Poppy

Spook_ie · 12-11-2018 5:50pm

murpho999 wrote: »

No idea why you'd drink to mine, the queen or any stranger's health. Not something I've ever done.

Do you not toast the bride and groom at a wedding or have you not been to any weddings?

FrancieBrady · 12-11-2018 6:09pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Oh so you would defer then, interesting how self serving someone's opinion can be, when it suits.

A doctor is a profession, he/she is something I am not. There is nothing deferential in it.

Do you even understand the distinction?

I am a polite and thoroughly well adjusted Irish man, whose belief in the notion of republicanism makes it anathema to call anyone by a deferential title.

As I said, people generally have no respect for those who will doff the hat when there is absolutely no requirement to do so.

T.S. Eliot recognises it in his view of Polonius:

"an easy tool . . . Deferential, glad to be of use. Politic, cautious, and meticulous. Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse. At times, indeed, almost ridiculous--Almost, at times, the Fool."

end of the road · 12-11-2018 6:25pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's good to see you finally contributing eotr! This doesn't really fit the criteria of empire though, does it? No more than it does with France.

If the criteria we use is whether the people who are being ruled by the government want to be ruled by the government (and have been given the democratic capacity to reject that rule), I think we can safely eliminate it being an empire. New Caledonia for instance, just the other day, was given the opportunity to gain independence from France, which was firmly rejected. Similarly, possessions like Gibraltar and the Falklands have rejected independence.

There'd be a stronger case to be made that Spain is an empire.

people wanting or not wanting to be ruled by the government isn't the only criteria to judge as to whether a country still constitutes an empire. holding territory way outside a country's border but a lot nearer to another country, such as the falklands and gibraltar, would still make a country an empire. so in my view britain is still very much an empire.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Sorry, but you just don't understand politeness. Nothing I can do for you but wish you well for the future.

i have to disagree, not doffing the cap to someone who happens to be born into privelage, does not mean one doesn't understand politeness.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Oh so you would defer then, interesting how self serving someone's opinion can be, when it suits.

the title doctor is earned by studdying hard for the qualification of being a doctor, unlike titles of privelage.

12-11-2018 6:43pm

end of the road wrote: »

r but a lot nearer to another country, such as the falklands and gibraltar, would still make a country an empire. so in my view britain is still very much an empire.

so small, largely agricultural countries, automatically become the possession of their larger neighbour, despite what the population wishes?

end of the road · 12-11-2018 6:48pm

Aegir wrote: »

so small, largely agricultural countries, automatically become the possession of their larger neighbour, despite what the population wishes?

gibraltar and the falklands are not countries..

12-11-2018 6:59pm

end of the road wrote: »

gibraltar and the falklands are not countries..

What are they then, commodities?

klaaaz · 12-11-2018 7:05pm

Aegir wrote: »

What are they then, commodities?

Colonies like the north.

FrancieBrady · 12-11-2018 7:07pm

klaaaz wrote: »

Colonies like the north.

Cue....'You aren't allowed to call them that anymore'...in 5...4...3...2...1

12-11-2018 7:08pm

klaaaz wrote: »

Colonies like the north.

They are both self governing.

RandomName2 · 12-11-2018 7:10pm

end of the road wrote: »

people wanting or not wanting to be ruled by the government isn't the only criteria to judge as to whether a country still constitutes an empire. holding territory way outside a country's border but a lot nearer to another country, such as the falklands and gibraltar, would still make a country an empire. so in my view britain is still very much an empire.

But by that definition so too is Japan, USA, France, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Russia, and Norway. You know, to be consistent.

Edit: forgot, the Netherlands too.. and arguably Denmark.

end of the road · 12-11-2018 7:10pm

Aegir wrote: »

They are both self governing.

self-governing colonies and uk dependants.

FrancieBrady · 12-11-2018 7:14pm

Aegir wrote: »

They are both self governing.

Authority is vested in the queen who appoints a governor. Here is the oath sworn:

"I, name, do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and the people of the Falkland Islands, and will uphold the Constitution and other laws in force in the Falkland Islands, in the office of Governor. (So help me God.)"

A bit of bowing, scraping and hat doffing going on there.

12-11-2018 7:19pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Authority is vested in the queen who appoints a governor. Here is the oath sworn:

A bit of bowing, scraping and hat doffing going on there.

And they have the full autonomous power to change that any time they like.

RandomName2 · 12-11-2018 7:21pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Authority is vested in the queen who appoints a governor. Here is the oath sworn:

A bit of bowing, scraping and hat doffing going on there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state

end of the road · 12-11-2018 7:24pm

Aegir wrote: »

And they have the full autonomous power to change that any time they like.

for now. if large scale oil supplies are found down there that might change

FrancieBrady · 12-11-2018 7:27pm

Aegir wrote: »

And they have the full autonomous power to change that any time they like.

Yeh, right. They did same as they did in Ireland - plantation. No wonder they have 'autonomy'?

RandomName2 · 12-11-2018 7:35pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, right. They did same as they did in Ireland - plantation. No wonder they have 'autonomy'?

Somehow I'm not surprised that you'd be looking down your nose at either the Falkland or Gibraltar people. Incidentally you're wrong, unless you're conflating immigration and plantation, but that's not the salient feature of your post but rather your complete disregard for people who don't feel exactly the same way you do.

12-11-2018 7:43pm

end of the road wrote: »

for now. if large scale oil supplies are found down there that might change

Is that the EOTR equivalent of throwing a strop?

12-11-2018 7:45pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Somehow I'm not surprised that you'd be looking down your nose at either the Falkland or Gibraltar people. Incidentally you're wrong, unless you're conflating immigration and plantation, but that's not the salient feature of your post but rather your complete disregard for people who don't feel exactly the same way you do.

In fairness, you almost have to admire the bare faced arrogance and hypocrisy.

end of the road · 12-11-2018 7:47pm

Aegir wrote: »

Is that the EOTR equivalent of throwing a strop?

it's not no .

Aegir wrote: »

In fairness, you almost have to admire the bare faced arrogance and hypocrisy.

what bare faced arrogance and hypocrisy?

12-11-2018 7:50pm

end of the road wrote: »

it's not no .

what bare faced arrogance and hypocrisy?

The supposed belief in freedom and democracy and the continued idea that anyone who holds an opinion you don’t like is wrong.

FrancieBrady · 12-11-2018 8:25pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Somehow I'm not surprised that you'd be looking down your nose at either the Falkland or Gibraltar people. Incidentally you're wrong, unless you're conflating immigration and plantation, but that's not the salient feature of your post but rather your complete disregard for people who don't feel exactly the same way you do.

I am not looking down my nose at anybody, merely stating facts that anyone not indentured to British propaganda can see as plain as the self same nose.
Here are some British journalist's (not enslaved by a need to protect the realm) views of just how 'automonous' (gerrymandered might be a word here and where have we seen that before?) the islands are:

For a state to ask the descendants of people they exported to garrison a colony generations before whether they want to maintain their links with the mother country is a no-brainer. The answer is bloody obvious. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Think also of Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. The settled people, always unloved by the indigenous (or neighbouring) community and therefore under pressure, naturally tend to wrap themselves in the Union flag and proclaim their love for the British monarch.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/mar/11/falklands-argentina

What other result could conceivably be expected if the future of the islands is put in the hands of the tiny British settler population, most of whom weren't born there but are subsidised to the tune of £44,856 a head to keep them in the Rhodesian retro style to which they are accustomed?

By giving the colonists a veto on any change in the islands' status, the British government is trying to pre-empt the issue at the heart of the conflict. But it won't be recognised by Argentina or Latin America, or Africa, or the UN – which regards this relic of empire as a problem of decolonisation – or the US, which is neutral on the dispute. All call for negotiations on sovereignty, which Britain rejects.

12-11-2018 8:42pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not looking down my nose at anybody, merely stating facts that anyone not indentured to British propaganda can see as plain as the self same nose.
Here are some British journalist's (not enslaved by a need to protect the realm) views of just how 'automonous' (gerrymandered might be a word here and where have we seen that before?) the islands are:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/mar/11/falklands-argentina

More of the usual arrogance.

Come on then, if the people of the Falkland Islands don’t own it because they are descended from the original settlers from Britain, then who does? The descendants of Spanish settlers who own the country 300 km away?

FrancieBrady · 12-11-2018 8:46pm

Aegir wrote: »

More of the usual arrogance.

Come on then, if the people of the Falkland Islands don’t own it because they are descended from the original settlers from Britain, then who does? The descendants of Spanish settlers who own the country 300 km away?

No interest in that argument Aegir. Just showing you that what you call 'bare faced arrogance' is actually the opinion of many, both here, in Britain itself and the UN etc.

In fact it is your arrogance trying to shut down any criticism of the 'realm' you love.

12-11-2018 8:46pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No interest in that argument Aegir. Just showing you that what you call 'bare faced arrogance' is actually the opinion of many, both here, in Britain itself and the UN etc.

In fact it is your arrogance trying to shut down any criticism of the 'realm' you love.

So you’re avoiding answering the question then.

FrancieBrady · 12-11-2018 8:53pm

Aegir wrote: »

So you’re avoiding answering the question then.

On who owns the Malvinas/Falklands? I most certainly am avoiding it. It is as much off topic as it is far away.

Just repudiating your nonsense about it's autonomy and colonial status. It's a rigged deck, as rigged as Derry was under gerrymandering.

12-11-2018 9:08pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

On who owns the Malvinas/Falklands? I most certainly am avoiding it. It is as much off topic as it is far away.

Just repudiating your nonsense about it's autonomy and colonial status.

wow, aren't you really cool and edgy using the Spanish term for the Falklands. it is Las Malvinas or the Falkland Islands by the way, if you want to be factually correct. Calling it The Malvinas just looks like you're trolling.:rolleyes:

where have you repudiated my statement about them not being a colony and having self governance? all you have done is make snide comments about doffing caps.

You have said nothing of substance and when asked for your opinion, duck the question because it's a bit too hard.

The Falklands falls in to colony status according to the UN's description, because their description is very poor and very widely disputed. The UN is the first to acknowledge this. Guadeloupe and La reunion for example aren't classed as colonies because despite being thousands of miles from Paris, they are considered part of France. They have no self governance and no route to full independence. The Falklands, on the other hand, has QEII as monarch and depends on the UK for foreign relations and defence (which isn't surprising really when their closest neighbour keeps on rattling its sabre in their direction every time their economy goes to **** and the government needs a bit of deflection).

Which group of Islands sounds more like a colony?

So, come one, as you are the great all knowing one, what's your solution? Give the Islands to Argentina, against the wishes of the majority of the people there and their government, or make the UK abandon it and leave it wide open to Argentine aggression?

Folkstonian · 12-11-2018 9:13pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not looking down my nose at anybody, merely stating facts that anyone not indentured to British propaganda can see as plain as the self same nose.
Here are some British journalist's (not enslaved by a need to protect the realm) views of just how 'automonous' (gerrymandered might be a word here and where have we seen that before?) the islands are:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/mar/11/falklands-argentina

Are you a parody account?

97% of argentines are themselves descended from European colonisers.

If you accept that the descendants of Spanish and Italian settlers in South America have a right to self determination

it follows that you must also accept that the descendants of British settlers in the Falklands have that same right

To argue otherwise would make you a raging hypocrite

RandomName2 · 12-11-2018 9:29pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

indentured to British propaganda not enslaved by a need to protect the realm) views of just how 'automonous' (gerrymandered might be a word here and where have we seen that before?) the islands are:

So I suppose you support the forced expulsion of all white Australians and New Zealanders, or did they get it right, in your view, because they are mostly independent?

But oh, this must be a difficult one for you, because on one hand you'll hand to say you have nothing against the Australians and New Zealanders (particularly with so many of the immigrants being Irish), but on the other, not only are they part of the Commonwealth, but they use that poppy that you and the other Sinn Feiners in this thread have been going apoplectic over!

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/270998/australia-saves-nz-from-poppy-shortage

FrancieBrady · 12-11-2018 9:31pm

Aegir wrote: »

wow, aren't you really cool and edgy using the Spanish term for the Falklands. it is Las Malvinas or the Falkland Islands by the way, if you want to be factually correct. Calling it The Malvinas just looks like you're trolling.:rolleyes:

where have you repudiated my statement about them not being a colony and having self governance? all you have done is make snide comments about doffing caps.

You have said nothing of substance and when asked for your opinion, duck the question because it's a bit too hard.

The Falklands falls in to colony status according to the UN's description, because their description is very poor and very widely disputed. The UN is the first to acknowledge this. Guadeloupe and La reunion for example aren't classed as colonies because despite being thousands of miles from Paris, they are considered part of France. They have no self governance and no route to full independence. The Falklands, on the other hand, has QEII as monarch and depends on the UK for foreign relations and defence (which isn't surprising really when their closest neighbour keeps on rattling its sabre in their direction every time their economy goes to **** and the government needs a bit of deflection).

Which group of Islands sounds more like a colony?

So, come one, as you are the great all knowing one, what's your solution? Give the Islands to Argentina, against the wishes of the majority of the people there and their government, or make the UK abandon it and leave it wide open to Argentine aggression?

:D

'The Falklands falls in to colony status according to the UN's description, because their description is very poor and very widely disputed.'

Would the main disputer be that colonist with the most number of colonies left on the list by any chance?

Keep towing the line Aegir and refusing to see what others, including British people themselves can see. If it looks like a colony, acts like a colony and is viewed as a colony, it most likely is a colony.
We know it embarrasses Britain these days to have them, but there you go.

Poppy

Comments