So we are leaving..............
-
@coliver said in So we are leaving..............:
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
@coliver said in So we are leaving..............:
@gjacobse said in So we are leaving..............:
I've not really followed the issue to know which side has more benefit - Member or non-Member of the EU. So I don't know if this is a good or bad thing. I suppose time will tell...
Depends, it doesn't make sense to leave from an economic standpoint. It doesn't really make sense to leave from a social standpoint. One of the biggest arguments was that the EU was forcing the UK to open its borders to refugees and immigrants, leaving the EU allowed the UK to better protect itself from those forces.
"Protect itself" from helping those in need is the basic premise we hear in the EU.
No argument there... I agree with you but was trying to present the argument in an unbiased way.
I think protecting itself implies a danger rather than a dislike for helping those of non-European heritage. It's not about danger, it's about dislike. Which is why so many people are so upset about how the vote went from the outside. That the US is anti-Semitic is well known and the level of open racism in the US is what it is. The UK was supposed to be better but this seems to be stooping to the American level and that is very upsetting. This will make it so much easier for Americans to carry on with it to yet another level in their next elections too. It's a snowball effect, just like in the 1920s. Not that it will happen, but this is how it starts.
-
@DustinB3403 said in So we are leaving..............:
Does the queen really have the say so?
Sure does. Sadly, she has proven herself to be unwilling to do anything in her country and is just along for the ride. This is exactly what the monarch is for, to protect the country from itself - especially in cases where the voting public just can't know enough about the factors involved. And the queen understands the potential horrors of a divided Europe and what it can bring. That she hasn't acted will likely be the shame that she carries with her for centuries.
-
Queen Elizabeth is going to likely sit beside George III in the annals of "monarchs who let the empire go." G3 was insane, that was his excuse, and his megalomania made him not see the futility of a distant war even when his officers told him that he could not win and he wages two wars against the US, losing both. He was in a tough spot and I feel that the US was taking advantage of the situation in many ways, and I understand why he felt that he had to defend his position, but in the end he failed big time. Elizabeth will be seen for her inaction, instead. A lifetime of doing nothing, nothing at all. And with an entire lifetime of quietly waiting for the moment that she was needed failing to even speak up. She has made the monarchy pointless and betrayed her subjects.
-
So if the monarchy is in charge, why does the UK have a Parliament?
Why doesn't the royal family just make all of the orders?
-
@DustinB3403 said in So we are leaving..............:
So if the monarchy is in charge, why does the UK have a Parliament?
Why doesn't the royal family just make all of the orders?
Being able to veto stupidity is not the same as being in charge.
-
The monarch is a branch of the British government, not the government itself. Parliament has broad powers and "runs" the government. But the monarch has a special role and is still supposed to be more than a figure head. It's more like America's supreme court in that the position is for life and is entrusted with special powers to protect against other parts of government failing. but like the Supreme Court, the queen can't step in and take over, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't have power and responsibility.
-
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
@DustinB3403 said in So we are leaving..............:
So if the monarchy is in charge, why does the UK have a Parliament?
Why doesn't the royal family just make all of the orders?
Being able to veto stupidity is not the same as being in charge.
I'd beg to differ on that part. If you and I were having a conversation about whatever.
And we get into a heated argument about whichever one is best, would you immediately stop arguing about it just because @Minion-Queen said to stop arguing about it?
It's a stupid argument, that has you upset. Would you just stop being upset when someone tells you too?
-
@Breffni-Potter said in So we are leaving..............:
On that note.
Irish passports are great.
Soon Scottish ones will be, too
I'm very hopeful that Scotland goes rogue and calls the diaspora home that the UK has blocked for the last century. I want a Scottish passport and England has kept that from being a possibility. -
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
but like the Supreme Court, the queen can't step in and take over, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't have power and responsibility.
Does she have enough though
Even if she does, any move she makes is a potential disaster
-
@DustinB3403 said in So we are leaving..............:
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
@DustinB3403 said in So we are leaving..............:
So if the monarchy is in charge, why does the UK have a Parliament?
Why doesn't the royal family just make all of the orders?
Being able to veto stupidity is not the same as being in charge.
I'd beg to differ on that part. If you and I were having a conversation about whatever.
And we get into a heated argument about whichever one is best, would you immediately stop arguing about it just because @Minion-Queen said to stop arguing about it?
It's a stupid argument, that has you upset. Would you just stop being upset when someone tells you too?
But the argument isn't the issue nor what she stops. It's the decision that she vetos.
-
@MattSpeller said in So we are leaving..............:
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
but like the Supreme Court, the queen can't step in and take over, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't have power and responsibility.
Does she have enough though
Even if she does, any move she makes is a potential disaster
It's going to be a disaster if she doesn't make a move. So does the risk of a potential disaster outweigh the risk and an actual one?
-
@MattSpeller said in So we are leaving..............:
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
but like the Supreme Court, the queen can't step in and take over, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't have power and responsibility.
Does she have enough though
Even if she does, any move she makes is a potential disaster
True, that's the case in any decision. If there were any 100% sure situations, then a decision would never even come up. But this is one where she has been pretty clear, without making the announcement, as to where she feels things need to be. And it is her responsibility to protect the people and the empire. And having it break up and fail is pretty bad stewardship.
-
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
@DustinB3403 said in So we are leaving..............:
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
@DustinB3403 said in So we are leaving..............:
So if the monarchy is in charge, why does the UK have a Parliament?
Why doesn't the royal family just make all of the orders?
Being able to veto stupidity is not the same as being in charge.
I'd beg to differ on that part. If you and I were having a conversation about whatever.
And we get into a heated argument about whichever one is best, would you immediately stop arguing about it just because @Minion-Queen said to stop arguing about it?
It's a stupid argument, that has you upset. Would you just stop being upset when someone tells you too?
But the argument isn't the issue nor what she stops. It's the decision that she vetos.
But she, a single person would veto the decision of the population that voted to leave the EU. This to me seems like a murder sentence for the entire family.
I get what you're saying though.
-
-
@coliver said in So we are leaving..............:
@MattSpeller said in So we are leaving..............:
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
but like the Supreme Court, the queen can't step in and take over, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't have power and responsibility.
Does she have enough though
Even if she does, any move she makes is a potential disaster
It's going to be a disaster if she doesn't make a move. So does the risk of a potential disaster outweigh the risk and an actual one?
There's no actual disaster yet though - no one knows what's going to happen and that's the problem - I was trying to point that out but my previous comment was poor.
-
@DustinB3403 said in So we are leaving..............:
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
@DustinB3403 said in So we are leaving..............:
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
@DustinB3403 said in So we are leaving..............:
So if the monarchy is in charge, why does the UK have a Parliament?
Why doesn't the royal family just make all of the orders?
Being able to veto stupidity is not the same as being in charge.
I'd beg to differ on that part. If you and I were having a conversation about whatever.
And we get into a heated argument about whichever one is best, would you immediately stop arguing about it just because @Minion-Queen said to stop arguing about it?
It's a stupid argument, that has you upset. Would you just stop being upset when someone tells you too?
But the argument isn't the issue nor what she stops. It's the decision that she vetos.
But she, a single person would veto the decision of the population that voted to leave the EU. This to me seems like a murder sentence for the entire family.
I get what you're saying though.
That is her JOB. And it is a decision on which the nation is split almost exactly evenly. She is equally in trouble with the same population for doing nothing. So that nullifies that concern. If this was that the whole population wanted this and she thought that they were wrong, that's different. She doesn't even have to veto the result, she can veto the referendum as being invalid for being a draw in a case where the two decisions are not equal in a way that should be determined by a possible draw.
-
@MattSpeller said in So we are leaving..............:
@coliver said in So we are leaving..............:
@MattSpeller said in So we are leaving..............:
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
but like the Supreme Court, the queen can't step in and take over, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't have power and responsibility.
Does she have enough though
Even if she does, any move she makes is a potential disaster
It's going to be a disaster if she doesn't make a move. So does the risk of a potential disaster outweigh the risk and an actual one?
There's no actual disaster yet though - no one knows what's going to happen and that's the problem - I was trying to point that out but my previous comment was poor.
Well, there is a disaster. England's place in the world has already changed. People aren't all admitting it yet and maybe some day England will recover, but that's just silly to think.
As a realist: the disaster is already here and things are bad.
As a futurist: there is no reasonable way that a massive disaster isn't already in motion
-
@Breffni-Potter said in So we are leaving..............:
@scottalanmiller said in So we are leaving..............:
@Breffni-Potter said in So we are leaving..............:
Both sides of this took ques from Trumps playbook on politics, remain and leave. Both were terrible.
Only one of them was towing the Trump line, though. In the end, one was aligned with Trump's interest and one was against.
I disagree.
The message was different, the tactics were a mirror image of each other. It was a disgusting debate to watch.
I'm not talking about the message. I'm talking about the results. One of them did what Trump wanted, one just used his tactics and sounded like him but was fighting for what Trump didn't want. In the end, the British public followed Trump. Whether they did so because Trump was a strong influence (as how it looks from across the pond) or they just did so coincidentally we can't know. But Trump was totally and vocally on one side of this and opposed to the other and Trump won. Only one of the two sides could be "with Trump" because Trump only agreed with one side.
-
Being an "American" (take that in every way you possible can) I just don't really see the big deal.
To me, trades will change for that part of the world, commerce will certainly change as well. Population movements will likely change as well.
But how does this effect me?
I'm just not seeing why I should care. Besides being something to talk about.
-
@DustinB3403 said in So we are leaving..............:
Being an "American" (take that in every way you possible can) I just don't really see the big deal.
To me, trades will change for that part of the world, commerce will certainly change as well. Population movements will likely change as well.
But how does this effect me?
I'm just not seeing why I should care. Besides being something to talk about.
I'd like Canada to get a couple new provinces but that's just my $0.02
edit: call it the United Kingdom, use the UK parliament structure, split the UK into provinces as appropriate and call it a job well done.
