norwaysaint

Why do you think that might happen? As far as I can see they either accept the deal and that's how we leave on 31st, or they reject it, but we are still out on the deadline. What's the realistic situation that brings about another referendum now? Genuine question, as I would like that situation, but can't see why it would happen.

Minor parties playing a key role in coalitions often get a disproportionate amount of power. Here in Norway, the Christian party managed to have the prime minister for years, despite being the junior coalition member. It makes you wonder how the libdems managed to make themselves such an irrelevance when they shared power.

I don't think many people think it is good. Like you, I would have preferred a remain outcome (although I get no say as I am not a resident), but that's not an option available now. I think no-deal will be worse though and that is the corner that people voting against the deal may be painting themselves into. The deadline is October 31st, the only thing postponing that was not having a deal on the table. That obstacle has now been removed, so that deadline is a reality again. So, deal or no deal?

Those people who think this deal should not be accepted, is it mainly due to the content of the deal, or is it mainly due to not wanting brexit or not wanting a perceived Boris success? Also, why don't you feel that without this, a no-deal brexit on October 31st becomes an immediate reality? A deal on the table rightly removes the safety net of the Benn act even if parliament blocks the deal.

While I agree Brexit is a mistake in the first place, when the choice is essentiallly deal or no deal, surely deal is the better option. There must come a point where people who aren't openly trying to block Brexit have to accept either the deal available or accept no deal, Otherwise they should openly say that they intend to actively block any kind of Brexit, which I think is an acceptable position as it represents approximately half the population.

I agree with all of that, but I think it does make a mockery of blocking no deal, when they don't actually want a deal to be made either. It gives me more respect for the libdems too, but I do fear that wrecking all possible deals could eventually lead to a no deal brexit.

No, I believe what I said. I think the people who reject this would generally have rejected any deal. Personally I would prefer remain, but I think it's the government's job to make the best deal they can and deliver Brexit. Most deals will be a poor result, but still better than no deal. Why the confrontational reply?

I don't know or care who that is, fwiend.

I get the impression that opponents of Brexit will automatically reject this deal, even though it's about as good a deal as there's likely to be, because they will see that as rejecting brexit and Boris. Because of that, there will probably be a no deal brexit, which is not good for anyone.

Is the deal so bad? It doesn't seem much better or worse than May's deal. I don't think it's going to get better. I think it's this or no deal. Surely this deal is better than no deal? I know a lot of people will be against it because they don't like Boris/Brexit, but realistically, parliament should be looking for the best brexit solution and voting for it. What improvements are people hoping for?

Let's not judge before we know the details. He's been presured to get a deal agreed and if he's done that, it needs to be looked at with an open mind.

Don't be ridiculous. Jump means jump.

All of this panic mongering and talk of a "hard" landing is just project fear. We'll pull together, British people got injured in the war and we coped. I'm just glad everyone voted against the parachutes that we were offered. They were definitely the wrong colour. We definitely either go with the new plan to use umbrellas and handkerchiefs or we use nothing.

So you believe they should just have accepted May's deal when it was offered and just got it done? We know that the EU would have accepted too and it would have gone through quickly.

No more of that European rubbish being forced on us after Brexit. Good honest British sparkling wine will be all we need.

Thanks, but I try to deliberately stay away from the polarising left/right thing, because I find people just hop onto their perceived side and discount all points on the other side that they might actually agree with. It's better to look for the common ground and work from that. Here I would imagine we mainly agree that it's good to acknowledge history, but we don't need to feel guilt or apologise for events we had no control over. We also don't need to demonise figures of the past who were operating in a way that was viewed differently then. We can all agree though that it's regrettable the first meeting of the cultures resulted in an unnecessary massacre, but we don't have to feel shame about that in our generation and we can recognise that we were in a battle with many other lands to build empire and hold a position of strength and development, which was a brutal business. I'm not interested in attacking or feuding with individuals on here and think that the continuing squabbling across threads is just tedious. I like discussing a worthwhile subject though. As for left and right, my ideas of right and wrong in individual situations aren't going to decided for me by a tribalistic left/right perception. I've voted both ways based on the situation at the time.

But this is going around in circles. I ask if people agre it's right to acknowledge historical events. They avoid answering that and try to turn the conversation a different way. I don't know why none of you will answer the simple question of whether or not it's good that the British recognise an event that definitely happened. I'm not interested in talking about non-existent apologies or whether someone I don't know should have got sad, when I don't know what made them sad. What I do know is that Britain agreed it happened and that it was a bad thing. I'm pleased about that. It's a strong self-secure thing to do and improves our image and reputation. Good stuff. It comes down to those simple uncomplicated questions. Was there a massacre? Is it a sad thing that there was a massacre? That's it. There's really no more to this. If the answer to those is yes, we agree with each other and with the government. If it's no, we'll never see eye to eye and I'll never really understand your position. I'm just going to be repeating myself if I post again, so that's it for me.

Regretting that something had to happen is very different to apologising for it. I regret some nights out I've had. I wouldn't dream of apologising for them.

Why do you think they should apologise? You know this story doesn't involve an apology, right?

I'm not commenting on statues, because thisthose can only be discussed case by case (statue of someone who enslaved and destroyed the local community, I can understand them wanting it removed, statue in Britain of someone important to a British victory, of course not) The fact that the envoy cried is personal to them and probably the conversations that took place immediately beforehand. The original post also claimed a great historical figure was being pilloried, when that's not really the case. I, along with a couple of others, have gone on to point out repeatedly that all that has happened is that a historical event has been officially recognised for the first time. After that all kinds of nonsense has been spouted, but it remains that that is all that has happened. Still nobody has said why that's a bad thing. You agree it's a good thing, right?

I did read those and I still fail to see why there is any protest at simply recognising an event that we never officially recognised before. This thread has many negative reactions to something that seems pretty basic. I've seen people upset that we apologised. We didn't. People annoyed at tearing down statues. That's not the discussion here. People who think we shouldn't feel guilty about something that happened in history. We don't. People saying we should still be proud of positive things in our history. We are. What I don't see is recognition that it's okay to just accept something happened and it was sad, even though that's the actual subject here.

The alternative to doing what we have done would be to pretend it didn't happen. The fact that we have recognised it happened has spurred several people to come on here and talk about it being the wrong thing to do. There have been comnents about tearing down Nelson's column, about attacking Churchill's reputation, about apologies that haven't happened, about going back through history and finding everything that was wrong, about self flagellation. Yes, I would say that some people have been triggered and are upset by Britain doing the simple and honourable thing of just recognising an unhappy historical event. After all these comments, still nobody has explained to me why Britain shouldn't recognise a historical massacre. Perhaps you can tell me why we shouldn't say it happened? I'm flummoxed.

Anyone else have a feeling that if Valery has a great game, he'll be dropped for a makeshift RB next match?

All of those who are getting upset and think that we shouldn't have admitted this happened (and that is all that has occurred here), how would you feel if the US government refused to admit that slavery happened? Would you consider it a sign of strength? Would you say they were right not to recognise it, because it was years ago and no former slaves are around now, so it didn't need to be in the history books? That we could officially pretend it wasn't a thing? In my opinion that would be a pretty weak and pathetic approach.

Can you explain to me why it upsets you that the British government simply says something happened and that it was a bad thing? I'm having trouble understanding. I mean, it was already common knowledge, so just recognising it officially shouldn't trigger you this much. It's something to be proud of. Be pleased that your country isn't afraid to accept its own history. Don't be so insecure.