nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Why the north outside EU changes everything for the island

Kermit.de.frog

I talk to northerners (many converted to a United Ireland suddenly, not all) regularly and the theme is clear and simple enough:

They are an afterthought in the UK - they get the scraps, but in the EU they got more and more funding and it gave them at least a feeling of being more central and worthy.

Now they face being a backwater within a small to medium sized country outside the EU. A country that will have more of a little Englander tinge to it than possibly ever before. They won't get the same funding and even in the EU they get sweet fcuk all from the UK government beyond what sustains the 6 counties at the minimum.

What will it be like when the EU is no longer there?

I feel we are at the crossroads now where northerners and soft unionists are genuinely pondering for the first time that staying in a UK outside the EU is not in their economic or social interest.

And just wait till farmers lose their EU subsidies in 2022 :eek:

To the hardcore Brexit unionists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vliNfbguZu0

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Folkstonian

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh the Irony, when Irish republicans talk about independence as if they are the only people on the planet that crave it, while decrying others that have similar aspirations.

This republican wants independence from the UK. This republican understands how the world works.
There is no such thing as the 'independence' Brexiteers prattle on about. The era they relish and lament was not an era of UK independence, they were in hock during most of it.
Now they ride shotgun for the nation that saved them from de Germans.

What are they gonna do with the gleaming new aircraft carriers when they become 'independent'? Re-colonise the world?

The English Channel and the RAF saved Britain from the Nazis, not the Americans. Do you have a poor grasp of European history or were you being deliberately offensive and demeaning? I’m not sure what the relevance is, other than seeing an opportunity to put the boot in.

On the point of independence, on the whole I’d agree that the world is a far more interconnected place and absolute sovereignty of any and all countries, even the US, is a thing of the past.

But like Scotland, like Brexit, it all comes down to what people want for their future. The thing that frustrates me about Brexit is the people who want a greater degree of autonomy whilst remaining inside the single market certain agencies.

The people who are willing to accept that their decision to leave will cause a bit of economic turbulence for a number of years, but see it as a worthwhile sacrifice to be able to limit immigration, or leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ, I don’t have a problem with.

As stated above, it’s not my position, I don’t agree, but I do see the logic, or the merit, of their argument.

Peregrinus

Folkstonian wrote: »

On the point of a potential second Scottish referendum on independence after Brexit, it would strike me that putting a barrier between themselve and England (with whom Scotland do 65% of their trade) would be a destructive and slightly illogical and response to the barriers established between Scotland and the Eu (with whom they do only 15% of their trade - less than a quarter of that they do with England)

Again, like Brexit, Scottish independence seems to me to be a situation where, economically, nobody wins, and I would prefer that neither happened.

But, again like Brexit, it is all about your convictions. And if the Scots believe that true independence from the U.K. is more important than full and frictionless access to that market (I do see the similarities to Brexit) then I might disagree but I won’t be offended by it - I wouldn’t see it as a demonstration of Scottish arrogance or xenophobia vis a vis their relationship with England or anything of that nature

The implications of Brexit for the Scottish independence movement are quite complex.

On the national pride/sentiment/instinct side, Brexit must fuel the desire for Scottish independence. Scotland has voted to remain in the EU but is being taken out because the English want to go. All models of Brexit are hugely damaging to Scotland. The degree of protection supposedly afforded to Scotland through the Sewell Convention has been shredded by appeals to the Will of the People. although apparently the Will of the Scottish People is an irrelevance. You couldn’t have a more graphic example of Scotland’s subordination to England, and of the complete disregard in England for the notion that they should exercise their power over Scotland in a way which attaches any weight to Scottish views or interests.

On the material/economic side, though, things are more balanced. Yes, Brexit is economically damaging to Scotland, and the harder the Brexit the truer this is. But, of course, the harder the Brexit the more disruptive separation from England is, economically speaking. The 2014 referendum was conducted at a time when both Scotland and England were in the Single Market and the Customs Union, and would aim to continue to be in the event of Scottish independence. Thus Scotland wasn’t required to choose between having an integrated British market and an integrated European market; both were available. But if there’s a hard Brexit that is no longer true; the Scots can choose one or the other, but not both. And, as Folkstonian points out, the economic arguments that make Brexit seem like a monumentally stupid idea, when transposed to the question of Scottish independence, make Scottish independence look like a monumentally stupid idea.

But we can’t ignore the fact that, despite its monumental stupidity in economic terms, the English voted for Brexit. They did this either because they regard the economic cost as a cost worth paying to achieve independence, or because they simply delude themselves into thinking that the economic cost will be nil or negligible, since they wish it to be so.

And, if the English can take that attitude, or a combination of those attitudes to Brexit, why should it be impossible that the Scots should do the same with respect to independence? Scotland as a nation is much more trampled on by the British union than the UK ever has been by the European Union - as the Brexit story itself demonstrates - so they have much more to gain by indepencece and might attach a correspondingly greater value to it. Plus, in the Scottish case the choice is not between economic stablity/progres/growth on the one hand and economic disruption/contraction on the other . Sticking with Brexit Britain will harm Scotland economically; Independence from Brexit Britain will probably harm Scotland more, but the calculation becomes a choice between two economic harms, once of which is associated with independence and one of which is not. That may affect how people think about the choice.

Folkstonian

I do think that the Brexit vote put the government in an impossible situation, of their own making of course, in that a decision to remain on the basis that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain whilst England voted in favour of leaving would probably have signalled a huge surge in English nationalist/ successionist sentiment, and would have been as likely, if not more so, to split the U.K. as a Scottish vote would have.

I do genuinely see where the Scottish anger comes from, but I dont see how, when the referendum was called, it could be done any differently. The U.K. isnt a federation and has never had any ambition to be.

Peregrinus

Folkstonian wrote: »

I do think that the Brexit vote put the government in an impossible situation, of their own making of course, in that a decision to remain on the basis that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain whilst England voted in favour of leaving would probably have signalled a huge surge in English nationalist/ successionist sentiment, and would have been as likely, if not more so, to split the U.K. as a Scottish vote would have.

I do genuinely see where the Scottish anger comes from, but I dont see how, when the referendum was called, it could be done any differently. The U.K. isnt a federation and has never had any ambition to be.

There's a couple of ways you could do it.

First, you could take the view that the Sewell Convention applies to referendums, and build in a "qualified majority" requirement; if a referendum affects devolved matters, then it will not be considered to have passed unless it secures both a UK-wide majority and a majority in the countries with devolved powers.

Or, you could build this into your commitment regarding implementation of the referendum; "we will respect the referendum result, but without violating the Sewell Convention". That in turn could mean either a Greenland-style partial exit from the EU, or negotiating a soft UK-wide Brexit that can secure support from the devolved institutions by taking account of Scottish and Irish concerns, and including measures to address them. You might even take the view that in the worst analysis you would not proceed with Brexit, the balance between the UK and its constituent parts and the autonomy assured by the Sewell Convention being of greater constitutional importance than the outcome of an advisory referendum.

Or no doubt you could think of other permutations. Brexiters are constantly appealing to others to be flexible and creative; here is an area where they might usefully have been flexible and creative themselves.

For the reason you point out, though, this is something you want to raise, address and decide when making the decision to hold the referndum, rather than after you know the referendum result. The anger of Brexiters at not getting the Brexit they wanted would be less, and would be more easily managed, if they had known all along that in order to acheive their objective they needed to secure more than a bare majority on the back of English votes.

From memory, the Scots Nats did in fact raise the issue when the referendum bill was before Parliament, and they proposed an amendment which would have required a qualified majority of this kind - I forget the details of the precise amendment. The government's response was that this wasn't necessary or appopriate, because the referendum was purely advisory and wouldn't bind Parliament to act in any particular way, or at all, and Parliament could deal with the referendum outcome in a way that respected the Sewell Convention, if that situation arose.

That worked well, didn't it?

FrancieBrady

Folkstonian wrote: »

The English Channel and the RAF saved Britain from the Nazis, not the Americans. Do you have a poor grasp of European history or were you being deliberately offensive and demeaning? I’m not sure what the relevance is, other than seeing an opportunity to put the boot in.

.

You cannot fight wars without money. When you are revising your European history (which I advise you to) look to where Blighty got the money.

Thomas_IV

Folkstonian wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh the Irony, when Irish republicans talk about independence as if they are the only people on the planet that crave it, while decrying others that have similar aspirations.

This republican wants independence from the UK. This republican understands how the world works.
There is no such thing as the 'independence' Brexiteers prattle on about. The era they relish and lament was not an era of UK independence, they were in hock during most of it.
Now they ride shotgun for the nation that saved them from de Germans.

What are they gonna do with the gleaming new aircraft carriers when they become 'independent'? Re-colonise the world?

The English Channel and the RAF saved Britain from the Nazis, not the Americans. Do you have a poor grasp of European history or were you being deliberately offensive and demeaning? I’m not sure what the relevance is, other than seeing an opportunity to put the boot in.

On the point of independence, on the whole I’d agree that the world is a far more interconnected place and absolute sovereignty of any and all countries, even the US, is a thing of the past.

But like Scotland, like Brexit, it all comes down to what people want for their future. The thing that frustrates me about Brexit is the people who want a greater degree of autonomy whilst remaining inside the single market certain agencies.

The people who are willing to accept that their decision to leave will cause a bit of economic turbulence for a number of years, but see it as a worthwhile sacrifice to be able to limit immigration, or leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ, I don’t have a problem with.

As stated above, it’s not my position, I don’t agree, but I do see the logic, or the merit, of their argument.

The clock is ticking away in favour of Scotland's IndyRef2 after the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal. Look forward to it, I really do, because it makes no sense to me that other parts of the UK who voted Remain in their majority should suffer the consequences of stupid elitarian English upper class feckers who can't ge enough to feed their greed and can't cease to ly to the people. That's what the Maybot, Farage, BoJo and J R-M do and the stupid tabloid reading English believes every sh1te they tell them.

indioblack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot fight wars without money. When you are revising your European history (which I advise you to) look to where Blighty got the money.

Britain raised money from the US in both world wars - from Wall Street and the US government. Most of this money was repaid. Wars, as you point out, cannot be prosecuted without money and it was fortunate for Britain that the US was there to give financial and material aid.
But you miss the point of the poster's reply to your off topic remark. Your post, as was pointed out, was simply an excuse to "put the boot in".

Thomas_IV

indioblack wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot fight wars without money. When you are revising your European history (which I advise you to) look to where Blighty got the money.

Britain raised money from the US in both world wars - from Wall Street and the US government. Most of this money was repaid. Wars, as you point out, cannot be prosecuted without money and it was fortunate for Britain that the US was there to give financial and material aid.
But you miss the point of the poster's reply to your off topic remark. Your post, as was pointed out, was simply an excuse to "put the boot in".

After WWII, the UK was on the brink of being bancrupt by the lend and lease agreement with the USA. The Attlee govt had to deal with it after the war ended. The Americans were rather tugh insisting on full repayment of the credits given the the UK to keep that lend and lease agreement afloat, even after the USA entered WWII themselves.

FrancieBrady

indioblack wrote: »

Britain raised money from the US in both world wars - from Wall Street and the US government. Most of this money was repaid. Wars, as you point out, cannot be prosecuted without money and it was fortunate for Britain that the US was there to give financial and material aid.
But you miss the point of the poster's reply to your off topic remark. Your post, as was pointed out, was simply an excuse to "put the boot in".

The point was about 'independence', which the UK never really had at any point. At any point in their history they were 'dependent' on somebody or something else for their survival or prosperity.

It wasn't a comparative point either, as I had to point out. Ireland as 26 or 32 counties is not and would not be truly 'independent either. We could however be 'independent' from British rule or interference.

In other words could we have less of the nonsense that Brexiteers spout about 'independence' and 'taking back control'. From this remove we have already seen that is pie in the sky, nostalgic drivel.

indioblack

Thomas_IV wrote: »

After WWII, the UK was on the brink of being bancrupt by the lend and lease agreement with the USA. The Attlee govt had to deal with it after the war ended. The Americans were rather tugh insisting on full repayment of the credits given the the UK to keep that lend and lease agreement afloat, even after the USA entered WWII themselves.

True. Britain had to negotiate another loan at the end of WW2. This was money and the lender expected repayment, plus interest. It was fortunate that Britain had access to resources during the war.

Capt'n Midnight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot fight wars without money. When you are revising your European history (which I advise you to) look to where Blighty got the money.

The Germans had captured the gold of many countries at that stage, but Poland and France got theirs away. Had France and the UK stood up for Austria, or Czechoslovakia or Poland then it could have been very different.

The myth is that the UK wasn't geared up for war and needed time.
But the Germans weren't geared up either. They'd be relying on horses for years. A quarter of the tanks used in the invasion of France came from Czechoslovakia. Had the war started in '38 it could have very different. No Czech gold or tanks and less imports of critical raw materials and fuel from the East and captured territories so the German war machine could have been hamstrung earlier.

A bit like Brexit really. The drop in sterling has made raw materials and energy imports more expensive and there may be worse to come.

The UK may have forgotten WWII , rest assured the continentals haven't. No one wants to go it alone against Russia. No one wants to be dominated by a big neighbour.

For NI the UK is a mixed blessing. Yes they get cold hard cash, but the local economy is falling behind and there's no promise the magic money tree will be there in future. Also consider the Tories will be out for revenge against the DUP. And FF are making noises about campaigning up North and they'd be acceptable to people who think SF are beyond the Pale. And there's demograhics. The DUP can't "protect" or "hold back" , depending on your viewpoint, the North for much longer.

Also a fifth of the pilots in the Battle of Britain weren't British. They had more combat experience and motivation. Even in '39 immigrants were propping up the country. In NI that demographic is changing too.

British National Party chairman Nick Griffin speaks at a fundraiser with the campaign poster featuring the Polish squadron plane in the background

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In other words could we have less of the nonsense that Brexiteers spout about 'independence' and 'taking back control'. From this remove we have already seen that is pie in the sky, nostalgic drivel.

Nice.

What the **** does this have to do with the thread?

indioblack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The point was about 'independence', which the UK never really had at any point. At any point in their history they were 'dependent' on somebody or something else for their survival or prosperity.

It wasn't a comparative point either, as I had to point out. Ireland as 26 or 32 counties is not and would not be truly 'independent either. We could however be 'independent' from British rule or interference.

In other words could we have less of the nonsense that Brexiteers spout about 'independence' and 'taking back control'. From this remove we have already seen that is pie in the sky, nostalgic drivel.

What I get from your post is basically relative independence, [and relative dependence]. If so, that's a broad canvas.

Thomas_IV

FrancieBrady wrote: »

indioblack wrote: »

Britain raised money from the US in both world wars - from Wall Street and the US government. Most of this money was repaid. Wars, as you point out, cannot be prosecuted without money and it was fortunate for Britain that the US was there to give financial and material aid.
But you miss the point of the poster's reply to your off topic remark. Your post, as was pointed out, was simply an excuse to "put the boot in".

The point was about 'independence', which the UK never really had at any point. At any point in their history they were 'dependent' on somebody or something else for their survival or prosperity.

It wasn't a comparative point either, as I had to point out. Ireland as 26 or 32 counties is not and would not be truly 'independent either. We could however be 'independent' from British rule or interference.

In other words could we have less of the nonsense that Brexiteers spout about 'independence' and 'taking back control'. From this remove we have already seen that is pie in the sky, nostalgic drivel.

That was no political dependence, it was economical dependence in regards of the resources and other material supplying the UK with from the colonies. For that reason, the UK was Independent and above all, the colonial master over 2/3 of the globe at the BE's peak time. It is in fact the very matter the Brexiteers dream of in their deluded nostalgia. It is this what they mean by 'independence' and 'taking back control', forgetting that these times are gone for ever.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Nice.

What the **** does this have to do with the thread?

It follows directly from your comment here:

Of course the scouts could continue to use sterling if they wanted to, but they would be subject to English monetary policy which may not be in their best interest and would be an odd sort of independence.

I am contesting the notion of 'independence' that means you completely isolate yourself.

No modern country is isolated completely and is 'dependent' in some way on other countries or other alliances with rule books.

steddyeddy

It's an indication of how much things when the former leader of the DUP says we should prepare for a united Ireland.

https://news.sky.com/story/prepare-for-a-united-ireland-says-ex-dup-leader-peter-robinson-11452266

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It follows directly from your comment here:

I am contesting the notion of 'independence' that means you completely isolate yourself.

No modern country is isolated completely and is 'dependent' in some way on other countries or other alliances with rule books.

Yes, very true. DeVelera tried it and it took the country fifty years to recover.

Now, what was all this **** about Brexiteers you were on about, you are jumping about all over the place.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's an indication of how much things when the former leader of the DUP says we should prepare for a united Ireland.

https://news.sky.com/story/prepare-for-a-united-ireland-says-ex-dup-leader-peter-robinson-11452266

That to me is a rather blunt indication of the divided state of Unionism at the moment.

Robinson is clearly sending a warning to Unionism that he cannot make within it for whatever reason.

Aegir wrote: »

Yes, very true. DeVelera tried it and it took the country fifty years to recover.

Now, what was all this **** about Brexiteers you were on about, you are jumping about all over the place.

I suppose we will have to let you have your little rant about Dev and stuff at this point, carry on there. :rolleyes:

An Claidheamh

Aegir wrote: »

Yes, very true. DeVelera tried it and it took the country fifty years to recover.

Now, what was all this **** about Brexiteers you were on about, you are jumping about all over the place.

Exactly what did DeValera do Aegir that isolated Ireland?

We took part in the League of Nations, supported small countries, set up international charities and opened embassies in countries.

Unless you're referring to his refusal to recognise a dictator/Anglican cleric/head general with a crown on his head or British piracy all over the world, as the premier race, as "isolation"?

If that's the case, it's another instance of Brexiteers failing to understand what things actually mean.

[Deleted User]

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Its still a bit of a back water to be fair. It struggles to run itself responsibly, shows great immaturity in its ability to move beyond parish pump politics, boom and bust cycles, and novelty act joke TDs from backwoods within the backwater, like Kerry.
It certainly lagged embarrassingly, long after Lemass, and right up to the late 90s in income and industrial development. Even now, being propped up by a handful of foreign multinationals to an unhealthy degree, leaves it very vulnerable to a quick downturn. Its a backwater like NI all right.
If the two had any sense, they would join together as part of the UK, giving the island considerably more clout, preserving the unity of the island economically, socially, and day to day practicality, against the Brexit threat.
The republic's willingness to look the other way and let the six jump off a cliff alone while being rogered by Westminster, rather than stand with it and live up to a hundred years rhetoric about unity on the island is staggering hypocrisy.

What do you not understand about the fact that the Irish people do not want to rejoin the UK?

We've been there, done that, didn't like the way we were treated, and are not going back for more.

Rebuilding your empire, with Ireland as a starting point, is not an option.

Thomas_IV wrote: »

That was no political dependence, it was economical dependence in regards of the resources and other material supplying the UK with from the colonies. For that reason, the UK was Independent and above all, the colonial master over 2/3 of the globe at the BE's peak time. It is in fact the very matter the Brexiteers dream of in their deluded nostalgia. It is this what they mean by 'independence' and 'taking back control', forgetting that these times are gone for ever.

Any "Brexiteer" that I've spoken to, ( and I accept that people voted for Brexit for many reasons) invariably quoted Immigration, and the resultant strain on services, as being a major part of the motivation for leaving.
They felt they were paying for services, but were not benefiting from those services, because "others" - not necessarily from the EU, were coming in and freeloading.

Several took issue with ECJ judgements, and the inability of the UK to make its own laws.
Most of those I spoke to didn't understand the financial implications, but were convinced that making their own decisions about their economy was better than "being dictated to by Germany", to use a phrase quoted more than once.

All of those I spoke to resented the fact that David Cameron was unable to obtain any concessions from the EU, prior to the Brexit vote. They felt they were major financial contributors to the EU, but had no control over the rules - and they resented it.

In other words, successive governments managed to blame the EU for unpopular decisions, ( sometimes correctly, sometimes not) - and the end result was a revolt that was not anticipated.

There are plenty of little Englanders making noise about empire - but I suspect the majority of people just want a decent standard of living, and the right to self determination.

It's a reasonable aspiration, tbf.

Thomas_IV

Deleted User wrote: »

Thomas_IV wrote: »

That was no political dependence, it was economical dependence in regards of the resources and other material supplying the UK with from the colonies. For that reason, the UK was Independent and above all, the colonial master over 2/3 of the globe at the BE's peak time. It is in fact the very matter the Brexiteers dream of in their deluded nostalgia. It is this what they mean by 'independence' and 'taking back control', forgetting that these times are gone for ever.

Any "Brexiteer" that I've spoken to, ( and I accept that people voted for Brexit for many reasons) invariably quoted Immigration, and the resultant strain on services, as being a major part of the motivation for leaving.
They felt they were paying for services, but were not benefiting from those services, because "others" - not necessarily from the EU, were coming in and freeloading.

Several took issue with ECJ judgements, and the inability of the UK to make its own laws.
Most of those I spoke to didn't understand the financial implications, but were convinced that making their own decisions about their economy was better than "being dictated to by Germany", to use a phrase quoted more than once.

All of those I spoke to resented the fact that David Cameron was unable to obtain any concessions from the EU, prior to the Brexit vote. They felt they were major financial contributors to the EU, but had no control over the rules - and they resented it.

In other words, successive governments managed to blame the EU for unpopular decisions, ( sometimes correctly, sometimes not) - and the end result was a revolt that was not anticipated.

There are plenty of little Englanders making noise about empire - but I suspect the majority of people just want a decent standard of living, and the right to self determination.

It's a reasonable aspiration, tbf.

Sums it up and matches with what I have read (both articles and comments on UK media). Just the reasonable aspiration for self-determination in this global world is hard to implement when one Country is in fact rather small in compare to the big ones. Just like the UK of today who has no Empire anymore and I think that the sense of self-determination stems from the old times. Just the Brexiteers refuse to accept that those times are gone.

The liberal and (in some ways even exaggerated cos blind) attitude towards humanity as one of the pillars of the EU values as grown that unreasonable that the average population feels to be left behind and that immigrants count more than them. This is one of various reasons for why right-wing and far-right parties across the EU are gaining support. But the liberal minded in the EU won't accept that the mood towards Immigration among the people has changed and changes more towards being anti-Immigration due to a sense of self-preservation and a sense of common justice which means that one can only get benefits when one has paid into that system first. This refusal to change, means to adjust the way of how the EU handles the migration crisis is a folly of the liberals and they still try to ignore the shift of voters to the right because they see it as a matter of giving in to the right.

[Deleted User]

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Sums it up and matches with what I have read (both articles and comments on UK media). Just the reasonable aspiration for self-determination in this global world is hard to implement when one Country is in fact rather small in compare to the big ones. Just like the UK of today who has no Empire anymore and I think that the sense of self-determination stems from the old times. Just the Brexiteers refuse to accept that those times are gone.

The liberal and (in some ways even exaggerated cos blind) attitude towards humanity as one of the pillars of the EU values as grown that unreasonable that the average population feels to be left behind and that immigrants count more than them. This is one of various reasons for why right-wing and far-right parties across the EU are gaining support. But the liberal minded in the EU won't accept that the mood towards Immigration among the people has changed and changes more towards being anti-Immigration due to a sense of self-preservation and a sense of common justice which means that one can only get benefits when one has paid into that system first. This refusal to change, means to adjust the way of how the EU handles the migration crisis is a folly of the liberals and they still try to ignore the shift of voters to the right because they see it as a matter of giving in to the right.

Not really.

I think it's more a case of the bigger Countries economic needs taking precedence, to the detriment of the Democratic wishes of the people in the smaller Countries.

Or, to put it another way, ever closer union may be a bit of a wet dream for the political elites - but the people those elites are meant to serve don't necessarily agree.

Hence, the EU cannot be seen to get anything less than a bad deal for Britain, and a good deal for the EU, in case any other electorates decide to take the plunge.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really.

I think it's more a case of the bigger Countries economic needs taking precedence, to the detriment of the Democratic wishes of the people in the smaller Countries.

Or, to put it another way, ever closer union may be a bit of a wet dream for the political elites - but the people those elites are meant to serve don't necessarily agree.

Hence, the EU cannot be seen to get anything less than a bad deal for Britain, and a good deal for the EU, in case any other electorates decide to take the plunge.

I think you'll find that it's the other way round, the elites put their interests first, second & mostly third, only if there is a real risk of a revolt (that they can't put down) do they put the interests of their "subjects" first.

[Deleted User]

Aegir wrote: »

Yes, very true. DeVelera tried it and it took the country fifty years to recover.

Ah, yeah, if all else fails fall back on de Valera, the Great Satan. So you think when de Valera took over in 1932 that he was out on his own in the western world by introducing protectionist policies? Forget that every other state in the western world was also implementing the same, or stronger, "isolationist" economic policy...

And perhaps it might have been better for your beloved British Empire to have been more "isolationist" given its role as chief apologist for, and supporter of, Nazi Germany - in British foreign policy in the 1930s, the Nazis were far more preferable as a bulwark against Communism, although your history books very quickly whitewashed that after WWII to portray you as noble principled opposers of fascism - until it finally got the courage in September 1939 to stand up to Nazi Germany, a full four years after the Nuremberg Laws and numerous Nazi invasions of other countries. You didn't cover yourselves in glory in the Èvian Conferance in July 1938 either with your refusal to take more Jewish refugees.That, too, is whitewashed out of your "We entered WWII to save the Jews" propaganda.

And with that record people like you think you can condemn de Valera for following diplomatic protocol, a man who unlike slaveens like John Redmond in 1914 saved countless Irish lives by keeping us out of the British Empire's latest war of very, very many - 10 years before the supposedly morally superior Brits decided to intern almost a million Kenyans in what they euphemistically termed "enclosed villages" in defence of white British supremacy there. Such principled "saviours" indeed.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah, yeah, if all else fails fall back on de Valera, the Great Satan. So you think when de Valera took over in 1932 that he was out on his own in the western world by introducing protectionist policies? Forget that every other state in the western world was also implementing the same, or stronger, "isolationist" economic policy...

And perhaps it might have been better for your beloved British Empire to have been more "isolationist" given its role as chief apologist for, and supporter of, Nazi Germany - in British foreign policy in the 1930s, the Nazis were far more preferable as a bulwark against Communism, although your history books very quickly whitewashed that after WWII to portray you as noble principled opposers of fascism - until it finally got the courage in September 1939 to stand up to Nazi Germany, a full four years after the Nuremberg Laws and numerous Nazi invasions of other countries. You didn't cover yourselves in glory in the Èvian Conferance in July 1938 either with your refusal to take more Jewish refugees.That, too, is whitewashed out of your "We entered WWII to save the Jews" propaganda.

And with that record people like you think you can condemn de Valera for following diplomatic protocol, a man who unlike slaveens like John Redmond in 1914 saved countless Irish lives by keeping us out of the British Empire's latest war of very, very many - 10 years before the supposedly morally superior Brits decided to intern almost a million Kenyans in what they euphemastically termed "enclosed villages" in defence of white British supremacy there. Such principled "saviours" indeed.

Shut up you fool.

You have to be the biggest embarrassment on boards.

Banned.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hehe. Triggered once again. It's too easy.

It is easy for you, you can have a bigoted rant about the the British but the Brits on here ( or more specifically the English) won’t have a rant about the Irish, because we don’t have any grudges.

The only response is to call you out as the bigot that you are.

Let’s face it, everyone on here knows it. You are the boards equivalent of Tommy Robinson.

You are a fool and an embarrassment to your country.

[Deleted User]

Aegir wrote: »

It is easy for you, you can have a bigoted rant about the the British but the Brits on here ( or more specifically the English) won’t have a rant about the Irish, because we don’t have any grudges.

The only response is to call you out as the bigot that you are.

Let’s face it, everyone on here knows it. You are the boards equivalent of Tommy Robinson.

You are a fool and an embarrassment to your country.

You could, alternatively, stop falling into your anti-Dev rants and all their historical illiteracy. Or indeed be able to counter facts when challenged. But no, your head only has the ability to explode into intemperate, ad hominem attacks when challenged. As for being a "bigot" you seem to have a tic for calling everybody who doesn't share your Brexit-loving, Empire-loving views that.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You could, alternatively, stop falling into your anti-Dev rants and all their historical illiteracy. Or indeed be able to counter facts when challenged. But no, your head only has the ability to explode into intemperate, ad hominem attacks when challenged. As for being a "bigot" you seem to have a tic for calling everybody who doesn't share your Brexit-loving, Empire-loving views that.

Calling Dev’s policies of political and isolationism exactly hat they were ain’t a rant, it is stating a well known and often expressed opinion.

Your response is the very epitome of ad hominem, in that you attack a poster’s nationality rather than try and address anything relevant to the thread. When someone attacks someone based on their nationality, calling them a bigot is a reasonable thing to do.

Like I said, you are an embarrassment to boards and to your country.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you'll find that it's the other way round, the elites put their interests first, second & mostly third, only if there is a real risk of a revolt (that they can't put down) do they put the interests of their "subjects" first.

I'm not sure whether I phrased that badly, or you read it wrongly - but I meant that the people don't all want ever closer union.

I agree that the political elite put their own interests first, second, third - (and probably several more steps for good measure), while ignoring the people.

I believe Brexit was largely caused by that - and I suspect that the good citizens of more than one EU Country are watching the results carefully, to see how it works out.

The politicians in quite a few Countries have a tiger by the tail.(ie. An increasingly resentful electorate!).

It will be interesting to see how it all works out.

Junkyard Tom

Uncomfortable truths make Aegir very angry. Aegir SMASH Ireland.