free hit
counters
Euro question - 23rd June - Page 95 - General Chat - The Lotus Forums Jump to content
Barrykearley

Euro question - 23rd June

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Neal H said:

It is interesting that people who voted leave and people who voted remain have a completely different interpretation of what the referendum question actually meant, yet the question asked was a very simple one:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

Agreed. Where in that box does it say subject to the deal being known, ratified, etc?  It just says we leave. So why aren't we just leaving?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Upgrade today to remove Google ads and support TLF.

Well thats exactly what the Eurocrats are terrified of and its probably the only bargaining chip we have left.

Lets hope thats TM's grand plan???!!..??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I never knew my house would plummet in value, interest rates rocket, unemployment soar, food shortages, no medicine and small puppies die.......

oh hang on 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

Agreed. Where in that box does it say subject to the deal being known, ratified, etc?  It just says we leave. So why aren't we just leaving?

 

Well, it is like getting asked by your wife: Do you want to remain being married with me or do you want to leave?

Sure, you can walk just out of the house but there were some treaties signed by both parties before. Usually both, at least one party, and for sure legislation wants to dissolve and terminate the marriage mostly in conjunction with a deal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If mine asked that in the format the eu are then frankly - I’d chuck her out and worry about it later

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd dig a hole at the bottom of the garden and tell everyone she'd gone on holiday. Bet the roses I planted grow well too 

@Black Forest Power - I agree you need to formally close things down. But just leaving without doing the deal is actually the legal default position in this case. Bit like leaving your job. You give the required notice, wish everyone well then toodle off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, C8RKH said:

I'd dig a hole at the bottom of the garden and tell everyone she'd gone on holiday. Bet the roses I planted grow well too 

😂 Monty Python is alive!

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion going on here made me remember of an article I read in a leading Swiss newspaper lately. Therefore, I translated it into English and I think it might be interesting within two active topics, that’s why I will post it twice.


Comment by Roman Bucheli in Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) 19.12.2018

What the hell is going on with the men?

Is the man a discontinued model? Or has he simply not yet made the leap into the modern age? His attachment to outdated self-images is a symptom of a prolonged crisis.
Where is David Cameron? Where did he go? No former British Prime Minister has made himself as invisible as the one who left the British with the Brexit mess. He believed in a brilliant political move, gambled and resigned, happy as it seemed. After me the deluge. Since then he is bored, it is said, and he writes, for a considerable sum, his memoirs.
Maybe Cameron also squats in the souffle box at the pitiful spectacle of the “braggarts” that the British just have to watch and endure for quite a while to their own grief. Because on and behind the stage are his old buddies and opponents, now united in the choir of squallers, from Boris Johnson to Jeremy Corbyn, who currently know only one script: Theresa May roar and deride.
It cannot be a coincidence that in the summer of 2016, when Cameron resigned after his blatant defeat (not having to pay for the pickle he got the country into), two women were ready for election to the party’s presidency. Theresa May finally prevailed without a ballot among the party members. Previously, one men after the other did not gear up to start (George Osborne) or prematurely out of the race (Boris Johnson). They have guessed that the Brexit negotiations with the EU would not make them win a potted plant. Theresa May did not shrink from that.
To the brutal screenplay of this tragedy (which one would like to call tragicomic, if it would not be that much severe for the Brits) now belongs that the woman who pulled the hot chestnuts out of the fire in Brussels, must let her tell under contempt and laughter that unfortunately these are the wrong chestnuts. For sure, you could bet that the men who are shouting loudest today would not have made a better deal.
One would like to say: Theresa May fought like a man, if the stereotype was not that much wrong in a double sense. She fought like a lioness and above all: like no man would have done. Namely in a hopeless situation. Every man, from Boris Johnson to Nigel Farage, would have referred to Ernest Hemingway: "But man is not made for defeat." No, men are not made for defeat, they can only be destroyed, according to Hemingway.
So much heroism has been getting ridiculous at Hemingway's times already. He has always been anachronistic. So much more unworthy is therefore the British drama (not only because it is performed at the expense of the people). It's also, in the days of #MeToo and Trump's ridiculously long ties, a striking example of a manhood that never gets tired from celebrating itself vigorously, but does not realize that thereby it reaches its level of shrinkage: the man is in crisis. He is threatened by becoming a phase-out model.
Just over ten years ago, the American state theorist Harvey C. Mansfield made a brilliant debacle with his book "Manliness" (Yale University Press, 2006). In there one could read the memorable sentence: "Although it is obvious that women can be masculine, it is evident likewise that they cannot be that much masculine or not as often as men." The sentence manifests downright the crisis of a frozen thinking in contrast to what Mansfield pretended to write in his book.
Half a century earlier, Mansfield's Harvard colleague, the historian Arthur Schlesinger, had stated soberly that maleness is perceived less and less as a fact, but rather as a problem. This would have resulted in two developments: on the one hand a widespread uncertainty of the male identity, on the other hand an increase in aggressively reproduced self-images.
Of course, these symptoms did not occur just since the 20th century. They have always accompanied the imaginations of masculinity, where they were based on presumption and pre-emptive exercise of power. Since such self-images are unstable and always endangered. Therefore, they have to be defended all the more aggressively.
Literature has also developed a special sensorium in this respect, unmasking virtuously the alleged strength of men as their true weakness. One of the finest examples of this is perhaps Fontane's novel "Effi Briest". This is the deconstruction of the male concept of honor, which must confirm itself in a self-defeating duel, along with the portrait of a woman who matures into a tragic personality at the moment she gets cast out.
Fontane's novel shows drastically right there how masculinity is put up for negotiation and reaches a point of crisis without rescue when the man is better destroyed than defeated, according to Hemingway's motto. In turn, the British Parliament is currently offering the most bizarre visual instruction. If Jeremy Corbyn were the man he claims to be, and if he had the sense of responsibility that he claims to act on, he would have had to work with Theresa May or overthrow her, to do it better than she does.
He did and does not, because he is afraid of nothing more than to fall on his face like May. Because the braggart is a moral coward. He puts the raison d'etat behind the party doctrine, the welfare of the people behind his own. He cannot get out of his own skin, say: he, like many men, does not come out of his Hemingwayness. He must fulfill the cliché under whose premise he has begun.
Women too have been forced all the time to come to stay with their femininity in society. Because they had to break the role imposed on them. Early on, they realized that there would be no other way than to re-form this femininity over and over again and to manifold it in ever new images of femininity. What was man doing in the meantime? He kept on dreaming of Hemingway. That’s why by today a Scotsman looks ridiculous wearing a kilt.
Men seem to have little reason and even less phantasy to rethink and transform their role model, rather than constantly re-creating the old stereotypes. The man gradually reduces himself to folklore. And where the stereotypes of masculinity are then opposed by alternative role models, it is significant that it is parody and travesty: but the shrill drag queens rather mock the masculinity than seriously broadening their spectrum. And even the so-called softies have to carry a dubious label, which hints at contempt and makes imitation not really advisable.
So do we need less masculinity? Certainly not. But urgently required would be different ideas of masculinity, beyond cliché and caricature. But for that, the images of masculinity would have to be manifold. Less Hemingway, less James Dean, less John Wayne. The macho in all its forms - and I'm not talking about the bear hunter Putin or the tie wearing Trump - is, however, and unfortunately still the dominant reincarnation of masculinity, even in its tempered or camouflaged form towards gallantry. That has to change, and that will unfortunately take time.
Although the man may be an obsolete model in his frozen role model, not are the attributes habitually associated with him. Courage, strength, determination - whatever has been said about men’s special abilities -  they are not his genuine or exclusive domain. And the world will continue to depend on people, no matter if women or men, who act courageously, powerfully and decisively. But all these beautiful virtues will be of no use if they are not in the service of a reason greater than the ego of their representative.
That, in turn, would mean: taking responsibility spiritedly and with moral courage irrespective of the risks involved, and regardless of the dangers that are coming along with. Masculinity, once understood this way, would simply mean: humanity. So maybe the masculinity would have to be re-thought from this side.
And looking at the British House of Commons, where would you find these virtues? Not on the opposition bench, not on the backbenches of the Tories. But at the very front, where Theresa May is standing pretty lonely. Whatever one may think of her, one thing cannot be denied: that she fights for the affair of her country, even if she fights a losing battle. The honorable gentlemen must copy this first of all.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×