You are making stuff up. Stop making stuff up.Dreiko said:When you have the horribly bad for the UK but great for the EU deal that May presented be refused by the EU,
edit: oh, I see I am a little late to this party. Never mind me.
You are making stuff up. Stop making stuff up.Dreiko said:When you have the horribly bad for the UK but great for the EU deal that May presented be refused by the EU,
generals3 said:How was it horrible?Dreiko said:When you have the horribly bad for the UK but great for the EU deal that May presented be refused by the EU, you have a situation where the EU is using this element to keep the UK in limbo, unable to leave through their refusal to agreeing with any sort of deal whatsoever.
And how did the EU refuse a deal they negociated and approved with May? You're confusing the EU with the UK parliament.
I don't understand how Johnson's deal was so much better than May's. The main difference is pretty much letting NI stay in the EU if they want and likely assuring the Union dissolving. There were so many years of anguish and THAT was the solution.This is the kind of trick they do to get you to give up leaving altogether because of this factor.
You say that as if it was a pattern but this is the first time a member state is trying to leave.
Let's not forget that Johnson is glib twat who says whatever he feels like at the time with no intention of necessarily honouring it.Silvanus said:Let's not forget that Johnson stated that "no British Prime Minister" could accept a border in the Irish Sea.
I mean maybe he's just openly admitting that there won't be a "British" Prime Minister for much longer? If Scotland and Northern Ireland leave, the position would pretty much just be "English" Prime Minister.Silvanus said:Right. And does it not bode poorly for the process that Northern Ireland doesn't?Satinavian said:Republic of Ireland. You know, people who actually have a say in the negotiation.
Let's not forget that Johnson stated that "no British Prime Minister" could accept a border in the Irish Sea.
Scotland is gone. It's just a matter of time. Another five years of the hated Tories and Brexit are a final slap in the face the Scots aren't going to let go. Sturgeon will submit an independence referendum request in the next year or two and Boris can either grant it and lose, or refuse it and just make the Scots even more hostile, because no-one likes their self-determination being denied (Brexit surely has taught us that much), virtually guaranteeing exit later.Avnger said:I mean maybe he's just openly admitting that there won't be a "British" Prime Minister for much longer? If Scotland and Northern Ireland leave, the position would pretty much just be "English" Prime Minister.
Well, there's still Wales, and it's the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" so he can lost NI and still be the British PM.Avnger said:I mean maybe he's just openly admitting that there won't be a "British" Prime Minister for much longer? If Scotland and Northern Ireland leave, the position would pretty much just be "English" Prime Minister.Silvanus said:Right. And does it not bode poorly for the process that Northern Ireland doesn't?Satinavian said:Republic of Ireland. You know, people who actually have a say in the negotiation.
Let's not forget that Johnson stated that "no British Prime Minister" could accept a border in the Irish Sea.
Scotland will claim independence. NI would initially hold a referendum for independence, and then follow up with a request to be incorporated into Ireland. Wales will probably stick with England whatever.Thaluikhain said:Out of interest, if bits break off the UK, will they all go independent, or could some of them get together and form a new country of "Not England"?
He does occasionally have interesting thingns to say, sad that he's such a colossally arrogant, pompous, self-absorbed twat.Seanchaidh said:This guy's perspective was interesting to hear: https://youtu.be/KOmJyzRNZIY
And he does a terrible impression of a cat.Agema said:He does occasionally have interesting thingns to say, sad that he's such a colossally arrogant, pompous, self-absorbed twat.
After the recent Cats film, can we really, honestly, truly say that anyone else's cat impression is terrible?Baffle2 said:And he does a terrible impression of a cat.Agema said:He does occasionally have interesting thingns to say, sad that he's such a colossally arrogant, pompous, self-absorbed twat.
In this particular case, yes.CM156 said:After the recent Cats film, can we really, honestly, truly say that anyone else's cat impression is terrible?
It's close, I'll admit. But I still think the film is worse.Baffle2 said:In this particular case, yes.CM156 said:After the recent Cats film, can we really, honestly, truly say that anyone else's cat impression is terrible?
I mean, at least we can thank CATS for one thing. We all agree that it looks awful.CM156 said:After the recent Cats film, can we really, honestly, truly say that anyone else's cat impression is terrible?Baffle2 said:And he does a terrible impression of a cat.Agema said:He does occasionally have interesting thingns to say, sad that he's such a colossally arrogant, pompous, self-absorbed twat.
It was shit even just as a musical. Okay, I'm biased, because I absolutely fucking hate musicals as a rule even before we get down to any individual ones, but after that Andrew Lloyd Webber writes sickly sentimental junk at the best of times.Dalisclock said:I mean, at least we can thank CATS for one thing. We all agree that it looks awful.
True unity.Dalisclock said:I mean, at least we can thank CATS for one thing. We all agree that it looks awful.
I agree that it's a bad musical. Personally, I'm rather fond of musicals. If you don't mind me asking, how many have you seen?Agema said:It was shit even just as a musical. Okay, I'm biased, because I absolutely fucking hate musicals as a rule even before we get down to any individual ones, but after that Andrew Lloyd Webber writes sickly sentimental junk at the best of times.Dalisclock said:I mean, at least we can thank CATS for one thing. We all agree that it looks awful.
I like musicals and I'm okay with ALWs stuff in general, but CATS was awful when I saw it as a video recording of the stage play. I'll even admit to like some bad musicals, such as the film version of TOMMY.Agema said:It was shit even just as a musical. Okay, I'm biased, because I absolutely fucking hate musicals as a rule even before we get down to any individual ones, but after that Andrew Lloyd Webber writes sickly sentimental junk at the best of times.Dalisclock said:I mean, at least we can thank CATS for one thing. We all agree that it looks awful.
In the theatre? None, because I disliked musicals as movies, of which I saw numerous as a child before I eventually learnt my lesson gave up on them. I have since enjoyed a couple, like Team America: World Police, but they're not exactly musicals as you'd classically imagine them. I don't much like opera either, although I've been to a few productions by my city's opera company which has a very stylised way of presenting them and as a spectacle, those performances have been quite enjoyable. I like some opera songs, as songs - although classical music isn't really my thing.CM156 said:I agree that it's a bad musical. Personally, I'm rather fond of musicals. If you don't mind me asking, how many have you seen?