snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 07 April 2017, 01:13 PM
dfresh dfresh is offline
 
Join Date: 11 November 2005
Location: Oxford, PA
Posts: 3,653
Florida

I would think Scotland becoming a part of Canada would make sense, in that they have a similar culture, and the economics would work. Too bad it will never happen.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 07 April 2017, 04:03 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 7,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Enrico View Post
Reasonably sized Britain?
-- and a hard boiled egg?
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 17 April 2017, 05:17 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 24,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
And are we so united?
That was what I was getting at really. The official name would still no doubt be "The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" or something similar (You could argue for leaving out Wales, since it was a principality of the Kingdom of England before the union with Scotland, and nobody bothered to mention it in the official name of the country back then). But we'd be even less "united" in that situation than now.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 18 April 2017, 10:23 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 24,946
Default

... And now we've got the general election that we should have had when Cameron resigned, declared after Article 50 was invoked so that it's too late for any party to campaign on that.

I guess that makes Theresa May's strategy clear, though - like everybody else involved, it was "screw things up, then run away and blame others for the outcome".

(eta) Although the chances are, the Conservatives will be re-elected, so she'll then cunningly be able to claim a mandate that she didn't have before. Doing this after invoking Article 50 is so clearly self-serving, though...
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 18 April 2017, 02:15 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,259
United Kingdom British Prime Minister Theresa May Calls for Snap Election

British Prime Minister Theresa May stunned her country Tuesday by calling for a snap general election to be held in less than two months' time.

Her announcement caps a bruising year for the United Kingdom, coming only 10 months after the country's "Brexit" vote to leave the European Union that ushered in May's own leadership.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/br...ection-n747681
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 18 April 2017, 03:20 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 10,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
... And now we've got the general election that we should have had when Cameron resigned, declared after Article 50 was invoked so that it's too late for any party to campaign on that.

I guess that makes Theresa May's strategy clear, though - like everybody else involved, it was "screw things up, then run away and blame others for the outcome".

(eta) Although the chances are, the Conservatives will be re-elected, so she'll then cunningly be able to claim a mandate that she didn't have before. Doing this after invoking Article 50 is so clearly self-serving, though...
I don't have the slightest clue regarding British government, so I don't know what Article 50 is, but if she goes down, would her replacement be able to reverse things?
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 18 April 2017, 04:54 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 24,946
Default

It's an open question as to whether Article 50 (which is the official notice from the UK of the decision to quit the European Union) can be reversed.

Ostensibly it's a final and binding decision and the wording of the article says that, now it's been invoked, we'll be out of the EU in two years no matter whether any other agreement is reached, or what happens. But more recently people have been arguing that of course it can be reversed and we can refuse to leave the EU if we don't get the "deal we want" during those two years.

That still seems nonsensical to me - the people arguing that mostly seemed to be people who wanted to leave, and who were trying to make it seem a less binding step than it was. And more to the point, now that it's been invoked, the idea that the UK can meaningfully vote as to whether we accept any given conditions before agreeing to leave is just wrong, and I don't understand why people keep pushing it. We have no ground to stand on for arguing that at all - everything we were told a few months or a year ago seems to contradict what some MPs are now arguing. I'm even losing track of who (on which side originally) is arguing what, as it still seems to me that we've thrown away most of whatever strength we had in our position for argument...

So the short answer (as far as I understand it) is no, it's not reversible. If she'd announced a general election three weeks ago and said that whoever was elected could then make the decision as to whether to invoke article 50, that might have been a good question, but with this timing I don't think it's relevant.

The discussions will be over whether the parties support "hard" or "soft" Brexit. Theresa May has gone from apparently being on the Remain side to going for the hardest and most abrupt Leave possible - not even trying to stay in the single market or customs union. And it's a bit of a moot point as to whether anybody can successfully negotiate staying in those things while leaving the EU - no British politician can promise it, because it's not up to us. I've seen comment (in the link I'll add below) that says that, since we started at the "hard" end for negotiations, the reality will inevitably be softer, but that makes no sense to me either, since the "hard" end is the default worst-case scenario, and assuming that because we started at an extreme, it will inevitably become less extreme during negotiation is a bit like assuming that, if you're trying to sell something and start negotiating at the lowest price you can accept, the buyer will necessarily have to argue for a higher price. In other words, it seems so obviously silly to me that I don't see how anybody can argue that.

There is so much nonsense going around at the moment that I sometimes doubt my own sanity when trying to understand this stuff. Anyway, here are some of the comments I was talking about:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...on-theresa-may

Most seem to agree that it's a cunning tactical move from Theresa May for her own benefit and that of the Conservative party, rather than for the country. (Because the opposition is so weak and divided at the moment that it seems likely they'll come out better than before, simply through the lack of any other perceived choice). Even the person who argues that it's good for Labour is doing so cynically because he thinks it means they'll lose resoundingly and have to kick out Corbyn for a "better" leader.

Last edited by Richard W; 18 April 2017 at 05:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 19 April 2017, 08:29 AM
Andrew of Ware's Avatar
Andrew of Ware Andrew of Ware is offline
 
Join Date: 22 April 2003
Location: Ware, Hertfordshire, England
Posts: 8,010
Default

There was a BBC article after Article 50 had been invoked which said that it can be reversed, or the revoking could itself be revoked. I think it said something on the lines that all of the remaining EU states have a veto on the final deal that the UK gets (or doesn't get). In that case the UK can either leave the EU with no deal - and will probably have to pay billions of pounds as compensation to the EU.

I can't find the article - it may have been in one of their Reality Check pages and so only the general topic in that check is shown on search engines. However, there is this article from The New Statesmen that suggests the revoking can be reversed. The New Statesman is rather left-wing, but has a reputation for accurate reporting.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...ossible-cancel

Quote:
Sir David Edward, a former European Court of Justice judge, Sir Francis Jacobs, the ECJ’s former Advocate General, and the EU lawyer Sir Jeremy Lever believe that the EU can’t force Britain to leave.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 19 April 2017, 11:22 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 24,946
Default

It's still a sign of how bizarre the politics have got when some former Leave campaigners are arguing that it's all OK because the EU can't force us to leave, even though we've been going on about it for years and have formally stated our intention to do so and started the process that's supposed to guarantee we'll be out in two years... It would surely have to involve agreement from all the other countries at least? "Ha ha, those crazy Brits and their jokes. Monty Python! Fawlty Towers! Famous British sense of humour! Oh alright, you can stay... and here, have some more special treatment bonuses to show how lucky we are to have you..."
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 19 April 2017, 07:18 PM
Andrew of Ware's Avatar
Andrew of Ware Andrew of Ware is offline
 
Join Date: 22 April 2003
Location: Ware, Hertfordshire, England
Posts: 8,010
Ponder

I'm wondering if Theresa May knows that the negotiations will be rocky - and that an extension to the two years may well be needed (I think this can happen if all countries agree). This would mean the negotiations would get mixed up with the 2020 election campaign. If the negotiations go badly then the Conservatives may well cop it at the elections. Even if the negotiations are completed by 2019 then a lot of people who voted 'Leave' will be unhappy (there were several main reasons why people voted 'Leave' and not all will be satisfied). This may well lead to the Conservatives getting the blame and suffering at the poles.

However, with an election now then May will have five years to negotiate a deal and let the dust settle before facing the electorate again. By then Scotland may well have left the UK and so the Conservatives will then have an in-built majority and can rule for ever and ever. Amen.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 19 April 2017, 11:57 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 24,946
Default

I certainly think that's the reasoning... whether it becomes the reality or not remains to be seen.

Gosh, it must be lovely to live in a stable country whose future isn't so completely precarious, such as the USA under Donald Trump.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 20 April 2017, 12:59 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 22,704
Royalty

Or to live in a country where the head of state could change any day... uh LLtQ
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 20 April 2017, 02:05 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 24,946
Icon24

SHV, LtROu indeed.

The other annoying thing about our immediate political situation is that the Conservatives put the bloody fixed-term parliament law into place in the first place, which was supposed to prevent incumbent governments calling general elections at strategic moments when they thought they'd do well. But no, Theresa May can now call for a general election after only two years (of her government, rather than she herself) in office, and can assume it will happen. The election suggestion does have to be approved by Parliament, but it seems unlikely that Parliament will reject the idea.

I suppose there's nothing wrong here in the letter of the law, but it does seem rather against the spirit. Especially given that the letter of the law was used to oppose the idea of a general election when Cameron resigned after the referendum, which would have been a far more obvious point at which to have one.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 20 April 2017, 05:53 PM
Alarm's Avatar
Alarm Alarm is offline
 
Join Date: 26 May 2011
Location: Nepean, ON
Posts: 5,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware View Post
I'm wondering if Theresa May knows that the negotiations will be rocky - and that an extension to the two years may well be needed (I think this can happen if all countries agree). This would mean the negotiations would get mixed up with the 2020 election campaign. If the negotiations go badly then the Conservatives may well cop it at the elections. Even if the negotiations are completed by 2019 then a lot of people who voted 'Leave' will be unhappy (there were several main reasons why people voted 'Leave' and not all will be satisfied). This may well lead to the Conservatives getting the blame and suffering at the poles.

However, with an election now then May will have five years to negotiate a deal and let the dust settle before facing the electorate again. By then Scotland may well have left the UK and so the Conservatives will then have an in-built majority and can rule for ever and ever. Amen.
Suffering at the Poles is probably why some people voted to Leave...

Sorry, I couldn't help it!
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 21 April 2017, 10:44 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 24,946
Default

Here we are - apparently it's official that the EU would let us easily reverse article 50:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rs-veto-brexit

Quote:
The president of the European parliament has said Britain would be welcomed back with open arms if voters changed their minds about Brexit on 8 June, challenging Theresa May’s claim that “there is no turning back” after article 50.

Speaking after a meeting with the prime minister in Downing Street, Antonio Tajani insisted that her triggering of the departure process last month could be reversed easily by the remaining EU members if there was a change of UK government after the general election, and that it would not even require a court case.
That makes the election a lot more interesting, anyway...
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 21 April 2017, 12:36 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 8,433
Baseball

Well, Richard...

Last time we talked, Brexit vote was on the horizon and we (and the other Richard) talked Brexit intently for a bit. Now, on my next trip to your wonderful city (should be in October, BTW), we can talk about the Brexit folly!
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 21 April 2017, 02:11 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 23,888
Default

When I was last in the UK, the contentious discussion was whether the foam counted as part of a legal pour of beer. You could talk about that.

PS. IMO, it doesn't.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 21 April 2017, 04:30 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 8,433
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
When I was last in the UK, the contentious discussion was whether the foam counted as part of a legal pour of beer. You could talk about that.
I believe we've had plenty of conversations over the quality of pints of ale and lager.

Foam? Maybe not. I'll put it on the agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 22 April 2017, 02:38 AM
queen of the caramels's Avatar
queen of the caramels queen of the caramels is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Quebec
Posts: 4,484
United Kingdom

Think I might look into getting an ex-pat vote...
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 22 April 2017, 11:14 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 24,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
Foam? Maybe not. I'll put it on the agenda.
Indeed, but as a heads-up summary on that topic, I'm with GenYus. It would be good to see you in October, assuming the country / planet still exists!

qotc, I'm not sure on the rules for ex-pat votes but for the referendum itself it was fairly hard to get one. My brother couldn't, for example, despite living in another EU country and therefore being more affected by it than others, because he'd not lived the required length of time in the UK in the previous 15 years and so didn't have any paperwork from official addresses he could use and so on. (My sister also lives in another EU country - she wouldn't have had trouble qualifying for the vote but might have been too busy with a new baby to do so, I'm not sure). I think you've lived in Canada quite a while, is that right?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google spike shows confused Brits searching for Brexit answers TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 53 30 June 2016 10:49 PM
Donald Trump’s first tweet about Brexit got shut down immediately TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 20 26 June 2016 02:59 PM
Pet cat posted from Cornwall to West Sussex Andrew of Ware Wild Kingdom 0 27 March 2016 08:51 PM
Cornwall Great White Shark photo 'a hoax' snopes Fauxtography 1 08 August 2007 07:51 PM
Nigerian pleads guilty to Internet scam snopes Crime 0 25 December 2006 08:06 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.