Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Options
1…327328329330332

Comments

  • Options
    #9932
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    do me a favour.

    Step out in to the streets and share your patronising, self righteous views with the English people you live and work with.

    For a laugh

    Do me a favor. Deal with the poster who talks about empire and flattening Madrid. Deal with your own views of the empire first rather than attack people who criticise such lunacy.


  • Options
    #9933
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    Billy86 wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    For the glory of England and her Empire ma'm. 

    Spain have no chance of taking Gibraltar unless they want Madrid flattened.

    Good luck with that one, would be interesting to see which of NATO or the EU would destroy the UK first were they to try such a thing.
    We can call on Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's glorious Red Army.


  • Options
    #9934
    ambro25
    Registered Users Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    The thing is Downing st refused to condemn his remarks today.
    There's a lot of things Downing st has refused to condemn since June last year.

    More than enough to make any reasonable and level-headed democrat blush.

    Like mainstream broadsheets branding the country's own judiciairy "enemies of the people", as one of the more representative, albeit far from exhaustive, examples.

    After the amount of air and column time given by Brit MSM to Howard's dumbtastic testiculating at the weekend, methinks there's going to be a Himalaya of examples, by the time April 2019 is around the corner.

    But well...you can look forward to more jokes from Bojo The Clown, and more some senior-grade hand waving from Davis.


  • Options
    #9935
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    Billy86 wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    For the glory of England and her Empire ma'm. 

    Spain have no chance of taking Gibraltar unless they want Madrid flattened.

    Good luck with that one, would be interesting to see which of NATO or the EU would destroy the UK first were they to try such a thing.

    Don´t forget Trump, the "Donald" in all this, he might stand idly by and don´t give a fiddlers about the Brits, NATO and the EU altogether. Remember, the Brits once had the backing of the USA in the Falklands crisis (well, they had to beg them for support for Reagan wasn´t that keen to back them up on a war footing in the first place).


  • Options
    #9936
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Billy86 wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    For the glory of England and her Empire ma'm. 

    Spain have no chance of taking Gibraltar unless they want Madrid flattened.

    Good luck with that one, would be interesting to see which of NATO or the EU would destroy the UK first were they to try such a thing.
    We can call on Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's glorious Red Army.

    Well, that´s enough of your claptrap, you´re going to end up on my ignore list, that´s where your posts belong too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9937
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    First Up wrote: »
    In fairness, their lease on HK had an expiry date.

    Actually that is only partially true. Hong Kong island was ceded in perpetuity to the British, but the area known as the New Territories (NT) was leased. The British felt that the colony wouldn't be viable without the NT as a large amount of the population lived there and was also the location of vital infrastructure such as water and waste water treatment plants. They then decided to hand the whole lot back to the Chinese.


  • Options
    #9938
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    ambro25 wrote: »
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    The thing is Downing st refused to condemn his remarks today.
    There's a lot of things Downing st has refused to condemn since June last year.

    More than enough to make any reasonable and level-headed democrat blush.

    Like mainstream broadsheets branding the country's own judiciairy "enemies of the people", as one of the more representative, albeit far from exhaustive, examples.

    After the amount of air and column time given by Brit MSM to Howard's dumbtastic testiculating at the weekend, methinks there's going to be a Himalaya of examples, by the time April 2019 is around the corner.

    But well...you can look forward to more jokes from Bojo The Clown, and more some senior-grade hand waving from Davis.

    Let´s hope that they will only be jokes, even bad ones as this politician is one of himself by the very performance of himself and the conduct of his office. It appears that the Brits are about to lose even the last esteem they still have in the world, given that this Muppet Show will run longer and until the final Exit date, 29 March 2019. I think that I´ll celebrate that date when they finally are gone and Europe is rid of the Brexiteers.


  • Options
    #9939
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭Christy42


    josip wrote: »
    Please read my 2 posts again and point out where I assumed this?
    I originally asked a question because I was interested why some posters were discussing current military capabilities



    ..twice,



    since after the first time I asked, some posters didn't understand that it was a question.



    So I'll try asking one more time. Does any poster who earlier discussed the British military capability vis-a-vis a Gibraltar intervention, think that such a military intervention could occur for any reason other than a Spanish invasion? (Which l think everybody agrees is a ridiculous suggestion?)

    So why discuss it then? Why bring up a discussion on who would or would not support a Spanish invasion when it is obviously not relevant? It is at best off topic at best.

    Politicians should not discuss the possibility of war without some vague possibility of it happening. It is irresponsible and fosters bad relations. No one is talking about France invading Germany in the next few years. I am sure the German politicians agree that they would defend themselves in such a scenario but since there is a 0% chance of it happening there is no need to ruin relationships confirming it.


  • Options
    #9940
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Do me a favor. Deal with the poster who talks about empire and flattening Madrid. Deal with your own views of the empire first rather than attack people who criticise such lunacy.

    how the **** do you know what my views are on empire?

    oh yeah, you just base everything on your own preconceived views of what the English are.


  • Options
    #9941
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Politicians should not discuss the possibility of war without some vague possibility of it happening. It is irresponsible and fosters bad relations. No one is talking about France invading Germany in the next few years. I am sure the German politicians agree that they would defend themselves in such a scenario but since there is a 0% chance of it happening there is no need to ruin relationships confirming it.

    no politicians have discussed the possibilities of war.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9942
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    no politicians have discussed the possibilities of war.

    The secretary of defense has.


  • Options
    #9943
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    This is what it really was and is all about, but some old deluded man in Westminster is still living in the 1980s:
    Mr Picardo insisted that the people of the territory would not be used as bargaining chips in trade negotiations.
    "The issue has been an attempt made by Spain in the draft to single out Gibraltar for negative treatment if there is ... a new trade deal in future between the UK and the EU which relates to services and which otherwise have been applicable to Gibraltar," the chief minister told the BBC.
    "That's the issue. It's not an issue relating to Gibraltar's sovereignty."

    https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2017/0403/864755-gibraltar-britain-spain/

    It appears that the warmonger isn´t in Madrid but in London.


  • Options
    #9944
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    The secretary of defense has.

    have you listened to his interview on the Andrew Marr show?


  • Options
    #9945
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    No one seriously thinks any war is going to happen. People jumping all over it, it deserves to have the piss taken out of it seeing the faux outrage over it. Spain isn't going to invade Gibraltar, if they know what is good for them that should be the Spanish stance.

    It is all about trade.


  • Options
    #9946
    elefant
    Registered Users Posts: 4,653 ✭✭✭elefant


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    No one seriously thinks any war is going to happen. People jumping all over it, it deserves to have the piss taken out of it seeing the faux outrage over it. Spain isn't going to invade Gibraltar, if they know what is good for them that should be the Spanish stance.

    It is all about trade.

    So close. Almost got through one post without being incendiary.


  • Options
    #9947
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,682 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Christy42 wrote: »
    So why discuss it then? Why bring up a discussion on who would or would not support a Spanish invasion when it is obviously not relevant? It is at best off topic at best
    ...

    Which is exactly the reason I asked the question in the first place.
    Well done Christy.


  • Options
    #9948
    catbear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭catbear


    All this talk of war is just a fumbling with the trinkets of empire that still rattle around in their collective memory.

    What is concerning is this war mongering hitting street level in England.


  • Options
    #9949
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    no politicians have discussed the possibilities of war.

    Apologies. Ex politicians statements that the current ones have to denounce then.

    As well as some of the more sensationalist media but they are always terrible and looking for a reaction (not like May could control them anyway).

    Plus I am less than certain as to what they mean by protecting the sovereignty when it is not at risk. This is a trade deal, there is no need to talk about whether or not sovereignty will be protected. We are not saying Louth will have its sovereignty protected in the deal with the UK as it is not at risk.


  • Options
    #9950
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Apologies. Ex politicians statements that the current ones have to denounce then.

    As well as some of the more sensationalist media but they are always terrible and looking for a reaction (not like May could control them anyway).

    Plus I am less than certain as to what they mean by protecting the sovereignty when it is not at risk. This is a trade deal, there is no need to talk about whether or not sovereignty will be protected. We are not saying Louth will have its sovereignty protected in the deal with the UK as it is not at risk.

    Michael Fallon was specifically asked the question, several times, so he answered it. He also goes to great lengths to point out that it is irrelevant because the sovereignty isn't being called in to question

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/news/michael-fallon-insists-britain-is-behind-gibraltar-all-the-way-to-defend-its-sovereignty/

    watch the interview.


  • Options
    #9951
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,682 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Michael Fallon was specifically asked the question, several times, so he answered it. He also goes to great lengths to point out that it is irrelevant because the sovereignty isn't being called in to question

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/news/michael-fallon-insists-britain-is-behind-gibraltar-all-the-way-to-defend-its-sovereignty/

    watch the interview.

    Ah Fred, stop trying to introduce facts.
    It's much easier for people to have their bias confirmed by a "still beating your wife?" line of questioning.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9952
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Thomas__ wrote: »
    Don´t forget Trump, the "Donald" in all this, he might stand idly by and don´t give a fiddlers about the Brits, NATO and the EU altogether. Remember, the Brits once had the backing of the USA in the Falklands crisis (well, they had to beg them for support for Reagan wasn´t that keen to back them up on a war footing in the first place).
    Checks and balances, Trump trying to going to war with any EU nation would pretty much be his last day in office.


  • Options
    #9953
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    We can call on Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's glorious Red Army.

    You've never been much good at this.


  • Options
    #9954
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    A Little Pony wrote:
    It is all about trade.


    And freedom of movement, and residency rights, and work permits, and access to healthcare......


  • Options
    #9955
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Michael Fallon was specifically asked the question, several times, so he answered it. He also goes to great lengths to point out that it is irrelevant because the sovereignty isn't being called in to question

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/news/michael-fallon-insists-britain-is-behind-gibraltar-all-the-way-to-defend-its-sovereignty/

    watch the interview.

    Any full transcript? I am at work so can't watch it.

    If I am wrong, I apologise, and it could well be papers trying to drum up divisions between the UK and Europe. I fail to see what line of questioning would produce such a stupid quote (he had to have known how it would look) but that is no excuse for me misrepresenting the story.

    Edit: You seem to be referring to two different interviews near as I can tell that he did in short succession.

    May has thankfully come out against all this talk in a more sensible manner.


  • Options
    #9956
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Thomas__ wrote: »
    Don´t forget Trump, the "Donald" in all this, he might stand idly by and don´t give a fiddlers about the Brits, NATO and the EU altogether. Remember, the Brits once had the backing of the USA in the Falklands crisis (well, they had to beg them for support for Reagan wasn´t that keen to back them up on a war footing in the first place).
    Checks and balances, Trump trying to going to war with any EU nation would pretty much be his last day in office.

    Let us hope that what you say applies as well for his sabre rattling towards North-Korea. That is much more dangerous than him Standing idly by while some of the Brit politicians are throwing verbal fits these days. I have less doubt that if it would come to a military confrontation between the USA and North-Korea, it could lead to a nuclear war.


  • Options
    #9957
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,682 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Any full transcript? I am at work so can't watch it.

    Is this what you're looking for?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3hshxFhHM4dKd3px6Q3NzRF/transcripts

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02041704.pdf


  • Options
    #9958
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Thomas__ wrote: »
    Let us hope that what you say applies as well for his sabre rattling towards North-Korea. That is much more dangerous than him Standing idly by while some of the Brit politicians are throwing verbal fits these days. I have less doubt that if it would come to a military confrontation between the USA and North-Korea, it could lead to a nuclear war.

    I would agree, though doubt there would be as quick of an intervention on that front - it's much easier to spin a reason to go to war with North Korea than an EU member state and there are far, far less vested US interests being put at risk in doing so.


  • Options
    #9959
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    Thomas__ wrote: »
    Billy86 wrote: »
    Thomas__ wrote: »
    Don´t forget Trump, the "Donald" in all this, he might stand idly by and don´t give a fiddlers about the Brits, NATO and the EU altogether. Remember, the Brits once had the backing of the USA in the Falklands crisis (well, they had to beg them for support for Reagan wasn´t that keen to back them up on a war footing in the first place).
    Checks and balances, Trump trying to going to war with any EU nation would pretty much be his last day in office.

    Let us hope that what you say applies as well for his sabre rattling towards North-Korea. That is much more dangerous than him Standing idly by while some of the Brit politicians are throwing verbal fits these days. I have less doubt that if it would come to a military confrontation between the USA and North-Korea, it could lead to a nuclear war.
    Nuclear war between who? North Korea would not win in a war against the United States.


  • Options
    #9960
    elefant
    Registered Users Posts: 4,653 ✭✭✭elefant


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Nuclear war between who? North Korea would not win in a war against the United States.

    I don't think anyone is disputing that :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9961
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Thomas__ wrote: »
    Let us hope that what you say applies as well for his sabre rattling towards North-Korea. That is much more dangerous than him Standing idly by while some of the Brit politicians are throwing verbal fits these days. I have less doubt that if it would come to a military confrontation between the USA and North-Korea, it could lead to a nuclear war.

    I would agree, though doubt there would be as quick of an intervention on that front - it's much easier to spin a reason to go to war with North Korea than an EU member state and there are far, far less vested US interests being put at risk in doing so.

    The danger lies in the impulsivness of the mad NK leader and the thin-skinned Trump.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement