Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Zubeneschamali · 23-10-2019 04:37PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Can you provide a link to show that the leave vote was driven in any significant part by this colonial attitude you allude to?.

Whitehall officials were even describing the post-Brexit deals in Africa as Empire 2.0

Shelga · 23-10-2019 04:39PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

"Do you think Britain could re-establish the empire once it leaves the EU?"

I'd like to try and ask that question, just to see if it would elicit the kind of response referred to.

“Do you think life in Britain was generally better when the British Empire was at its peak?” You’ll get a hell of a lot of yeses.

Zubeneschamali · 23-10-2019 04:42PM

Johnson on problems in ex-colonies: The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more... Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. … the British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right... If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain. You never saw a place so abounding in bananas: great green barrel-sized bunches, off to be turned into matooke. Though this dish (basically fried banana) was greatly relished by Idi Amin, the colonists correctly saw that the export market was limited... The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.

ancapailldorcha · 23-10-2019 04:42PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Whitehall officials were even describing the post-Brexit deals in Africa as Empire 2.0

How many of the 17.4 million leave voters do they constitute?

Going Strong · 23-10-2019 04:45PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Whitehall officials were even describing the post-Brexit deals in Africa as Empire 2.0

In fairness that was more in a mocking tone in response to the cadre of Ministerial 'talents' and their hubristic notions of selling innovative jam to Botswana and telling the former colonies how they should buy British or else.

ToBeFrank123 · 23-10-2019 04:53PM

Most of the downturns in the UK were unrelated to EU membership since they joined.

The problems of the 70s were related to the Oil crisis and also excessive wage demands from unions.

The downturns of the late 80s related to a capitalism boom in the UK. The recession of 2008 related to subprime boom in the US.

Before membership, the UK was engaged in two world wars, rationing for almost 10 years after WW2, various economic downturns and maybe a brief period of growth during the 1960s before EU membership.

The collapse in traditional industries bar maybe fishing is related to cheap imports from the likes of China or collapse in demand for coal.

So, the UK before EU membership was in all probability a pretty miserable place with appalling environmental standards, poor working conditions and poor living standards. A treat for workers was a weeks holiday at a seaside resort, and travel to far and distant places which today is the norm would have been far removed for most people.

Without question most people are better off today in the UK, even those on the dole!

Strazdas · 23-10-2019 04:59PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Most of the downturns in the UK were unrelated to EU membership since they joined.

The problems of the 70s were related to the Oil crisis and also excessive wage demands from unions.

The downturns of the late 80s related to a capitalism boom in the UK. The recession of 2008 related to subprime boom in the US.

Before membership, the UK was engaged in two world wars, rationing for almost 10 years after WW2, various economic downturns and maybe a brief period of growth during the 1960s before EU membership.

The collapse in traditional industries barring maybe fishing is related to cheap imports from the likes of China or collapse in demand for coal.

So, the UK before EU membership was in all probability a pretty miserable place with appalling environmental standards, poor working conditions and poor living standards. A treat for workers was a weeks holiday at a seaside resort, and travel to far and distant places which today is the norm would have been far removed for most people.

Without question most people are better off today in the UK, even those on the dole!

If the EU was genuinely causing hardship and poverty and impacting on sovereignty, it would be on the verge of collapse and every country would want to leave.

The funny part is that the UK had dozens of opt outs, including very important ones like Schengen and the Eurozone, but even then were still complaining about how the EU was an autocratic dictatorship. The EU they've been hating on is a fantasy one they've created in their own minds.

briany · 23-10-2019 05:10PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Johnson on problems in ex-colonies: The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more... Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. … the British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right... If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain. You never saw a place so abounding in bananas: great green barrel-sized bunches, off to be turned into matooke. Though this dish (basically fried banana) was greatly relished by Idi Amin, the colonists correctly saw that the export market was limited... The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.

It's arguable that the colonists never left. They may have independence, but it's largely an illusion and many of the presidents and prime ministers down there are bought and paid for to sell their countries' resources short.

Sam Russell · 23-10-2019 05:37PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Tired Gardener wrote: »

I agree with all of what you have said, apart from saying that there is no 'special agreement' between the UK and the USA. Because that is factual incorrect, a quick Google search will show that the 'SA' has been around since 1941.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

The media in the UK are I believe to blame for a lot of the anti-EU lies that get thrown around, Banning Milk Chocolate, banning bendy bananas, etc. Sadly the UK's educational institution isn't aimed at equipping people with the tools to think critically. So they lap this up, while also living in some of the biggest wealth gaps in all of Europe. The richest region in Western Europe is London, 9 of the poorest regions are with in the UK... 6/7 of those are in the North of England. Then add in 10 years of austerity and seeing the quality of life go down.

Add in that the UK has only recently lost its Empire (1996/7), and a good number of people who were alive to vote in the 2016 referendum would have had a miss placed love of the Empire. From their perspective they have seen things being lost. We know he Empire was a horrific thing, but to some it was seen as a badge if pride.

It really wasn't a surprise that the UK voted to Leave, what is surprising is that the Remain vote was as high as it was.

Brexit is a beast birthed from many bastards. I also think that it is the wrestle with its own identity that the UK needs. The UK needs to shed off the old, and be able to play fairly with a group where it is an equal.

That's not quite the same thing as the so-called special relationship. Five Eyes is a signals intelligence co-operative that existed (as you say) since 1941. The special relationship is supposed to be a kind of entente cordiale between the USA and the UK. Supposedly making them allies as well as trade partners. The trade partnership has fallen away with the UK joining the EU and never amounted to much in any case and the alliance didn't hold up well during the Falklands War when the USA felt that their relationship with Argentina was more important.

I used the term 'Special Relationship' not 'Special Agreement'. There is a huge difference. I may have an agreement to buy a car from someone, but if that someone is my brother, then it is different as we both have to live with it if there is a problem. Not the same with a stranger.

The UK had an agreement with the USA during the 2nd WW which was call 'Lend Lease' where the USA sold munitions and supplies to the UK, and got payment after hostilities ended. This bankrupted the UK. They had an agreement on nuclear weapons, but the UK had to stop developing and buy USA trident. They had an agreement on computers, but the UK had to abandon development in favour of US computers. etc etc etc. Agreement ended up in buying American, or follow USA into war - but not the other way round. That is the basis of an agreement, that is true.

The UK lost its Empire in 1948 when India became independent. India was the Empire - the rest were just colonies. The colonies were lost to uprises and revolutions by native populations against the colonial power.

Ireland on the other hand visits the White House every year to celebrate St Patrick's Day, and holds the St Patrick's Day Parade in NY on St Patrick's Day every year - one of very few parades held on the actual day.

Most US presidents visit Ireland to help their re-election. Most US politicians like to emphasise any Irish heritage. Now that is a relationship.

An Ciarraioch · 23-10-2019 05:47PM

Verhofstadt, like the Taoiseach, advocating a flextension:

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1187032049443573760

murphaph · 23-10-2019 05:53PM

The comments sections of the right wing UK press went into overdrive this afternoon as news reports incorrectly stated that the trailer carrying those 39 poor unfortunates came in via Holyhead.

lawred2 · 23-10-2019 06:10PM

Shelga wrote: »

Of the dozens of middle-aged men from the West Midlands I know who voted Brexit, a superiority complex, colonial complex, or whatever you’d like to call it, played a massive part.

These people simply think they are better than people from other countries. That’s the truth of it. No, they’re not going to come out and say that to a poll-taker, and no one is going to format a question like that in a survey anyway.

It's basically how my parents in law view their relationship with the rest of the world.

Even when clear evidence to the contrary is presented to them.

Strazdas · 23-10-2019 06:17PM

murphaph wrote: »

The comments sections of the right wing UK press went into overdrive this afternoon as news reports incorrectly stated that the trailer carrying those 39 poor unfortunates came in via Holyhead.

There's no proof Ireland is a soft underbelly into the UK. I've a suspicion Irish customs are even stricter than their UK counterparts.

Letwin_Larry · 23-10-2019 07:11PM

murphaph wrote: »

The comments sections of the right wing UK press went into overdrive this afternoon as news reports incorrectly stated that the trailer carrying those 39 poor unfortunates came in via Holyhead.

absolutely the route they claimed the truck made just made no sense whatsoever.
quite possible the driver had no idea what was in the trailer, and was simply contracted to travel to Essex and then deliver it to wherever.

some reportage comparing him with The Yorkshire Ripper and Harold Shipman are totally wrong imo.

Letwin_Larry · 23-10-2019 07:17PM

sondagefaux wrote: »

Apparently it first entered Britain via Holyhead.

the truck/tractor did but the trailer came over from Zeebrugge into Purfleet.
those poor people may well have been dead before he even arrived.
disgusting whatever, but the driver may be totally innocent.

prawnsambo · 23-10-2019 07:19PM

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

absolutely the route they claimed the truck made just made no sense whatsoever.
quite possible the driver had no idea what was in the trailer, and was simply contracted to travel to Essex and then deliver it to wherever.

some reportage comparing him with The Yorkshire Ripper and Harold Shipman are totally wrong imo.

Yeah, the shipping company usually has various subcontracted haulage companies to do the job once the container gets to port. Some of it is in-house in some countries and farmed out in others. It's quite possible it was the driver who reported it, otherwise how would anyone know?

black forest · 23-10-2019 07:46PM

These articles will probably come up more often.

https://twitter.com/fgabikay/status/1187019469408870400?s=21

Direct link to the full article.

https://www.fginsight.com/news/canada-stopped-trade-talks-after-liberal-no-deal-tariffs-removed-uk-leverage--96402

So as expected why should anybody look out for an FTA when most of the UK tariffs are at zero anyway? The sharks are patient and just resume circling.

23-10-2019 08:20PM

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

the truck/tractor did but the trailer came over from Zeebrugge into Purfleet.
those poor people may well have been dead before he even arrived.
disgusting whatever, but the driver may be totally innocent.

Yes, quite likely he just picked up the trailer to take to the industrial estate, the real question is how long did it take to get from Bulgaria to Zeebrugge.

Tired Gardener · 23-10-2019 08:45PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I used the term 'Special Relationship' not 'Special Agreement'. There is a huge difference. I may have an agreement to buy a car from someone, but if that someone is my brother, then it is different as we both have to live with it if there is a problem. Not the same with a stranger.

The UK had an agreement with the USA during the 2nd WW which was call 'Lend Lease' where the USA sold munitions and supplies to the UK, and got payment after hostilities ended. This bankrupted the UK. They had an agreement on nuclear weapons, but the UK had to stop developing and buy USA trident. They had an agreement on computers, but the UK had to abandon development in favour of US computers. etc etc etc. Agreement ended up in buying American, or follow USA into war - but not the other way round. That is the basis of an agreement, that is true.

The UK lost its Empire in 1948 when India became independent. India was the Empire - the rest were just colonies. The colonies were lost to uprises and revolutions by native populations against the colonial power.

Ireland on the other hand visits the White House every year to celebrate St Patrick's Day, and holds the St Patrick's Day Parade in NY on St Patrick's Day every year - one of very few parades held on the actual day.

Most US presidents visit Ireland to help their re-election. Most US politicians like to emphasise any Irish heritage. Now that is a relationship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship

Sorry to derail this, but the UK and the US do have a special relationship, it is an unofficial term for the 'unparralled closesness' of the two countries, no other two countries are as close. The big difference is that while the people of US have a very favourable view towards Ireland, it is the US governments that have a favourable view towards the UK. The UK is still after all the world's 5th largest economy and has a very large modern military, so has more to offer in a relationship.

Losing Hong Kong was the end of the British Empire, yes losing Indian would have been a massive blow to the Empire, but the British Empire still had many African nations. The last to be given independence was Zimbabwe in 1980, some view that as the end of the Empire, bit historically it was with Hong Kong. It could be argued that the Empire was over with the end of WW1, just given the sheer colossal size of it, it took nearly 100 years for it to die.

Nody · 23-10-2019 09:29PM

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship

Sorry to derail this, but the UK and the US do have a special relationship, it is an unofficial term for the 'unparralled closesness' of the two countries, no other two countries are as close. The big difference is that while the people of US have a very favourable view towards Ireland, it is the US governments that have a favourable view towards the UK. The UK is still after all the world's 5th largest economy and has a very large modern military, so has more to offer in a relationship.

Yes the US has a special relationship with the UK; it's a great asset (read obedient dog) to be used as needed but that's it's a one way relationship. Shall we talk about for example how Trump sent out the information that UK had gathered and set as top secret around the Russian poisoning for example? Or that US has stated that UK will have to lower it's standards in any future trade deal? That US wanted one way extraditions (UK to USA but not the other way around)? Installing spy satellites for NSA (how many spy installations does the UK have in the US again?), etc.? You can keep talking about the special relationship but can you show were US was in the Falklands war or supported UK in any other major conflict or issue? Now compare how many conflicts UK have backed up the US in by comparison. Yes, special one way relationship indeed but nothing more than that, US loves to call up the UK if it needs something but if it's the other way around it's ignored.

jimmycrackcorm · 23-10-2019 09:40PM

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship

Sorry to derail this, but the UK and the US do have a special relationship, it is an unofficial term for the 'unparralled closesness' of the two countries, no other two countries are as close. The big difference is that while the people of US have a very favourable view towards Ireland, it is the US governments that have a favourable view towards the UK. The UK is still after all the world's 5th largest economy and has a very large modern military, so has more to offer in a relationship.
.

I think the reality is that special relationship means one sided in favour of the US telling the UK that they go to war in the middle East when they are told.

Only the brits talk about it and its because they were so relieved after grovelling during WW2 that the US joined. To Americans, their view of the brits is more exemplified by the the film 'The Patriot'.

I can't see how the UK should think they have such in all practical reality other than be useful idiots for the US security services.

The UK doesn't get immigration preclearance, the Americans don't celebrate St George's day, and burne republicans and Democrats both say they will vote down a FTA if Ireland is harmed through breaking the GFA. Not a peep about telling the EU they won't get a trade deal if the UK doesn't get a great WA.

GM228 · 23-10-2019 09:43PM

Just another way to frustrate MPs:-

https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1187063196345163776?s=19

He writes like a doctor, but at least he signed it

LeinsterDub · 23-10-2019 09:59PM

Rumours abound on Twitter that Johnson is going to push for a mid December election

Sam Russell · 23-10-2019 10:00PM

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Losing Hong Kong was the end of the British Empire, yes losing Indian would have been a massive blow to the Empire, but the British Empire still had many African nations. The last to be given independence was Zimbabwe in 1980, some view that as the end of the Empire, bit historically it was with Hong Kong. It could be argued that the Empire was over with the end of WW1, just given the sheer colossal size of it, it took nearly 100 years for it to die.

Victoria was declared Empress of India. It was after that declaration when reference to 'The British Empire' and 'British India' started and the myth of he Great British Empire was extended to all British colonies.

When India gained independence in 1948, the Empire ceased. Inia has a flag that is green, white and gold because it was the second country to break away from the British.

I wonder who was the first?

Irish Praetorian · 23-10-2019 10:01PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Victoria was declared Empress of India. It was after that declaration when reference to 'The British Empire' and 'British India' started and the myth of he Great British Empire was extended to all British colonies.

When India gained independence in 1948, the Empire ceased. Inia has a flag that is green, white and gold because it was the second country to break away from the British.

I wonder who was the first?

That would be Burma if we're talking about the Commonwealth, or the USA if we're talking about secession from UK rule.

Danzy · 23-10-2019 10:02PM

Going Strong wrote: »

I read somewhere that this demographic is mostly the same one that, 40 years ago, took a gamble on Margaret Thatcher. The curbing of trade unions, deregulating nationalised utilities and breaking open the housing market benefited them and they saw Brexit as another opportunity to diminish state control once again.

After all, they've voted Conservative to impose austerity on "Work Shy Scroungers" and deter immigrants from "Clogging up the NHS". Brexit should return sovereignty to Westminster to remove any EU-related impediments to further cuts in government spending so that "The Squeezed Middle" such as themselves can be feather-bedded some more.

In short, they feel that, whatever downsides there might be to Brexit, they will be immune from it and relatively wealthy enough to profit from it at the expense of the 'undeserving'.

Yet as the bar chart earlier on voters showed, the majority of the working class voted leave, the majority of the managerial class voted Remain.

Just even talking to people in the Remain protests recently, different side of the tracks.

Class divide is important in why people voted leave and remain and the motives they ascribe to each other.

Joe_ Public · 23-10-2019 10:14PM

GM228 wrote: »

Just another way to frustrate MPs:-

https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1187063196345163776?s=19

He writes like a doctor, but at least he signed it

Would you normally expect such a letter to be typed? I cant even read it. Seemed to be some difficulty with Priti Patel too, heard one mp mention in the house yesterday they had been trying to get her in front of a select committee since august, at least thats what i thought i heard?

GM228 · 23-10-2019 10:18PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Would you normally expect such a letter to be typed? I cant even read it. Seemed to be some difficulty with Priti Patel too, heard one mp mention in the house yesterday they had been trying to get her in front of a select committee since august, at least thats what i thought i heard?

I would think so, but you would also normally expect a PM to attend.

GM228 · 23-10-2019 10:21PM

Do not dump memes here please.

Joe_ Public · 23-10-2019 10:26PM

GM228 wrote: »

I would think so, but you would also normally expect a PM to attend.

Most unfortunate he is causing such dither and delay to vital committee business.

To answer my own question above i see they did get Patel in front of committee today. She was unable to answer their questions on border checks between GB and NI because, basically, she is utterly useless.

Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Comments