Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Fratton Fred · 07-11-2016 05:12PM

wes wrote: »

The fact however remains that the British left in a rather chaotic fashion which exacerbated the situation, far more than it needed to be.

that is very true. Partly down to the government wanting to roll back on colonialism as quickly as possible, but with tragic consequences.

Fratton Fred · 07-11-2016 05:14PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Everything coming out of the UK at the moment involves the EU putting aside what it stands for, in return for very little. i.e. Strongarm tactics.

so nothing to do with imperialism then, just one major economy trying to position itself with another.

jmayo · 07-11-2016 05:21PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly and if they have to be reminded of their past to get them to do that, that is ok by me.

Why do I think you just want to put the boot in and remind some people of some things ?

Both sides need to be measured, not just Britain.

I know there are a fair few, including around these parts, who just want to teach the Brits and their imperialists a lesson.

As I keep saying that is going to screw us in Ireland as well.

And if some Europeans think they wont suffer some fallout they are also in cloud cuckoo land as well.

From what I have seen over the last couple of decades the EU is led by a fair few arrogant federalists who like throwing their weight around and that matched with an incompetent British leadership (both government and opposition) doesn't exactly bode well for a satisfactory clean outcome.

Fratton Fred · 07-11-2016 05:22PM

jmayo wrote: »

Why do I think you just want to put the boot in and remind some people of some things ?

Both sides need to be measured, not just Britain.

I know there are a fair few, including around these parts, who just want to teach the Brits and their imperialists a lesson.

As I keep saying that is going to screw us in Ireland as well.

And if some Europeans think they wont suffer some fallout they are also in cloud cuckoo land as well.

From what I have seen over the last couple of decades the EU is led by a fair few arrogant federalists who like throwing their weight around and that matched with an incompetent British leadership (both government and opposition) doesn't exactly bode well for a satisfactory clean outcome.

careful, you'll get labelled as a Brexiter

FrancieBrady · 07-11-2016 05:25PM

jmayo wrote: »

Why do I think you just want to put the boot in and remind some people of some things ?

Both sides need to be measured, not just Britain.

I know there are a fair few, including around these parts, who just want to teach the Brits and their imperialists a lesson.

As I keep saying that is going to screw us in Ireland as well.

And if some Europeans think they wont suffer some fallout they are also in cloud cuckoo land as well.

From what I have seen over the last couple of decades the EU is led by a fair few arrogant federalists who like throwing their weight around and that matched with an incompetent British leadership (both government and opposition) doesn't exactly bode well for a satisfactory clean outcome.

It may be that the UK will have to be taught a lesson.
It may be that part of that lesson has been taught and absorbed already.

FrancieBrady · 07-11-2016 05:28PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so nothing to do with imperialism then, just one major economy trying to position itself with another.

It has everything to do with their imperial past = imperialistic.

They don't have the firepower to actually be an imperial power anymore, had you not noticed?

Fratton Fred · 07-11-2016 05:35PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It has everything to do with their imperial past = imperialistic.

such as?

Fratton Fred · 07-11-2016 05:37PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It may be that the UK will have to be taught a lesson.

such as, and for what?

wes · 07-11-2016 05:38PM

I think a soft Brexit will just result in Brexit becoming an ongoing thorn in the side of the EU, which it doesn't need. The Kippers and the Tory hard right won't accept anything less than a Hard Brexit, and as we have seen, the conservative party is far more important to its leaders, than the good of there country is.

We are better off pulling off the bandage now, and take the pain, as opposed to allowing ongoing instability, due to Brexiters kicking things off on a ongoing basis, which imho will be far more damaging, as it will cause constant uncertainty.

A Little Pony · 07-11-2016 05:46PM

wes wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Besides, India was in need of being civilized during the height of the British Empire.

Complete and utter racist nonsense. India at the time, had multiple civilizations at that point in time. This kind of attitude, will get the UK no where, and there will be plenty of people more than happy to tell the UK where to go.

All of them barbaric and thanks to the British Empire introduced great reforms in the country, great social reforms. The greatest Empire of all time, next to Macedonia.

wes · 07-11-2016 05:49PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

All of them barbaric and thanks to the British Empire introduced great reforms in the country, great social reforms. The greatest Empire of all time, next to Macedonia.

Genghis Khans empire was far superior

. If the UK goes around the world with that attitude, there in for a rude awakening, when people tell them to go away.

Fratton Fred · 07-11-2016 05:54PM

wes wrote: »

Genghis Khans empire was far superior . If the UK goes around the world with that attitude, there in for a rude awakening, when people tell them to go away.

They won't adopt that attitude.

The England v India test series starts on Wednesday (Which is, I'm guessing, why Theresa is out there at the moment). If you wan't to get an Indian talking, start talking about cricket, something my American colleagues haven't mastered.

The discussion will about cultural connections, not imperial pasts.

wes · 07-11-2016 05:59PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They won't adopt that attitude.

The England v India test series starts on Wednesday (Which is, I'm guessing, why Theresa is out there at the moment). If you wan't to get an Indian talking, start talking about cricket, something my American colleagues haven't mastered.

The discussion will about cultural connections, not imperial pasts.

Well, she has already hit a road block, with the Visa application business. I think her hands are tied by the right of her party and the Kippers nipping at there heels. The Indians won't look to kindly on that, and even if May was to give in on that point, they jealously guard there service industry and I don't see them opening it up. India has always been some what insular when it comes to free trade, and seeing as there booming, there in no great rush to do so.

FrancieBrady · 07-11-2016 06:20PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

All of them barbaric and thanks to the British Empire introduced great reforms in the country, great social reforms. The greatest Empire of all time, next to Macedonia.

And it was all benign and benevolent?

Or did they 'slaughter them into the acceptance of 'these ^' gifts'?

Answer on one side of the paper only.

steddyeddy · 07-11-2016 06:34PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

is correcting the same as attacking? you got it wrong (you just blamed Britain for the caste system that stretches back literally thousands of years).

hear you go, some background on Slough. http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/13435238.Census__Slough_confirmed_as_one_of_the_most_ethnically_diverse_towns_in_country/ so yeah, we both have had the opportunity to talk to a few Indians in our time.

by the way, Slough voted to leave the eu, the nasty racist little Englanders that they are.

Jinnah's not getting all the blame now though, apparently Nehru is also getting some stick. Some people blame Gandhi as well.

The caste system goes back thousands of years but was enforced by the British.

As for the partitioning of India it was down to a man called Cyril Radcliffe who redrew India over a single lunch. Why the British empire made a hobby of partitioning countries is beyond me but please don't defend it.

I hear British people saying that colonialism is dead and shouldn't be apologised for but the same can be said for defending it. It's dead paint colonisation as the evil it was.

steddyeddy · 07-11-2016 06:38PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that is very true. Partly down to the government wanting to roll back on colonialism as quickly as possible, but with tragic consequences.

How did India look under British rule? For example how many Indians were employed in administration? There is no way that the colonial powers helped India.

steddyeddy · 07-11-2016 06:45PM

The BBC reports on the headlines in India regarding May's visit there. Apparently the issues of visas came up in relation to the trade deal. The bit in bold is interesting.

Theresa May's first trip outside Europe since becoming prime minister has made the front pages of most Indian newspapers, with one suggesting that "stringent" British visa regulations for Indian nationals may hamper the prospects of a post-Brexit partnership deal.
Writing under the headline "Visa cloud over trade ties as British PM Theresa May arrives in India", Jayanth Jacob of leading daily Hindustan Times said "the stringent visa regulations by the British cast a shadow over the prospect of the two countries hammering out an ambitious trade and investment partnership post-Brexit".

Jacob quoted S Irudayarajan, migration expert and consultant for government on mobility issues, as saying that "India is an important country for the UK. And curbing the flow of good minds whether they are students or skilled workers is not good for the UK".
'Muddled May'
Reflecting similar sentiments, The Times of India published an editorial titled "Muddled May".
"As the second largest global job creator in Britain and its third largest source of foreign direct investment, India finds these British policies both objectionable and puzzling. How does the UK hope to forge closer trade ties with India while growing increasingly disagreeable to Indian trade professionals?"
A UK-India free trade agreement would be a "non-starter as long as the visa issue isn't sorted", added the Times of India.
In an opinion piece on news portal DailyO headlined: "Post-Brexit, Britain is no lure for Indian students, and Theresa May's no help", columnist K Srinivasan notes that "Britain used to be the preferred destination for higher education, coupled with lucrative employment in related fields of study, for people from many countries, including India. But not any more, as the country's immigration laws get tighter and the impact of Brexit surfaces slowly".

Business daily The Economic Times in a piece headlined "Where great minds meet" concurs, saying: "With the contentious issue of immigration in the background, PM May has her hands full on this visit to India, seeking a quick and favourable trade deal, while looking to project the UK as a truly global and forward looking nation."
Television channel NDTV also notes that: "IT professionals have asked how there can be better trade, with Mrs May's government making it tougher for Indian professionals to travel to that country with tougher new rules for visa and immigration."

Fratton Fred · 07-11-2016 07:02PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And it was all benign and benevolent?

Or did they 'slaughter them into the acceptance of 'these ^' gifts'?

Answer on one side of the paper only.

steddyeddy wrote: »

The caste system goes back thousands of years but was enforced by the British.

As for the partitioning of India it was down to a man called Cyril Radcliffe who redrew India over a single lunch. Why the British empire made a hobby of partitioning countries is beyond me but please don't defend it.

I hear British people saying that colonialism is dead and shouldn't be apologised for but the same can be said for defending it. It's dead paint colonisation as the evil it was.

The partition of India goes back a lot further than Cyril Radcliffe, an independent Pakistan was talked about in the Round Table discussions fifteen years earlier.

Both of you really really need to read about the history of India and if possible, actually you know, talk to someone from India (Or Pakistan/Bangladesh). It really is a fascinating region with an immense amount of history and culture.

FrancieBrady · 07-11-2016 07:10PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The partition of India goes back a lot further than Cyril Radcliffe, an independent Pakistan was talked about in the Round Table discussions fifteen years earlier.

Both of you really really need to read about the history of India and if possible, actually you know, talk to someone from India (Or Pakistan/Bangladesh). It really is a fascinating region with an immense amount of history and culture.

...or just accept the British version, in other words.

steddyeddy · 07-11-2016 07:16PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The partition of India goes back a lot further than Cyril Radcliffe, an independent Pakistan was talked about in the Round Table discussions fifteen years earlier.

Both of you really really need to read about the history of India and if possible, actually you know, talk to someone from India (Or Pakistan/Bangladesh). It really is a fascinating region with an immense amount of history and culture.

Yea I know Fred. The round table discussions organised by the British. The British and some Muslim groups talked about partition. The British had no right to partition India.

The british had promised in 1914 to free India after the first world war; this was later reneged on. Further, there was actually no point fighting to free european nations when India was herself a slave. Thus, the congress stand comes across as bold and accurate: the joker in the pack was Jinnah, who colluded with the british from September 1939.

As early as 1933, the British was visualised a partition; the original plan was to hive off Baluchistan from India. Thus, it was always the brits who were playing both sides of the coin. These 2 events led to the inevitability of partition.

It was not possible to maintain equanimity; the British were hell-bent on partition. The historical record of conversations and minutes of meetings pretty much prove that point. There is nothing that anyone could have done to avert partition. If Jinnah had not approached, the Brits would have. There is suspicion that this was done once during the round table conference.

"It is of paramount importance that India should not secede from the Empire. If, however, the colony could not be held, the alternative was to keep a strategic peice of it under british control - possbily Baluchistan" - Winston Churchill, May 5th, 1945

Yes I know. My grandfather told me all about colonial India.

steddyeddy · 07-11-2016 07:20PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...or just accept the British version, in other words.

It's something I don't get. I condemn many areas of Irish history and government yet when it comes to colonial rule in India Fred cannot find fault. Pointless debate when cognitive dissonance is involved. Until now I couldn't understand why people brought up the empire in relation to Fred but now I know. If you criticise the IRA and defend British colonial rule it's hard to take you seriously.

07-11-2016 07:41PM

Soooo... Britains options are to exchange immigration from Eastern Europe with immigration from the Indian subcontinent....

Brexit seems like a plan that's not coming together....

Fratton Fred · 07-11-2016 08:24PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's something I don't get. I condemn many areas of Irish history and government yet when it comes to colonial rule in India Fred cannot find fault. Pointless debate when cognitive dissonance is involved. Until now I couldn't understand why people brought up the empire in relation to Fred but now I know. If you criticise the IRA and defend British colonial rule it's hard to take you seriously.

if you actually said something worth condemning, then fair enough, but so far you started off with a mistake and dug yourself deeper and deeper.

but hey, your grandad told you.....

Fratton Fred · 07-11-2016 08:25PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...or just accept the British version, in other words.

as opposed to what? the Irish version of Indian history, which seems to differ from both the British and Indian versions?

funny that....

steddyeddy · 07-11-2016 08:28PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if you actually said something worth condemning, then fair enough, but so far you started off with a mistake and dug yourself deeper and deeper.

but hey, your grandad told you.....

The partition of India, the Bengal famine, Churchill's attitude to Indians, colonial attitude to Indians, the rejection of Indian self rule.

But hey if you want to trivialise all that to a catchphrase go ahead.

Fratton Fred · 07-11-2016 08:56PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The partition of India, the Bengal famine, Churchill's attitude to Indians, colonial attitude to Indians, the rejection of Indian self rule.

But hey if you want to trivialise all that to a catchphrase go ahead.

I'm not trivializing it, I am trivializing your reason for saying it.

steddyeddy · 07-11-2016 09:06PM

Good point.

steddyeddy · 07-11-2016 09:06PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not trivializing it, I am trivializing your reason for saying it.

Fair enough.

FrancieBrady · 07-11-2016 09:52PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

as opposed to what? the Irish version of Indian history, which seems to differ from both the British and Indian versions?

funny that....

I'm not really interested in the excuses for colonialism, more than I am in it's effects.
It hasn't effected you, Mary and the Little Pony very well if the simpering and unrelenting defence of it across many threads is anything to go by.

steddyeddy · 07-11-2016 10:03PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not really interested in the excuses for colonialism, more than I am in it's effects.
It hasn't effected you, Mary and the Little Pony very well if the simpering and unrelenting defence of it across many threads is anything to go by.

I'll be quite honest in saying that Fred's talking balls about Indian history.

Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Comments