So It Seems That Brexit Has Become a Category 5 Shitstorm

[Munch]

Never claimed it was impartial.
Though: You're not seriously insinuating your or pr's videos are impartial, are you Munch. But that's fine, you are allowed to be partial. But i dislike video's that don't allow people to finish their train or thought or where it is just one tangent by one person or has a commentator intercutting every other sentence of someone's video. On either Side of THE argument. I stopped watching that thunderfoot, THE young Turks, buzzfeed, teal deer crap years ago. At least this conversation was a real one between real people. And i think it showcased 'european' mindset and THE 'brittish' mindset quite wel.

okay, thats fair, it was a debate between two people and its true computing forever is just his own bias opinions, much like buzzfeed and the young turks. I still have my own objection though on what she was saying being someone from the uk and having that stance, so I have well enough reason to look at whats being said with scrutiny.

To me, THE reporter seemed like a stumbling buffoon who had no idea how international agreements larger than THE EU and border-agreements work. To you, THE german lady probably seemed most unreasonable. But THE uk didn't really provide any solutions, not acceptable ones that would also be acceptable to THE market we must protect to protect ourselves.
Let's say for a second we accept making trade between ireland and north-ireland; few would have a financial and juridicial disaster on our hands. And so would you, by THE way.

As I say, proposals have been put forward, you wouldn't expect leaders to break deals without trying to negotiate. However is the ones your trying to negotiate with just aren't prepared to break even what more can you do.

So what solutions are there? Hard Brexit? Well, yes, we guess. You could do that. It would not be good for us. Nor for you as you would fall under WTO trade rules, without any deals in place. So it is suggested, not forced, to elongate THE time to find a solution that works out for everyone. And if you don't agree withthat; fine but than there are consequences to that too.
that's what bothers me THE most in all this, you know? From across THE water, i get THE distinctie impression THE british Side doesn't realize that, as they wanted and always could, THEy have THE freedom and capaciteit to choose. (You know, like THE sovereign nation they always were.) but that does mean that they are free from THE consequences of those choices.

Seems to me fearmongering used by eu collectivism. Thats the main issue and why many people voted for leave, because having a political body dictating their rules you have to conform to without any system of democratic election is borderline totalitarian. At least with america, your governance is mandated by democratically elected system of power. Having the EU breathing down everyones necks is one of the many reasons people wanted out, and why Hungary built a wall around its borders.

Anyway, your nation has spent two years fighting amongst itself and has failed to present anything concrete regarding an actual deal that could be acceptable to your  current 'biggest customer'. (And yes, THE main responsabilityfor presenting qomething concrete and acceptable lies with THE UK as you are THE ones insistent on leaving THE EU and THE single market,)  two years for not making an acceptable deal with one single market and copying THE schedules which can't possibly be accepted by THE WTO nations as you are then no longer a 600 million people market. Two years to not close 'THE world's easist deal' and schedules that are set to be opposed by three nations already and probably more tofollow. Good luck on your deals with THE other 120odd markets.

again, your siding on the eu's beliefs the uk wasn't trying to make said deals. Its just that the eu didn't like it or even meet halfway.

[SGOS]

hey look I watched the video. Guess thats one up on the rest to afraid to have their social and political think-tank challenged. ^^

I watched it.  I just didn't comment.  I don't care if Britain exits or not.  I just wanted to understand it better.  I maybe understand it a little better, but I had a hard time with the accents, and perhaps some critical things went right by me.  I'm not sure why Britain needs to come up with a plan to satisfy the EU, and I'm not sure why the EU is asking for a plan.  This sounds like it's not a real exit.  There are still strings attached and it sounds like the EU wants some kind of concession.  And I'm wondering if Britain wants to exit, but still hold on to some of the perks of EU membership.  Is this a power struggle, just for the fun of the struggle? 

I'm just trying to fill in blanks, which is my usual reaction when I can't make sense out of something.  Is the Parliament holding back just to try and monkey wrench what ever the PM is trying to do?  That's the way we do it in the US.  Did the PM want to give away part of Britain's sovereignty to cut the cord?   It seems like an exit simply cuts all the strings, and each goes it's own way, but it doesn't sound like that is what is happening.

In addition to this video, I watched another that was part of a bunch that shows related videos at the end.  It sounds like an exit would hurt the British auto industry because of trade wars that would drive up costs through tariffs and transportation costs.  But in trade wars when one industry is hurt, another usually benefits.  I don't care what you guys do. I would hope you don't make the same mistakes the US does, and I'm sorry you are so internally divided.  Rancor doesn't benefit factions of a nation.

[Minimalist]

Bait and Switch is a classic marketing ploy.  The Brexiteers marketed one thing and delivered a large bag of shit.

[Munch]

Bait and Switch is a classic marketing ploy.  The Brexiteers marketed one thing and delivered a large bag of shit.

you think the remainers didn't do the same in their lead up?

[trdsf]

you think the remainers didn't do the same in their lead up?

Vote Leave broke the law.  I haven't even seen even an allegation of electoral misbehavior against Remain, much less an actual finding of lawbreaking.

The fact remains that the Brexit on offer is not the Brexit that Vote Leave promised during the referendum.  There never was any truth to the claim of Brexit saving £350m a week for the NHS; Vote Leave disowned that idea right after the referendum; even Nigel Farage said making that claim was a mistake, but funny how he didn't say it until after the campaign was over.

The UK deserves a vote on the real Brexit, not on the now-disowned promises.

[trdsf]

I find it highly suspect a lot of you can call yourselves democrats, when you don't believe in democracy, as in the people getting what they vote for.

That's exactly the point.  They are not getting what they voted for.  The Vote Leave campaign both lied, and broke the law.  If you're so sure Brexit is a good idea, why do you fear putting the deal up for ratification by the public?  That is anti-democratic.  Go ahead and vote to leave again -- if you can sell Brexit without Vote Leave's dishonesty and lawbreaking, that is.

[Minimalist]

you think the remainers didn't do the same in their lead up?

The remainers had a track record. 

[Baruch]

The remainers had a track record.

They suck Merkel's cock.

[Minimalist]

Perhaps Britain should have been happy with that.

[Cavebear]

Hold on to your butts, Britain.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46617152

It is possible that Britain will reverse the Brexit.  I can only hope.  A solid Europe might be the best prevention of future wars.  And the best friends the US will have...

[SGOS]

Never claimed it was impartial.
i dislike video's that don't allow people to finish their train or thought or where it is just one tangent by one person or has a commentator intercutting every other sentence of someone's video...

Yes, the anchor was just being rude, playing to British nationalism.  Many commentators over here have built careers on that sort of thing.  And many quasi TV news programs gain their popularity by showcasing conflict by having two people talking loudly at the same time.

And i think it showcased 'european' mindset and THE 'brittish' mindset quite wel.

Well, yes and no.  If the mindset is primarily, "We hate each other," then the video accomplished that, but I already knew that both nations have developed a high degree of animosity over the issue.  But I was interested in the cause of the animosity, which flew right by when two different accents were outshouting each other.  All I heard was noise, rather than dialog.  That there is discord, I get.  Why there is a problem, I still don't understand.  I have the same problem with American television where the moderator is instructed not to enforce legitimate debate, but to allow chaotic discord to be the main theme of the program.

What I ended up with was an opinion that is actually quite irrelevant and doesn't provide me with useful information.  I formed an opinion based on stage presence and decorum.  That clearly makes me want to side with Germany, based strictly on that woman's representation of her country as thoughtful and fair minded, while the anchor was playing the role of the overbearing bully on behalf of his country.

If I am going to admit to partiality, I am predisposed to side with Britain, because I believe in national sovereignty, which is odd, because I don't know where that bias even comes from.  Why should a country not have the power to solve it's own problems and conduct it's own affairs according to its own judgment?  I dunno.  Should we have allowed Hitler to conduct his own affairs?  I guess it's conditional depending on the situation.  But my knee jerk reaction is to support sovereignty until I have reason to believe a country doesn't deserve it.

[Cavebear]

Yes, the anchor was just being rude, playing to British nationalism.  Many commentators over here have built careers on that sort of thing.  And many quasi TV news programs gain their popularity by showcasing conflict by having two people talking loudly at the same time.
Well, yes and no.  If the mindset is primarily, "We hate each other," then the video accomplished that, but I already knew that both nations have developed a high degree of animosity over the issue.  But I was interested in the cause of the animosity, which flew right by when two different accents were outshouting each other.  All I heard was noise, rather than dialog.  That there is discord, I get.  Why there is a problem, I still don't understand.  I have the same problem with American television where the moderator is instructed not to enforce legitimate debate, but to allow chaotic discord to be the main theme of the program.

What I ended up with was an opinion that is actually quite irrelevant and doesn't provide me with useful information.  I formed an opinion based on stage presence and decorum.  That clearly makes me want to side with Germany, based strictly on that woman's representation of her country as thoughtful and fair minded, while the anchor was playing the role of the overbearing bully on behalf of his country.

If I am going to admit to partiality, I am predisposed to side with Britain, because I believe in national sovereignty, which is odd, because I don't know where that bias even comes from.  Why should a country not have the power to solve it's own problems and conduct it's own affairs according to its own judgment?  I dunno.  Should we have allowed Hitler to conduct his own affairs?  I guess it's conditional depending on the situation.  But my knee jerk reaction is to support sovereignty until I have reason to believe a country doesn't deserve it.

What if you viewed EU nations like US States and allowed then time to meld?  Sure you might not be Brit or French or Italian.  But there was a time here when people thought of themselves as Virginian or Massachussetian.  And it seems to have worked out well. 

We went from "These United States" to "The United States".  Really made a difference. 

[Mr.Obvious]

If I am going to admit to partiality, I am predisposed to side with Britain, because I believe in national sovereignty, which is odd, because I don't know where that bias even comes from.  Why should a country not have the power to solve it's own problems and conduct it's own affairs according to its own judgment?  I dunno.  Should we have allowed Hitler to conduct his own affairs?  I guess it's conditional depending on the situation.  But my knee jerk reaction is to support sovereignty until I have reason to believe a country doesn't deserve it.

But it has remained sovereign. Even Brexiters admit as much. All they said is that it didn't 'feel' like it was sovereign.

“The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that.”
That's taken from the Brexit white paper. Now I'll readily admit to not having read the entire thing. So I hope I'm not quoting it out of context, but still. Perhaps it's a bit of an unfortunate phrasing, and I do understand the underlying  sentiment. They don't want to be told what to do. So they want to employ their sovereignity, which was never in doubt, to now not adhere to the EU rather than using it to adhere to the EU. It does show however their sovereignity never was in question, just that up until recently they used it to agree to be part of a Union, in which you do have to have common agreements, because that unionisation brings different and greater benefits. Like weighing into negotiations as a +500 milion people market rather than a -70 million people market. Or having a market without customs.
And as problematic as that might be for us; they are allowed to choose to quit. And if they don't have a deal to propose that is better for the Union than trading with them under basic WTO rules, we'll have to agree to that.  It sucks for us. (And them, becaus they'll be bound to trading with us under WTO rules too.) It makes trading that much more expensive and tiresome. But we have no choice if they choose to go down that road, exactly because they've Always been sovereign.
The thing to keep in mind here though, is that the benefit of our free single market and freedom of movement and trade is not a fundamental right that we are refusing here. It's the benefit for the trade-off in financial contributions to and compromise to the rules on trade and immigration we require to build this Union.  A trade-off each party-nation sovereignly chooses for, or doesn't choose for in the case of the UK. And the EU  will protect the benefits and the wellbeing of the members of the Union, when it comes to trade. This would be like asking to stop paying your membership to a country club but still showing up every day expecting to be served brandy and a cigar in your lofty chair. All the while us having less  funds and brandy and cigars to offer the paying members. We can't be that unfair to our members who actually make a contribution. That's not us being unfair or difficult to the UK; that's us doing what we've been doing for decades. (The reason for our unifying in the first place.) Now we just have to do it with one less member.

Important too is that I don't think the UK nor the EU is going to self-destruct come the beginning of april. Spending power is going to go down. Some businesses are going to go bankrupt and there will be a rise in unemployment. In the beginning. But both sides will survive, worse off than they were two years ago, but they'll march on. And at the cost of those problems, the UK will be able to make their own rules, though they already could (Belgium too makes it's own laws and rules), and won't be bound to follow EU trade and migration policy. (That last part will effectively be different.) And if there are other rules the UK was pressed on they can't wait to see banished: I'd love to hear them.
But they will still be bound to  take in account the rules of different markets and trading partners and the rules set by the WTO. As everyone is, without effect on your national sovereignity.
Perhaps, if they don't like the WTO, they can have a referendum to quit that too.

[Cavebear]

Good reminder to trade in my remaining non-US stocks for money market accounts...  Things are so bad that both stocks AND gold are both trending down for the future...  That isn't supposed to happen.

[SGOS]

What if you viewed EU nations like US States and allowed then time to meld?  Sure you might not be Brit or French or Italian.  But there was a time here when people thought of themselves as Virginian or Massachussetian.  And it seems to have worked out well. 

We went from "These United States" to "The United States".  Really made a difference. 

I've often thought about the EU as an eventual nation, with the current countries as states, although I doubt is would be so analogous as that.  And yes, joining the states under our United Union, seems to have been highly advantageous.  Although, there are some that still don't like the idea of the Union, even though they derive benefits from it.  It's like wanting to succeed but still get the free brandy and cigars, which is probably normal in many human relationships.