Brexit or Bust!


Now I took a long one considering that the post has been your last one. Ok. At least one way to answer. Have a nice weekend.


Not odd at all Adam, its just you loosing the thread


Yes - I firmly believe it will be better to climb out into the forest and take our chances (opportunities) than stay in the swamp and sink in to the European Super State. There is a lot of EU propaganda around, but that way lies a bleak future. We have only been conned by the EU: not the people of Europe, but the sad self serving Eurocrats and my hope is we’ll see through it. Let’s go our own way, make it work and inspire others to do likewise.

Remember that which is sworn on the Runestaff cannot be undone and will come to pass. In fact if we juxtaposition Moorcock’s geography then his tale seems quite prophetic.


Blue for me.
Hoping my Mercian one will be forest green though.


There is the option of staying in and leading to stop the EU sinking into a super state. The EU will undoubtedly miss the UK but more politically than economically.



If that is all you have gleaned from what you have read, then you haven’t assimilated or accepted the Leave argument. I’ve explained this on many occasions, but it obviously bear repeating; I voted to Leave to be free of the EU and it’s sclerotic, undemocratic, bullying attitudes, so that UK laws and democracy would be sovereign in the UK.

If you regard that as “rhetoric, zero substance” then so be it.


The UK has been a leader in attempting to reform the EU from within for decades. We have had zero success.


Sorry, TM (are your initials chosen to show your support for our wonderful leader … or just a fortunate coincidence?) … my reading habits very rarely take me into the realms of sci-fi/fantasy - happily my better half is better-read and outlined the reference.

I note you did not quote the following sentence of that paragraph:

Dare I risk believing you agree with its sentiments?

We had lunch with friends (my best man and his wife) yesterday and as I’m aware we have different views I kept off the subject. But when they raised it I took advantage to ask whether they supported TM’s approach … they almost jumped on me to say No, no, no … detest her and her followers, et al. (even going so far as to say they thought Nigel Farage should have been in charge of the negotiations).

Given the latest news suggests that TM is looking to push this to the wire … either the HoC backs her (modified in presentation) deal or we leave with No Deal, just which is the preferred option of Leavers?

In some ways we Remainers have it easy: we’d like No Brexit. But Leavers have options … does that mean that whichever way Leave happens there will be (lots of) Leavers who will be unhappy … i.e. Leave will have been actioned under the approval of a minority of voters only.

We look set to be inundated with recriminations for years to come, from Remainers who will say we should never have left and from Leavers who will say we should have left under different circumstances. Oh what fun … :scream:


But dare I say Anda… oops sorry TiberioMagadino,

One of the problems to which I think Adam was alluding is that a substantial number of leavers come from a ‘Little Englander’ perspective. To quite a few of them, England is Britain or the UK, and the question of whether or not Northern Ireland and Scotland choose to leave the UK is of no particular relevance or importance.

Your own profile summary leads me to believe that you may fall into the above category:

“I am a man who likes lions
I have 3 lions on my shirt
46 years of hurt never stopped me dreaming”

but of course I might be completely wrong.


Apologies if I have missed your previous posts, this is rather a long thread and admittedly I have not read all of it.

That’s fine but until you actually provide any evidence for the sclerotic, undemocratic, and bullying attitudes then to me it is just rhetoric without substance. No organisation or relationship is perfect, with regard to the UK’s membership of the EU it’s about the balancing the negatives with the positives.

We have many shared laws internationally, not just with the EU. Sometimes this is necessary for the greater good.

I don’t think anyone could argue UK is not sovereign state.


But we have had those whilst being in EU. It didn’t help at all. And that’s my issue, the EU helps nobody, but itself. Why does it not have a full audit so everybody can see where the money goes?

As recently reported EU spent £17m of taxpayers’ on jollies to Europe for Belgian beer and Christmas markets, while MEPs complained cuts to their ‘coffee budget’ are damaging their work. MEPs spent £1m in one year on jollies to Mauritius and more than £700,000 on an award ceremony for European cinema. While EU Parliament spent £1million promoting itself on Facebook.

OK these are a drop in the ocean compared with the huge waste of public money that is Galileo, but if you look at Eurozone countries like Greece and soon Italy, what do we see recession, austerity and general hardship.

Pushing it to the wire is they way of the EU who say No, Nej, Nem, Ne, Ingen, Non, Uimh, Nien … oh is that the time, all right then we agree, now let’s go the bar.

I think those who want to remain have a dream of what a European common market should be, but the reality is what it is. Many of things posters on here accuse leavers of are the very EU traits I’d like to see go away.

Leave will (assuming it happens) be the majority of voters (we can only guess the intentions of those not bothering to vote) in contrast to general elections, where over 12.6% of the vote gets 1 out of 650 seats and 4.7% gets 56 out of 650. Has the party in power ever had over 50%?

Honestly, please don’t worry. In the words of the great Bob Marley “everything’s gonna be all right”.

All the best TM

PS TM = a fortunate coincidence.


Well, youre almost there now and I certainly dont see the EU27 falling over each other trying to keep the UK in, or even near, the EU so what are you worried about?

Like Apple the EU has always been doomed. And like Apple the EU also generate a fair bit of wealth for businesses in owners/members home countries. About 30 years ago there was some confused talk about the EU uberstate. Today it is 27 wildly varying countries with newly elected governments constantly rotated into the council - good luck trying to unite that lot into a superstate :slight_smile:


Yes you are completely wrong.

Seems the way of fora that where there is a disagreement then insults start. I don’t see one region of the UK as more or less important than another, but 9 out of 12 regions voted to leave. If we must count it that way.

However unlike in Spain if one region wishes to leave then I see no reason why it shouldn’t. However, I thought you said Scotland wished to remain in the UK in which case I’m delighted as I have many friends there.


As someone who lives in Scotland, I have no deep felt desire to leave the UK although a substantial number of people in Scotland do. I have always felt myself to be both Scottish and British.

I am also a realist. Scotland is a small nation in global terms, and striking out on its own would involve a substantial risk and one that I would have to be convinced to accept. However, I would like to continue to be part of the EU and that may play some part in any future decision I may have to take in respect of any future debate about Scotland’s future.

A lot will depend upon how British politics and particularly politics in England pan our post Brexit if we do leave Europe. In my opinion, Brexit has triggered for the worse in my opinion a substantial swing to the right in English (in particular) politics, and an unfortunate rise in incidents of intolerance of all sorts as the xenophopic and racist few on the far right gain confidence to express their views.

I hope that this is a temporary phenomenon, and that our political climate normalises itself over the next year or two, but I don’t hold any huge confidence that it will. The thing that will almost certainly persuade me and many others to change my Nationalist position in favour of Independence will be if those members of the poisonous ERG gain any substantial power following Brexit. They are now poised to begin their campaign of “it’s all the fault of those nasty foreigners in the EU for not letting us have our way” if we leave the EU without a deal and things go terribly wrong with our economy. There is nothing like a bit of foreigner bashing to raise the hackles of those who will be inclined to rise to the bait and to deflect blame. After all, How dare Donald Tusk express his opinion about the competence of those campaigning for and planning (?) for Brexit on our behalf.

Rees Mogg and his cronies in the ERG have neither affinity with nor respect for Scotland nor for Northern Ireland, nor for that matter with many regions in Northern England, and the vast majority of people in Scotland feel no affinity nor respect for them.


The UK voted through every treaty from Maastricht to Lisbon etc. Voting needs unanimity, stop rewriting history.



Hear, hear


Yes, I know that (unfortunately) the governments of the day did indeed vote for those treaties - and because it was done without reference to the electorate of the day, we find ourselves in the current situation. Maastricht, in particular, because it changed the EC - (a trading bloc) into the EU - (a political entity), should have been the subject of a referendum because the changes were so far-reaching constitutionally e.g. the establishment of various supra-national institutions, such as (but not only) the ECJ. The signing of those treaties were political decisions of the day and are not related to our attempts at EU reform.

Recent (failed) reform attempts by the UK include;

Our attempt to block the appointment of Juncker (because of his well publicised centralising and federalising agenda) was frustrated by the combined efforts of Germany & France.

Cameron’s attempt to secure commitment to reform was rebuffed by the EU in a very public and contemptuous manner - when they had the opportunity to display some empathy (and statesmanship, one could argue) and so secure (probably) the UK’s continued membership. But no …

I am not rewriting history at all.


Apology accepted :+1:

This is a long reply, but there is no short reply to your requests.

“Sclerotic” (rigid, unresponsive, losing the ability to adapt) - witness the EU’s responses to reform attempts, to economic issues, to social issues. That the EU is in desperate need of reform is acknowledged by too many observers / commentators to ignore, but the Brussels Elites are complacently comfortable and just don’t recognise/accept that the status quo is not an option. You would have thought that the Brexit result would have given them food for thought? But no, of course not! Juncker’s recent platitudinous “State of the Union” (lol) speech consisted of more and more Europe, through greater political centralisation, less national control, an EU army and powers permitting the EU to levy taxes!!!

“Undemocratic” - lack of transparency, law-making by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. A recent example would be the underhand process (condemned by the MEPs - who were ignored!) by which the “Brit-hating”, (it is widely reported), Martin Selmayr was appointed as the EU’s most senior civil servant. Even if you don’t perceive any democratic deficit, rest assured that the increasing anti-EU sentiment across Europe clearly does.

“Bullying” - unfair and unfavourable treatment applied to Italy, Greece, Poland, Ireland, UK (and others) whilst favouring Germany and France. There is ample detail on this available online - I don’t need to repeat it here.

I agree that no relationship is perfect - give and take, compromise, mutual acceptance, balancing negatives with positives (call it what you will) etc etc will always be a component of a successful relationship. However, it is a fact that not all relationships are successful, no matter how hard one party tries. So, when the negatives outweigh the positives and compromise (etc) has ceased, it is valid, reasonable and perfectly proper to end that relationship. That is the position that the majority of referendum voters took - we want to end the relationship, we’ve had enough, we want out. That doesn’t preclude future international or inter-governmental co-operation, agreements, treaties on trade, science, education (et al). No Leave argument has ever posited a complete cessation of future engagement with the EU - we simply want a different relationship - i.e. we don’t want to be married any more, we want a divorce and afterwards we would like to be good friends. The Remain argument appears to be that we must remain in this broken relationship “for the greater good” because the advantages of marriage are too great to abandon? That benefits neither party because the acrimony will only increase, worsening matters as the relationship spirals downwards. If a relationship is broken, where exactly is the “greater good”? If one party wants out, then obviously, it’s all over. What is the argument for remaining in this broken marriage with a partner we dislike so much that we want to leave? Nobody stays together for economic reasons.

As to the UK’s sovereignty, we are demonstrably not sovereign when a foreign court, over which we have no control, overrides the laws of our land, which were enacted by our democratically elected representatives. We find ourselves in a situation that warfare tried, and failed, to implement and which our politicians have cravenly agreed to. Clearly, the “people” don’t like that situation …


You’re not only rewriting history but the dictionary as well if you define Cameron’s discussions as “reform”. He was asking for the sort of “reform”. that would even make the DUP blush.

Obviously we won’t agree here but I am in earnest when I say the UK’s long history of democracy will be missed in the EU. Then I look at your current set of politicians and think of the Yeat’s quote.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.



I really think you are blowing issues out of all proportion. Juncker doesn’t hold any meaningful power and he’s retiring this year. I don’t like him much either. The real power rests with the leaders of the EU nations and the European Parliament. For example, you mention the EU wanting to levy taxes but all member states must agree first, which they did not. UK has a veto. There can be no credible EU army without the UK, again we have a veto.

By tradition the Commission president (Juncker) has discretion in selecting the EU’s most senior civil servant. If you don’t like it or indeed any other unelected position inside the EU that then you can only change it from within the EU.

I don’t see any unfair treatment to the UK with regard to Brexit. Again, you cannot expect the EU to give the UK everything it demands without protecting their own interests. That’s one of the delusions promoted by Vote Leave.

The benefits of staying in the EU far outweigh the negatives. The UK-EU relationship is more fractured as a result of the referendum and Brexit but it is not broken and could be improved with a change of leadership in the UK. Since the year the UK joined the EU, GDP per capita in the UK has grown faster than in the other two big EU economies France and Germany and also exceeded growth in the USA. Compare this to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU.

We signed up to the EU and its courts, helped create many of its laws, and are free to leave if we want to. That doesn’t threaten our sovereignty. However, if you sign up to TM’s deal then you have no sovereign right to leave the backstop autonomously. You lose control and it will likely end in the break up of your country.

I know what’s worse.