Brexit (Old)

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It has been argued by Remainers that the existence of the EU has actually helped to prevent war as it would be very difficult to declare war on a fellow member!

Not sure what I think of the idea of an EU army, would this involve a new army being created and paid for by member states or would the existing armies of each country be transferred over to working for the EU? Would this be full or part time (like footballers working for their own club and playing for England). Would the EU have the final say over our troops?

Would the idea of having extra troops at our disposal make us safer? What are the main concerns of those who oppose this idea? Would it only be used to protect member states from outside forces or could it be used for situations like Iraq?

Well according to Trump's tweet from a few days ago, he already seems to think there is/was an EU army lmao.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

As I said, we were first in abolition of slavery and we ran highly civilised administrations in our colonies especially when you view what many of them are like now.

Just because we were the first to abolish slavery does not make it right in any way.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

But the programme didn't deal with the underlying issues around the EU that are getting lost in the political dogfight. To remind:

1. The EU is rigged for the benefit of Germany (Euro) and France (CAP);

2. The UK is the 2nd largest net contributor to the EU budget;

3. "Ever Closer Union" is the EU's mantra = Deutschland über Alles;

4. The perfidious Irish are using the GFA to protect their exports;

5. The Euro is not sufficiently underpinned - see what'll happen when Italy fails;

6. Remember the EU and Greece.

In the meantime Parliament fiddles while Brexit burns.

If you want facts, I'd like to point out to you that as a percentage of our income, the UK was the lowest contributor to the EU. See, I can use the same table from the BBC website you appear to have used.

As for the rest, I'd argue most of it is opinion , apart from the problems with the Euro (which I have never been a fan of).

As for the Irish, you appear to be blaming them for using the law to protect their own exports. Isn't that what any government should do? Also, should they accept an outside government they didn't vote for coming in to tell them what to do? Bear in mind that to the Irish, that is exactly what the UK government is. An outside organisation that they didn't vote for.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don't think so. Colonial guilt prevails particularly when African countries play the colonial card.

As I said, we were first in abolition of slavery and we ran highly civilised administrations in our colonies especially when you view what many of them are like now.

I also remind that we took in the East African Asians in the 1970s when the post-colonial governments persecuted them and drove them out. India refused to take them. This is one of the great things that the UK has done in its history.

Read this book and it might enlighten your thinking.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inglorious-...lorious+Empire

[jfman]

Originally Posted by denphone

Just because we were the first to abolish slavery does not make it right in any way.

Indeed, being the first to abolish something isn’t absolution for participating in the first place. A stain on our history glorified in many of the historic buildings and statues our cities.

[techguyone]

I wish a mod would step in and curb all this OT bs, I'm sure they could start a 'the evil of the British Empire' thread without derailing a BREXIT one.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by denphone

Just because we were the first to abolish slavery does not make it right in any way.

Two things.

1. Time moves forward and humanity tries things at a particular point in time.

2. Nobody is justifying past slavery. We're glad it was abolished by civilised countries.



---------- Post added at 16:10 ---------- Previous post was at 16:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart

If you want facts, I'd like to point out to you that as a percentage of our income, the UK was the lowest contributor to the EU. See, I can use the same table from the BBC website you appear to have used.
[SEPH]: The headline ranking - cash - which is what the EU counts was as I stated.

As for the rest, I'd argue most of it is opinion , apart from the problems with the Euro (which I have never been a fan of).

As for the Irish, you appear to be blaming them for using the law to protect their own exports. Isn't that what any government should do? Also, should they accept an outside government they didn't vote for coming in to tell them what to do? Bear in mind that to the Irish, that is exactly what the UK government is. An outside organisation that they didn't vote for.
[SEPH]: Total rubbish. Of course they are entitled to look after their own interests. But on a sham basis? Which is what they are doing.

Let's leave the British Empire to another time or thread

[Dave42]

Beth Rigby just said on sky news they think the 48 letters are in


Beth Rigby
‏
Verified account

@BethRigby
Follow
Follow @BethRigby

More
Confidence vote watch. I know it’s a dangerous game to play and Sir Graham is keeper of the list. But my ERG sources pretty confident now that 48 trigger been breached. Of course Sir Graham won’t announce while PM out of country - and we’ve been here before. But mood hardening

[jfman]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-leave-backers

With the huge health warning that it’s polling data, and the Guardian, but if representative of the country as a whole the great nudge is working.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-leave-backers

With the huge health warning that it’s polling data, and the Guardian, but if representative of the country as a whole the great nudge is working.

I commend the article (accepting the health warning). A passage I'd pick out bearing in mind the first thrust of the article is that diehard support for Brexit is on the wane:

However, the study also found support for a second referendum had slipped slightly since June and a majority were deeply concerned about the prospect of no deal.

[jfman]

I did spot that, the problem being a second referendum doesn’t need a majority of the public to want one, only Parliament to legislate for it.

What’d be curious, and I accept highly unlikely, is if leave voters boycotted the referendum. It’d be a legally enacted referendum with no real legitimacy. To lose 52-48 would demonstrably be a shift in public opinion, but what if you couldn’t measure a shift at all?

[pip08456]

Those going on about British Callonialism and empire should also consider this.

French colonialism in Vietnam lasted more than six decades. By the late 1880s, the French controlled Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, which were collectively referred to as Indochine Français (French Indochina). Indochina became one of France’s most lucrative colonial possessions. It was part of a French empire that spanned northern and western Africa, as well as islands in the Caribbean and the Pacific. To justify their imperialism, the French developed their own principle called the mission civilisatrice (or ‘civilising mission’). It was, in effect, a French form of the English ‘white man’s burden’. French imperialists claimed it was their responsibility to colonise undeveloped regions in Africa and Asia, to introduce modern political ideas, social reforms, industrial methods and new technologies. Without European intervention, these places would remain backward, uncivilised and impoverished. The mission civilisatrice was a facade: the real motive for French colonialism was profit and economic exploitation. French imperialism was driven by a demand for resources, raw materials and cheap labour. The development of colonised nations was scarcely considered, except where it happened to benefit French interests.

I wonder what the Dutch East India company did?

Oh sorry you were only talking about the British Empire whilst ignoring all the rest at the time.

Oh bugger, I'm going to have to flail myself for what someone else's forefathers has done. My dad didn't have any say in it.

BTW neither did my grandad or any member of my family. We knew our place.

[jfman]

Nobody said there weren’t issues with other countries colonising either, simply that Britain wasn’t whiter than white in its illustrious history of war crimes, genocide, internment, slavery, etc. Only pointing out you can’t point to others history without considering our own.

I’m sure there was a moderator request on this somewhere...

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

Nobody said there weren’t issues with other countries colonising either, simply that Britain wasn’t whiter than white in its illustrious history of war crimes, genocide, internment, slavery, etc. Only pointing out you can’t point to others history without considering our own.

I’m sure there was a moderator request on this somewhere...

Mod Edit - insult removed. Repetion of this wil invoke infractions

I would never excuse what happened over the last couple of hundred years.

Could I ask how far you wish to go back because I'd be really interested from your POV.

The War of the Roses?
The 100 year war?
Where do you want to start so I can know when to start repenting?
Oh I forgot the crusades and all that happened then!