Posted on 04/13/2019 5:26:05 AM PDT by SkyPilot
LONDON (AP) — Elly Wright can’t sleep through the night.
The Dutch native, who has lived in Britain for 51 years, keeps thinking about the black boots of Nazi soldiers marching by her basement window as they brought Jews to a nearby camp in her homeland. The flashbacks have been triggered by Britain’s heated debate over leaving the European Union, which has brought division, strife and fear of foreigners. The 77-year-old painter says it has shattered her sense of belonging.
″(Britain) is my home,” Wright said quietly. “That is being taken away from me.”
Wright isn’t alone in her angst. The acrimony over Brexit, which has reached fever pitch as deadlines come and go while politicians squabble, is affecting the mental wellbeing of people from Belfast to Brighton.
Job uncertainty. Visa worries. Confrontational conversations between family members or friends with opposing views on Brexit. The fatigue and stress caused by three years of conflict has spawned new terms: Brexhaustion or Strexit.
“It’s a civil war,” said Cary Cooper, a professor of organizational psychology at Manchester Business School. “What the country is going through is not a war with Europe. It’s not us against them. It’s internal.”
Just when some thought a conclusion could be drawn, Britain’s departure was delayed by six months at an emergency EU summit this week. Whether in favor of exit or hoping to stay, the long argument just got longer, and, for many more stressful.
Some have taken note of the trend. Online meditation provider Headspace has added bespoke meditations to help people manage Brexit stress, addressing issues such as having difficult conversations and what to do when you feel overwhelmed.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
I’ve watched his show daily for quite a while. His position evolved on this and he agreed with callers who said there should be no 2nd referendum until the first one was implemented and that the only acceptable 2nd referendum right now should be over what form Brexit will take.
If it wasn’t for Scotland, the UK would have left on no-deal terms now. It is largely thanks to remoaner jock MPs that we are stuck in this limbo instead of making the clean break we need. This ‘keeping another nation in/out of the EU against its will’ works both ways.
that seems defensible... yes?
Downing Street under pressure to close down Labour talks on Brexit
rowena mason
april 15 2019
the guardian (uk)
i still am not understanding if and when the UK would be “required” to hold MEP elections...
eg, what could happen, at least in theory, if the UK simply “forgot” to hold MEP elections?
EU’s Tusk says ‘dream’ of Brexit U-turn not dead
APRIL 16, 2019 / 12:47 AM / UPDATED 4 HOURS AGO
Reuters
Don’t bet against the Brexit party winning the EU elections
Chris Curtis
April 16, 2019
The Guardian (UK)
Well, Scotland is an equal nation in the union. True enough about Scottish MPs — the thing is that the nation of Scotland voted 63% to stay in the EU.
England-Wales would be better off giving the Scots independence to stay in the EU, letting the Northern Irish go into a customs union or unification with the Republic of Ireland and England-Wales going it alone outside the EU
Yes, that’s now. Before, he was saying exactly what the die-hard Bremainers were saying “If leave loses 52:48 I will keep demanding a second referendum”
He’s not “evolving” - he’s denying his opponents the same tactic he promised if he lost by the same margin.
A 2nd referendum on the type of Brexit would make sense IF the options are clearly posted out:
1. No deal Brexit - the UK trades with the EU on WTO terms, has a hard border in Ireland (As demanded by the WTO rules and per leavers view)
2. The UK has the Norway/Switzerland-type post-Brexit relationship (Theresa May’s deal) with the entire UK in a customs union with the EU, paying into the EU dues, following EU rules and no decision making powers
3. Only NI goes into a customs union with the EU, the rest of the UK goes into option 1 - WTO rules trading with the EU.This means a border in the Irish sea
4. Cancel Article 50 - no Brexit.
It needs to be put explicitly what are the options
AND the rules for “winning” need to be made explicit - is it the option with >50% of the votes win or the one with the simple majority? Either way, option 4 would win - to cancel Brexit.
So then perhaps a two step question
Q1. Continue with Brexit? Yes/ No
Answer below only if you choose Yes
Q2. What type of Brexit do you choose?
1. No deal Brexit - the UK trades with the EU on WTO terms, has a hard border in Ireland (As demanded by the WTO rules and per leavers view)
2. The UK has the Norway/Switzerland-type post-Brexit relationship (Theresa May’s deal) with the entire UK in a customs union with the EU, paying into the EU dues, following EU rules and no decision making powers
3. Only NI goes into a customs union with the EU, the rest of the UK goes into option 1 - WTO rules trading with the EU.This means a border in the Irish sea
And here again - is it simple majority? or what?
A referendum needs to be explicitly detailed on such a complex matter - it’s not a simple “leave/remain” and never was - its “what type of leave or remain”
The UK is obliged, as part of the agreements and promises it signed, to hold EU parliamentary elections if it is an EU member. If it does not hold the elections then the situation is similar as if California “forgot” to hold Congress elections.
Come on, you guys are saying the UK should renege on its agreements to Ireland, the US etc in the Good Friday agreement (where it swore to keep the Ireland border open) and now asking it to renege on its sworn promises to hold elections as a member?
Do you want to make the UK a country that does not live up to its promises? That has no honour? That’s just wrong and hopefully the English even in these Theresa-May times - haven’t fallen so far
note - the EU parliamentary elections are proportional representation, not first past the post.
This means that any party that gets more than 5% of the vote will get a seat in the EU parliament.
In 2015 the UKIP got 10 out of 73 seats - hardly “winning” by American terms but definitely a win by EU parliament terms
They have about 15% of the country’s vote. What is interesting is that they had only 1 MP in the UK parliament, which follows the FPTP system - so if the EU parliament had FPTP then there would have been no UKIP.
Anyway, to this point - Farage would get his seat in the EU parliament along with probably 2 to 4 others from his party
Britain is a unitary state, not a federal union. 1 man, 1 vote as citizens of the United Kingdom. Britain voted to leave. If the arguments for staying in the EU are based on trade and a single market, Scottish independence is nonsensical, as Scotland does over 60% of its ‘external’ trade with the rUK. The entire economic basis of Scottish independence was based on the assumption that the rUK would stay within the single market and customs union. Once we GTFO of that, the case for Scottish independence has collapsed. :D
you are correct, Britain is a unitary state where the Scots have far less ability to influence matters of importance to them, in the British union than Ireland has in the European Union.
And you are also correct that right now there is no economic basis for Scotland leaving the UK and into the EU. I don’t think this means that the “case” for Scottish independence has collapsed, any more than the removal of proof for England economics outside the EU has made leave support collapse. But the economic case is not there, yes
Scots have just as much influence as the English. Their vote doesn’t count for less than mine. I can respect the principle of Scottish independence if it is about, y’know, independence and national sovereignty. Believing in it on the basis of becoming an EU province makes no sense economically or in principle. Scotland’s economy is inextricably bound to the rest of Great Britain, far more so than the importance of the EU to the UK’s economy. Pro-EU Scottish ‘nationalists’ are a queer lot and their position can only be based on crude anglophobia rather than on any principle or practical considerations.
Q1 - stay or leave- is redundant with the 2016 referendum, and therefore moot under the principle of stare decisis.
The only question remaining is how to leave. Re asking the question invites accusations of insincerity in the first effort and in any following efforts. This imho is fairly transparent to any dispassionate observer.
I sense that it is politically difficult to the deep state to ask the other questions because it implies accepting that the first question is settled (which it is by any ordinary sense of th word). So a second referendum probably wont happen either.
This leaves as an option a festering political sore of indeterminate length, which again undermines deep state political manipulation. Alternatively, there is always the wag the dog gambit...
stare decisis isn’t relevant in this case as that is talking about legal precedence. This is talking about a clarifying referendum.
and the clarifying referendum is what do people want from Brexit. People are allowed to change their minds either way and “what do you want from Brexit” also has a potential answer “i don’t want brexit”
It’s been 3 years, people are entitled to change their opinions.
“Re asking the question invites accusations of insincerity in the first effort and in any following efforts.” — not really. If I ask you three years ago - do you want to join in this football club and you said YES but three years later that hasn’t been inforced you change your mind, should I say “tough luck, you already made up your mind three years ago, you go in”?
No, this is acknowledging that
1. three years have passed
2. the first referendum was vague
3. the new one will ask the same question BUT with more follow-on questions.
Remember that one of the options put up in the parliamentary discussions was revoking Article 50. So it is a valid option
I for one think that LEAVE will still win, probably by the same narrow level, but it will win.
Hardly "far more" - the EU accounts for 54% of the UK's trade and the rUK accounts for 64% of Scotland's trade.
Both over the 50% mark.
An economic argument for or against Brexit is the same as one for or against Scoxit :)
I am not referencing legal precedent.
I am refering to an overarching principle.
The overarching principle happens to be adopted as a rationale which formed the basis for legal precedent.
Go to fundamental principle and do not let yourself be troubled by legal bafflegab.
If i ask you do you want a or b and you say a, is it fair to you to wait 36 months and then use the wait as an excuse to say it has been a long time and my original question was not well worded and i want to ask you again along with other more detailed questions? Then what prevents me crom coming back to you in 360 months and asking you again? 720 months?
What game are you playing with your suggestion?
Brexit is decided. I suggest we Consider honoring the decision that is already made. There is no way back that does not involve a fundamental shift in how the brits view their government and vice versa- only parlor tricks to deceive the weak minded in hopes that others will give in without some form of revolt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.