believe what they say?

Do you prefer another source :

"Boost for Britain! Nissan says car making in Europe will be centred at its Sunderland plant as it announces closure of Barcelona factory"


"Nissan bosses have delivered a vote of confidence in UK car making by announcing that the Sunderland plant will become the hub for production of core models for Europe"
 
"The EU has shrunk as a percentage of the world economy, whichever way you look at it"


.....And will shrink even more without the contribution of one of its largest and most influential members.
 
Lol! You have obviously "overlooked" the number of times over the last couple of years they have said that their position will not change....only for them to go back on their word.

Give an example.

Of course it does. There is widespread unhappiness with the EU which you appear blind to :

The pro-Remain Guardian had the following to say before the brexit referendum :

" a Eurobarometer poll earlier this year found more than half saying that the lives of children in the EU would be "more difficult" than their own."

"European citizens actively engaging in an EU-wide democratic process. But, irony of ironies, they do so to vote against the EU."


They have been doing that since the 1970s. It never comes to anything as these parties are always (for now) in the massive minority.

Wow! Now your anti-British side is showing big time. Can't hide it any more huh?

The weather caused the Bengal famine, sunshine. Whether Churchill's policies made it worse has been debated but nobody with any intelligence is claiming that he did so deliberately.

God.. The British took food in storage to feed troops around the empire.. hence they starved the people.

Perhaps, in your haste to criticise anything British you have forgotten that your dear, but failing EU, would not exist if Britain (under Churchill) and its former colonies had not freed Western Europe from European fascists....disgusting people that were widely supported in Denmark.

A classic tactic when losing a debate.. bring in WW2 and "we saved you from the Nazi" argument.

What nonsense. When did the British try to "hack it" on the continent?

You do realize the UK had northern France and parts of Southern France as well? Calais was British for ages. The UK turned colonial when they had lost their continental holdings and could not get them back, because France was too strong.

The British brought civilisation to much of the world. The British did more than any other nation to end slavery...and were the first nation to make slavery illegal.

And here we have it.. the typical colonial arrogance and racism. Yes the British brought "civilization" to places like the "Cradle of Civilizations".. yea.. sure. The Indians had nooo civilization what so ever... /clap.

What civilisation did Danes (and other Vikings) bring to Britain? They just raped and pillaged. At least the Romans brought civilisation, as did the French.

You need to go back to school.

They didn't intentionally starve any Indians. The Boers invaded British territory. Why would Britain not defend its own people?

LOL The Boers invaded British territory? You mean land they stole from among others the Boers? Typical colonial bullshit.

The British are not like the Danes who threw up their hands at the first sign of German aggression and actively supported the Nazis :

"Denmark Apologizes for Aiding Nazis"


Yea, and we admit it. Not proud at all about this, but at least we have the balls to admit our mistakes... unlike the British. It is hardly a big secret that the Danish government made a deal with the Nazi government to spare destruction. But what you forget to mention is that we turned on our German masters 2 years later and kept 100+k German troops bogged down in Denmark... troops that could not be used against the British forces in the Northern Front. We also smuggled out thousands of Danish Jews to Sweden right under the nose of the SS and Gestapo.
 
Do you prefer another source :

"Boost for Britain! Nissan says car making in Europe will be centred at its Sunderland plant as it announces closure of Barcelona factory"


"Nissan bosses have delivered a vote of confidence in UK car making by announcing that the Sunderland plant will become the hub for production of core models for Europe"

We shall see. I have my doubts that they will maintain any production. Not only will costs go up, but the company partially French owned.
 
You do realize the UK had northern France and parts of Southern France as well? Calais was British for ages. The UK turned colonial when they had lost their continental holdings and could not get them back, because France was too strong.

You obviously don't realise that the French (Normans) invaded Britain in 1066 and that the parts of France held by "the UK" as you put it resulted from this invasion in that the French and English royal families were inter married for centuries.

The UK "turned colonial" centuries later....at roughly the same time that all the worlds powers of the day eg. Spain, Portugal, Germany,France,Italy, Belgium etc "turned colonial" too. It had nothing to do with any land ownerhip in France centuries before.

C'mon....you really need to read up before you post.

The Boers invaded British territory?

Yes they did.

I am really going to start asking for remuneration for the education I am providing you with :

"The Boers had refused to grant political rights to non-Boer settlers, known as Uitlanders, most of whom were British, or to grant civil rights to Africans. "The Boers took the initiative, invading the British colonies of Natal and the Cape"


we turned on our German masters 2 years later and kept 100+k German troops bogged down in Denmark.

Er, the facts tell a different story. There was indeed a Danish resistance towards the end of the war (1943 -1945) but there were far more Danes (5500 -6000) who joined the Waffen SS and fought alongside the German army. There were many thousands more Danish civilians who collaborated with the Nazis.

The mere 100 000 German troops who were in Denmark were there to support the German administration and also prevent an invasion by the allies.....NOT as you seem to imply and certainly not to counter the Danish resistance.
 
We shall see. I have my doubts that they will maintain any production.

You can doubt all you like, but why claim a British newspaper is reporting incorrectly on the matter?
 
How Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK are secretly forming one global superpower CANZUK



Sounds like a great idea.
 
EkrLmFKXIAAsFOH


The dastardly crime of the archbishops was to suggest that Boris Johnson should stand by the international agreement he negotiated and signed less than a year ago!
 
teaching-english-to-spanish-speakers.jpg

Mamá, nuestra maestra nos dijo que los niños ingleses no pueden conseguir naranjas. Por favor, ¿podemos enviar algunos para allá?
(Mommy, our teacher told us that English children cannot get oranges. Please, can we send some over there?)
 
More UK Governmental hokey-cokey of fail:

Michael Gove is fixated on his daddy's failed fishing business. He has not interest in having an agreement with the European Union and the Tory prime minister cannot wait for a decent interval to pass before he resigns. Boris Johnson likes being prime minister but not the work involved. He is a lazy windbag.
 
Michael Gove is fixated on his daddy's failed fishing business. He has not interest in having an agreement with the European Union and the Tory prime minister cannot wait for a decent interval to pass before he resigns. Boris Johnson likes being prime minister but not the work involved. He is a lazy windbag.

The man himself, bragging about the lorry parking areas being set aside to cope with the queues of trucks waiting to clear customs! Two of them were Covid testing so=ites and were shut down to make way!

 
Michael Gove is fixated on his daddy's failed fishing business. He has not interest in having an agreement with the European Union and the Tory prime minister cannot wait for a decent interval to pass before he resigns. Boris Johnson likes being prime minister but not the work involved. He is a lazy windbag.
I don't see Boris resigning. Sure he fell on his sword in the Tory leadership vote post-Cameron, but power is power. How long do you think the fragrant Carrie will hang around once he's an ex-pm, reduced to being truculent from the back benches à la Theresa May? Otoh it only takes 55 truculent Tory MPs to bring about a vote of no-confidence in him.
 
I don't see Boris resigning. Sure he fell on his sword in the Tory leadership vote post-Cameron, but power is power. How long do you think the fragrant Carrie will hang around once he's an ex-pm, reduced to being truculent from the back benches à la Theresa May? Otoh it only takes 55 truculent Tory MPs to bring about a vote of no-confidence in him.
It might happen. Tories have a track record for giving their leaders the boot.
 
Sounds like the wet dream of a lunatic reconstructing the whiter parts of the commonwealth.

Sounds like you love racist conspiracy theories.

Sounds to me like a number of successful nations who have been friends and allies for hundreds of years getting together for their mutual benefit.
 
80 per cent of our fresh food is imported. Mostly from Europe.

British farmers have indeed been disadvantaged by the UK being part of the EU.

Cheap food from the former USSR states, in particular, who have the advantage of cheap labour, have devastated UK farmers.

Brexit will improve this situation.

The UK currently provides 55% of its own food (more than many EU nations) whilst the 27 nations of the EU provide 26% of UK food.

 
Give an example.

"Both the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the French president, Emmanuel Macron, had said on Friday that they were willing to compromise on the most contentious issues of domestic subsidy control and EU access to British fishing waters."

"Barnier’s statement appeared to meet all the requests No 10 had been making as the price of new talks."


Yet another cave in by the EU.
 
Last edited:
How Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK are secretly forming one global superpower CANZUK



Sounds like a great idea.



As a Canadian, this is a pipedream, at least for Canada

Canada and Australia have generally similar economies, both dependent on trading in raw materials, both have seen manufacturing drop within our respective countries. A union between both provides no benefits economically as we are more competitors than natural trading partners. Canada is dependent on the US for trade, and no matter which president in power the US would likely take offense to Canada forming a union with other countries that is a competitor to the US for political power, military power and economic power. The same reasoning for the UK to leave the EU would apply for Canada and any union with the UK/Australia. Given the small size of the union, 4 countries and the much larger power level of the UK, it would dominate the union far more than any country in the EU did

For Australia, it is economically dependent on China, with only India or the US being able to replace Chinese markets for its exports The UK certainly can not find a use for the raw materials from Canada or Australia. Security wise, the UK is going to decline over the next 30 years, Canada is not going to get any better (and has no need to), forming a security union would benefit Australia, but it would not get any from Canada or the UK (to far away, and too large)

Overall just a dream from the UK and people who dream of the British Empire. Few in Canada care about the UK (at least among those younger than 60, as the US is far more important in most peoples lives
 
As a Canadian, this is a pipedream, at least for Canada

Canada and Australia have generally similar economies, both dependent on trading in raw materials, both have seen manufacturing drop within our respective countries. A union between both provides no benefits economically as we are more competitors than natural trading partners. Canada is dependent on the US for trade, and no matter which president in power the US would likely take offense to Canada forming a union with other countries that is a competitor to the US for political power, military power and economic power. The same reasoning for the UK to leave the EU would apply for Canada and any union with the UK/Australia. Given the small size of the union, 4 countries and the much larger power level of the UK, it would dominate the union far more than any country in the EU did

For Australia, it is economically dependent on China, with only India or the US being able to replace Chinese markets for its exports The UK certainly can not find a use for the raw materials from Canada or Australia. Security wise, the UK is going to decline over the next 30 years, Canada is not going to get any better (and has no need to), forming a security union would benefit Australia, but it would not get any from Canada or the UK (to far away, and too large)

Overall just a dream from the UK and people who dream of the British Empire. Few in Canada care about the UK (at least among those younger than 60, as the US is far more important in most peoples lives
What if the US were included?
 
What if the US were included?


Why would the UK which was upset about giving up control to the EU, join another union in which instead of having roughly equal power levels to other major players, to one where the largest in the union is multiple times larger and as such have one country with the majority of the power?
 
Why would the UK which was upset about giving up control to the EU, join another union in which instead of having roughly equal power levels to other major players, to one where the largest in the union is multiple times larger and as such have one country with the majority of the power?
Because the US would have a much lighter touch than the EU as regards internal UK management.
 
Back
Top Bottom