|
Brexit
May 17, 2018 22:35:14 GMT
Post by bixaorellana on May 17, 2018 22:35:14 GMT
You are not at all pariahs, but I think that the rest of us a trying to understand your position. Yes, what Kerouac said! Those of you who voted Leave are people we know online and/or in real life and as such, are people whose opinions we respect. That said, so far I have not been able to understand why you all support something that seems to me to be so radically unwise. ... the demolition of our fishing industry, local ports here like Gt Yarmouth and Lowestoft have become real depressed areas with many out of work. I believe that perceived demolition was a set piece of the Leave campaign, but there are reasons to doubt it: In a joint letter to The Times, a dozen fisheries experts and previous fisheries ministers called on George Eustice, the current fisheries minister, to stop pointing his finger at Europe and act now to change UK’s quota allocation rules. If sustainable fishing jobs are to return to North Shields, this is the type of action that is required. very interesting and complete source here. De Gaulle didn’t want us in his Europe. de Gaulle died in 1970. Britain joined the EEC in 1973.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 0:00:01 GMT
Post by questa on May 18, 2018 0:00:01 GMT
Indeed, I was really sorry to be dumping Australia. I hope you will forgive us and take us back! Yeah, maybe, but don't expect "mate's rates" anymore...and stop sending us convicts...sorry, "witness protection citizens"
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 0:19:32 GMT
Post by questa on May 18, 2018 0:19:32 GMT
The British Empire will never disappear while young men and women play cricket! It may refer to itself as a Commonwealth of Nations and the day may come when Bangladesh defeats Afghanistan in the World Cup final, but as they found out in the Falklands...The Empire Strikes Back.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 5:34:45 GMT
Post by bjd on May 18, 2018 5:34:45 GMT
British policy-makers in the decades after the Second World War sought to frame British foreign policy in terms of three ‘circles’, the Commonwealth, the US and western Europe . Moves towards European integration threatened to shut Britain out of one circle and severely diminish its influence in the other two. The pull of the Commonwealth was fading, but it remained the single most important issue in Britain’s first negotiations to join the European Communities, in 1961–63. By the time of the second application in 1966–67 Commonwealth countries had made alternative dispositions and the Commonwealth was itself becoming increasingly fractured; hence, the Commonwealth was less of an issue then or in the subsequent successful negotiations in 1970–71. Britain’s applications nevertheless represent a watershed in British–Commonwealth as well as British–European relations.
Abstract from The Commonwealth and Britain's Turn to Europe 1945-73
And a recent comment from The Guardian: "Until the run-up to Brexit, the notion that the Commonwealth offered the UK economic salvation would have been comic. In 2010, it was left to Ukip’s manifesto to promise a Commonwealth Free Trade Area, which would account for “more than 20% of all international trade and investment” and enable Britain to flourish outside the EU. Ukip’s leader, Nigel Farage, later described the manifesto as “drivel”; nevertheless the Tory manifesto for the next general election, in 2015, pledged to “further strengthen our ties with our close Commonwealth allies, Australia, Canada and New Zealand”. And by the time the referendum came around, several prominent leavers, including Boris Johnson and the Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, were happy to say the UK had “betrayed” the Commonwealth when it joined the EEC in 1973. It was time, as a Daily Telegraph headline had it, to “embrace the Commonwealth”.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 6:35:39 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 18, 2018 6:35:39 GMT
If you want facts and figures from me you won't get them. As I mentioned, I doubt there are any that, in either case anyway, are verifiable, either in support of leaving or not. They are just predictions and informed guesses. Nobody predicted what the result would be and I have little faith that anyone can be accurate in anything else. My reasons are not based on any unknown facts like these. Nor on any factual facts, if you see what I mean. Most who wanted to stay can come up with good reasons as to why we should, but usually in a way of saying negative things will happen, like concerning markets, the health service maybe, losing influence etc etc. They can also point to the good things that have happened in the past because of our membership. I have no answer for this because there is a certain truth in it. I cannot counter what they say.
My emotional decision is akin to the following scenario - I work for a large international company, say the HSBC Bank or Parmalat. I have a damn good wage, can travel to work in different countries and have the security of working in a large concern. I have access to many different things and have a certain amount of job security and protection. But, I used to work for a small company, that occasionally struggled, though I didn't have to abide so much by the strictures placed upon me every day and in everything I did as I do now. Also I was a lot less well off and initially it made complete economic sense to join the big company, especially because in the small company we began to struggle due to the market for our stuff getting smaller.
Yet, after some time, 45 years or so of being in the big company, I see more and more how virtually everything I do is affected by the big company. I have become a Company Man, as with those in many parts of the USA during the earlier parts of the 19th century. It's not just buying and selling, their influence extends a lot further and wider than just that. I fully understand the advantages I have by being with them and being part of their organisation. Yet, after 45 years or so, and without any sound economic reasons, as I know I will initially be worse off and maybe that will continue, but I am optimistic I can make a go of it, but I decide enough is enough. I'm leaving.
I have to go out now, but I might return to this, I've run out of time for the moment.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 8:25:23 GMT
Post by questa on May 18, 2018 8:25:23 GMT
OnlyMark...did you just pluck HSBC and Parmalat out of thin air as examples. If so, you have given me a wry smile. If you carefully chose them, you are more a cynic than I am. HSBC, WORLD'S MOST CORRUPT BANK thorstendan.blogspot.com/ Jun 11, 2013 - HSBC has recently been charged with money laundering by drug cartels and terrorists all over the world. HSBC was forced to apologize ... www.google.com.au/search?q=hsbc+corruption&rlz=1C1NHXL_enAU717AU718&oq=hsbc&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.49021j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8Ron Rimkus, CFA Parmalat’s fraud began the way many frauds begin — as an attempt to cover up losses. In 1990, the company’s South American subsidiary began generating losses, which CEO Calisto Tanzi chose to disguise in the company’s financial results. As happens in so many frauds, Parmalat’s choice to commit fraud made the company path dependent, leading to ever more unethical accounting conventions and self-dealing. The fraud was eventually discovered in 2003, when Parmalat defaulted on a €150 million bond issue despite reporting more than €4 billion in cash and equivalents on its balance sheet. www.econcrises.org/2016/11/29/parmalat/Ultimately, it was discovered that Tanzi and 16 other executives had collectively misappropriated over €1 billion for personal gain. The corruption was so widespread and long lasting that multiple red flags should have appeared for multiple people both inside and outside of Parmalat. Back to Brexit...
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 9:35:05 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 18, 2018 9:35:05 GMT
Funnily enough I was thinking of massive organisations with little or no oversight. They came to mind.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 10:31:46 GMT
Post by mossie on May 18, 2018 10:31:46 GMT
Oddly enough the big white cheese Junkers was boss of Luxemburg when they made the sweetheart tax deal with Amazon. Did he get anything for that.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 12:52:16 GMT
Post by whatagain on May 18, 2018 12:52:16 GMT
Questa makes a very valid point. I was disgusted that the E.U forced us to abandon our old Commonwealth partners in order to toe their line. Ditto the demolition of our fishing industry, local ports here like Gt Yarmouth and Lowestoft have become real depressed areas with many out of work. These are only two of the factors which turned me into a confirmed 'Leave at all costs'. Walking in Paris recently I came across a statue of Churchill, with a quote from his speech in June 1940. "We shall never surrender". We had been deserted by France, who opposed us from Vichy, and left to face the Nazis alone, albeit with valuable help from men from our Commonwealth and patriots from various European countries who came here when their homes were overrun. With regards to France, I know de Gaulle came here and rallied some Frenchmen to him, but don't forget we had to sink their fleet threatening us at Oran, and also fight them in Syria and elsewhere. This at a time when our backs were hard up against the wall, and we were facing defeat. I think I have told of my wartime experiences as a child, i.e. "When the Germans come, you boys are to put sugar in their petrol tanks".
I quite disagree here.
- The fleet has been destroyed partly at Mers El Kebir, true engouh but still free french rallied UK to fight with you. was it really necessary ? the French would not have fought against the Royal Navy and Hitler had not the capability to seize and man the french vessels. some French didn't approve of UK killing their seamen. this attack helped reinforce Vichy actually a,d alineated some french officers - june 40 was a disaster but : I've read that - UK abandoned France by taking back their planes to the island - UK sent the BEF in France - some 100.000 men in all (less than Belgian army... ) as Britain was devoid of troops in 1940, a result of decades of miltary fund cuts, RAF barely got enough planes to repel the Luftwaffe, thanks to lord Beaverbrook, not thanks to UK politicians. - Chamberlain was about to sign peace with Herr Hitler, the way he had done it in Munich. - Churchill fought hard to evict him, get in power and find sufficient support to carry on the war. It was tight. France got De Gaulle later than UK got Churchill so could not bring the french colonies into war in 1940. but did from 1942.
Most of the fighting in Syria has been done by French : free frenchs against Vichy troops. UK troops were there but had a lighter role.
France (and possibly UK) blamed Belgium for the defeat too. My position can be that Weygand's plan was useless, that Corap's army (or was it Huntziger) retreated so fast on our right flank and the BEF was retreating so fast on our left that we could never anchor a solid resistance along one of our rivers. Of course we could allied faster instead of staying neutral in facade.
So in these times, Germany was simply better - military speaking - than we were. And we all failed. Truth is that UK was saved by the sea, simple as that. Would you have been on the continent you'ed have been overrun. Belgium continued some fighting from Congo, NL lost their colonies at the time UK lost Singapore, and whilst most French lost their will to fight a lot went to UK, along with Poles, Czechs etc and died in skies of Britain or in Bir Hakeim protecting the 8th army or ... or ...
To be complete, at that time the US were still resplendiscent in their isolationism and didn't move until bombed at Pearl Harbour. Yet nobody seems to blame them for not lifting a finger in 1939 (Poland), 1940 (low lands, France), 1941 (Yugolsavia, Greece, Soviet Union). Sure they came in 1942-44 but where would they have gone to if Britain had surrendered or signed an armistice ? So why blame the French alone ?
Btw my grandfather didn't put sugar in petrol tanks but gave to UK the drawings of his trainstation so that RAF could bomb it with better accuracy (well, accuracy in these times...)
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 12:56:55 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on May 18, 2018 12:56:55 GMT
Don't mess with students of history!
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 15:00:40 GMT
Post by questa on May 18, 2018 15:00:40 GMT
Once Japan entered the fray Australia needed its troops back in the Pacific. Churchill was furious but the Coalition Parliament stood up to him (for once) and pulled our troops back.
Knowing that the country was too big to defend all of it, a line was drawn from north of Brisbane and ran west of the more populated areas in a curve around to the south east to Adelaide. This Brisbane Line left most of the country undefended but with the fall of Singapore and the fighting down through the islands, it remains a moot point if any of the country could have fought back. Darwin and Broome were bombed several times and Japanese submarines sank shipping inside Sydney Harbour. UK did not send help even after VE day and our war went on for months before the nuclear bombs produced VJ day.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 15:13:48 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on May 18, 2018 15:13:48 GMT
Those two really big wars in the 20th century were really scary, just about everywhere except perhaps South America (which I suppose is what made it a great refuge for certain people afterwards).
I guess it's one of the reasons which makes me wonder about people who want to pull out of safe alliances which exist.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 15:23:07 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 18, 2018 15:23:07 GMT
Rather than go so far off topic and debate WWII history, it can be done separately if necessary, only a portion of the French fleet was at Mers El Kebir. Roughly an equal amount was at Toulouse. Britain could not risk in the slightest that these ships were used against us. I'll take this opportunity to give my opinion on this and then move elsewhere if necessary to keep the thread on track.
Britain was on a knife edge as to survival or not and with our backs to the wall (maybe because of our own politicians and foreign policy, granted) and then having to trust parts of a defeated nation to hold to their word in the face of an overwhelming enemy - as evidenced by how fast they rolled up all forces from all nations assisting in France, UK and otherwise, Britain felt the only ally they could trust was just themselves. It has been said above, "the French would not have fought against the Royal Navy and Hitler had not the capability to seize and man the french vessels." The first part relies on the word of the French - doesn't matter what nationality, it'd be be same for any, but we do have a history with the French that was not always positive. So would we sit back and say to each other, "No problem, they've promised not to use that fleet against us." Yeah, right. The second part relies on a determination as to how strong the Germans were. An assessment. An educated guess. An opinion in effect. If not capable immediately now, what about in six months, or a year? No manpower? They'd get it from somewhere like they were able to field millions during the war. The Kriegsmarine had one and a half million membership throughout from 1939 - 1945, the Wehrmacht, which included the navy and air force had about fifteen million using conservative figures. I'm sure they'd have found a few to man the ships from somewhere. Would we sit back and say to each other, "No problem, the Germans aren't capable of getting at them, they don't have anyone to man them and the French have promised not to give the ships to them anyway." Yeah, right. Operation Lila was instigated by the Germans in 1942 to seize the rest of the French fleet at Toulouse, approx the same size fleet as was at Mers El Kebir. The fleet was scuttled. But the attack came as a complete surprise to the French and as these things happen, had the German troops not got lost in the Arsenal of Toulouse, it may well have succeeded. Britain could not trust to fate and the vagaries of other nations, assessments of strength and capabilities, estimates of manpower and so on. It had to act, and it did. It pissed off a lot of French for sure. But France was a defeated nation (and we were clinging on by the skin of our teeth and biting our nails because we knew what was to come from the Germans after they'd met so little resistance so far) and the future looked bleak. We could run the risk of making the French not very happy with us as opposed to being unsure if that portion of the French fleet might be used against us. We knew and felt things, if not precisely at that time but would happen soon, would be on a knife edge.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 15:38:03 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 18, 2018 15:38:03 GMT
I guess it's one of the reasons which makes me wonder about people who want to pull out of safe alliances which exist. Big, big difference between world wars and NATO and the membership of a common market that rules on vegetable shapes. If that's what you are referring to.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 15:41:19 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on May 18, 2018 15:41:19 GMT
I don't think that such a discussion is off topic at all. All modern opinions are based on things remembered/experienced by certain people still alive.
If you were discussing the war of 1812, I might think it was off topic.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 15:44:20 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on May 18, 2018 15:44:20 GMT
I guess it's one of the reasons which makes me wonder about people who want to pull out of safe alliances which exist. Big, big difference between world wars and NATO and the membership of a common market that rules on vegetable shapes. If that's what you are referring to. Is "vegetable shapes" the only item that you have retained from EU rules? That would be really sad.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 15:47:46 GMT
Post by mossie on May 18, 2018 15:47:46 GMT
With regard to NATO, I see Mr Trump is having a go about most of Europe not contributing 2%. And quite rightly so, it has seemed to me that Germany in particular has relied on the US and our armed forces for their protection, while being able to benefit greatly from not paying out. This applies to many other EU members, and was another factor in my vote to leave.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 16:18:54 GMT
Post by bixaorellana on May 18, 2018 16:18:54 GMT
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 16:20:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by whatagain on May 18, 2018 16:20:43 GMT
Toulon Mossie. Not Toulouse. The French did not fight with their fleet but at least scuttled it.
When the nazis took over Italy they could not man the rest of supermarina vessels. Manning a battleship and sending it to combat is no easy task. Not saying uk was wrong but I think mers El kebir was unnecessary.
And Churchill was de Gaulle's strongest support whilst Roosevelt was supporting peiple like Darlan.
Besides I thought uk-friendship had been cemented in the Flanders field after both refrained to go at each other throats at Fachoda.
Now sadly you say you prefer to be alone than to trust allies who didn't fight each other since 1815. I say sadly I cannot trust US whom I am not so sure are our allies anymore.
so brexit means in my eyes a weakening of the union which will have difficulties to negotiate with china or India or US : I don't believe Trump will be sympathetic when renegotiating treaties with us. And the power of negotiation shifts in their direction when U.K. Leaves. As for UK I wish them good luck negotiating anything with them. Or even with us. Small vs big worked for David but doesn't work well in capitalism.
EU started with the CECA : communauté européenne du charbon et de l acier. Steel and coal not vegetables.
Jeez I'd love to discuss with you half a night with enough beer. Good Belgian ones for me. Horrible stout or red ale for you ;-)
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 16:36:05 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 18, 2018 16:36:05 GMT
"Is "vegetable shapes" the only item that you have retained from EU rules? That would be really sad."
Nope I've retained a lot of items. Unfortunately far, far too many that have been applied to the UK from the EU (though obviously not all are bad) but nevertheless there are millions of pages of 'items' that are applied. I could have mentioned that eggs are not allowed to be sold by the dozen now, but by weight. And I'm quite surprised that we can still call a dozen a dozen. Did you have a baker's dozen in France? I admit to trivialising. Of that I am guilty.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 16:39:57 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on May 18, 2018 16:39:57 GMT
We don't have a baker's dozen in France.
However, eggs are still sold by the dozen and the half dozen retail in France. I am ashamed that we have forced the UK to abandon the dozen. That was mean.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 16:42:58 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on May 18, 2018 16:42:58 GMT
Oh, I see that this myth was crushed already 8 years ago. So sorry that you are not up on your data, Mark. www.bbc.com/news/10461548
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 16:53:33 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 18, 2018 16:53:33 GMT
"Now sadly you say you prefer to be alone than to trust allies who didn't fight each other since 1815."
But it could easily have been in 1898. However, eight hundred years (more?) or so of conflict as opposed to forty two years (since we very, very nearly came to blows because of Fashoda/Fachoda) of a sort of peace and understanding, caused us to err on the side of caution, you could say.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 16:55:34 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 18, 2018 16:55:34 GMT
K2, it appears from your post and retraction that you also were not up to date. Shame on both of us.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 17:20:05 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on May 18, 2018 17:20:05 GMT
Having trouble with irony, are you? Did you eat something wrong for dinner?
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 17:54:35 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 18, 2018 17:54:35 GMT
A dozen eggs.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 18:57:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by mickthecactus on May 18, 2018 18:57:13 GMT
Builders will still buy timber as 2 metres of 4”x2”.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 18, 2018 23:58:33 GMT
Post by questa on May 18, 2018 23:58:33 GMT
But those builders then measure off 3980mm X 50mm...
|
|
|
Brexit
May 29, 2018 21:06:08 GMT
Post by mickthecactus on May 29, 2018 21:06:08 GMT
Italy?
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 9, 2018 15:21:07 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on Jul 9, 2018 15:21:07 GMT
What a relief that Boris Johnson has finally resigned! Why wasn't he sacked months ago?
|
|