Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
I don't know any Leaver who wants the UK to be the 51st State. Why should one assume that a nation of 64 million people can only survive as part of some bigger political entity?
There have been a number of Leavers who have suggested just that in the past on here, probably just in jest. There have been a number also interested in reviving the Old Commonwealth.
"I am not saying for one moment that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union. Of course we could. We are a great country. The fifth largest economy in the world. The fastest growing economy in the G7 last year. The biggest destination for foreign direct investment in the EU..... Whether we could be successful outside the European Union – that’s not the question." David Cameron November 2015.
As ever, the question is not whether, but how.
Brexit is like a forest fire.
There is no question creative destruction can be healthy, sometimes even necessary. New forests can eventually rise from the ashes.
The issue of course is how much damage is done in the interim, what survives, and what is lost forever.
But that doesn't matter to the arsonists...
Would you like to list the things that might be lost forever that we would mourn?
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
I don't know any Leaver who wants the UK to be the 51st State. Why should one assume that a nation of 64 million people can only survive as part of some bigger political entity?
There have been a number of Leavers who have suggested just that in the past on here, probably just in jest. There have been a number also interested in reviving the Old Commonwealth.
Whether we vote to Remain or Leave, we should use and enhance our Old Commonwealth links.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
The USA has only ever and will only ever act in what they perceive as their best interests, and quite right too. The idea that this somehow gives them some sort of moral superiority, let alone a right to intervene politically in Europe, is, in my view bizarre.
What I would like to know is what happened to the real Mr. Eagles. There seems to be a Conservative Party drone posting under his name these days.
Having been to the American war cemeteries in Normandy, it has always had a profound impact on me.
I have done the same. I know what you mean.
However, by the same token, Americans saying they "saved our ass" in WWII and we're doing nothing until they showed up, and little after, is plain annoying, and untrue.
We could hold our own without the Americans, just not beat Nazi Germany.
That's a somewhat debatable assertion.
Had Britain not had financial (e.g. Lend/Lease) and logistical support, the result might have been different. Had Germany turned its full might on Britain in 1941 rather than going east, there almost certainly would have been.
The Americans did pay a high price for victory but much less than any other Allied country and they also garnered most of the benefits of the victory too.
Germany couldn't have overcome the Royal Navy. Of course, we could not have driven Germany out of occupied Europe.
Not with the Kreigsmarine but it could with the Luftwaffe. The Channel is narrow and Pearl Harbor and Taranto showed what could be done with carrier-based aircraft, never mind squadron upon squadron of dive-bombers. The RNs cruisers and battleships could only have wreaked havoc with the invasion force if they could have reached it. And the cross-channel attack would have been supported and slightly preceded by a paratroop assault, bypassing the ships altogether.
hL..The Americans paid a very high price..and not all of their dead are buried in Normandy..
Of course they aren't, Mr. Dodd. Have you ever visited the American cemetery near Cambridge? What about those in Italy? Or the Far East? However, the loss of life is not the same as the issues and politics of the war.
The USA has only ever and will only ever run its foreign policy on what it perceives as its own best interests. The USA did not, for example, give the UK sixty or so clapped-out old destroyers in 1940 - it charged a price for them and not a cheap one. The UK did not finally pay off its war loans from the USA until about ten years ago.
Quite Mr L. Much as I appreciate what the US did I never quite understand those who wish to portray it all as benevolence. They looked after themselves and drove a hard bargain - good for them, they had a good war. Pointing out they profited it from the conflict and often shafted the UK itheir ally n the process is simply historical fact.
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Obama may not want us (at least outside the EU) but Putin may do and who is calling the shots internationally at the moment? It is more the latter than the former. Putin's ideal result would be a BREXIT vote and a Corbyn victory at the next election, Seamus Milne, Corbyn's aide, has personally interviewed the Russian President
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
I don't know any Leaver who wants the UK to be the 51st State. Why should one assume that a nation of 64 million people can only survive as part of some bigger political entity?
There have been a number of Leavers who have suggested just that in the past on here, probably just in jest. There have been a number also interested in reviving the Old Commonwealth.
Whether we vote to Remain or Leave, we should use and enhance our Old Commonwealth links.
you mean like Dave should have been doing for the last 6 years and hasn't ?
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Not really.
Yesterday's president and Billary back remain, meanwhile Trump, Cruz, Jebb Bush, John Bolton and most republicans back leave. Corporatists and Statists support staying in isn't exactly a shocker.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
Obama has a perfect right to say what he likes (we can hardly stop him even if we wanted to), the question is surely, from his viewpoint, is it "wise"? I'm guessing Dave thinks it will all add to the background noise of EU leaders/IMF etc expressing the hope that we stay in, and will nudge a few more votes to Remain. The danger is it backfires if people object to being told what they should think and do by foreigners (even a perfectly nice one like Pres Obama). 4th July 1776 cuts both ways after all in the independence stakes.
Obama is entitled to say what he likes, and we are entitled to ignore him.
But it's surely far more than just a case of ignoring Obama. It's actually strong resentment at being told how to vote by a foreigner, looking after that foreigner's best interests.
I sense huge potential damage to the REMAIN cause here.
Yes, I'd have thought neutrality would be the best course of action - as it is when General Elections are being decided. I expect Hillary Clinton strongly favours "remain" mind - and it's her views not Obama's that will (probably) be of any import. One would struggle to get a fag paper between Clinton and Obama on politics, mind.
If Clinton has any political sense she would also say nothing. The polls are 50/50 and that means she may be having a LEAVEr as PM when she becomes President. Obama is in the departure lounge and probably does not worry if he has a LEAVEr as his contact point for his last 6 months in office. He also has been one of the least pro-UK Presidents we have had in many years.
Trump said on Piers Morgan he backs Leave, I doubt Sanders is a great fan of the EU either
@David Herdson - financial/logistic support, yes, but absolute military muscle less so.
Our navy and the RAF were capable of defending the home islands, we just couldn't do much to project power until they arrived. We did real damage to the Luftwaffe and the Germans surface fleet prior to the US becoming involved.
And we could have thumped the Italians (if the Germans hadn't intervened) fairly easily.
Mr. Herdson, read somewhere or other that the US was the only country to come out (financially) ahead from WWII.
Participating country I'd guess. I'm sure Sweden & Switzerland did ok.
There's a striking passage in Hastings' Nemesis where the traders on Wall Street started booing when the end of the war with Japan was announced.
I think Canada, South Africa and Australia came out of the war rather well too.
Of European countries involved with the war, perhaps the Czechs did best. They had very little war damage.
They did then have to suffer 40 years of communism and Soviet domination though. But yes, rather ironically, they were fortunate to be the first in and last out of Nazi occupation (unless you count Austria, which also didn't suffer too badly).
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
I don't know any Leaver who wants the UK to be the 51st State. Why should one assume that a nation of 64 million people can only survive as part of some bigger political entity?
There have been a number of Leavers who have suggested just that in the past on here, probably just in jest. There have been a number also interested in reviving the Old Commonwealth.
A United States of the Commonwealth was seriously mooted as an option by many euro-sceptics thirty years ago. Of course, back then India was a basket case, Australia hadn't looked towards Asia and we'd be running the show. Now, with India poised to overtake us in power and wealth, I suspect the idea would have less appeal.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
Obama has a perfect right to say what he likes (we can hardly stop him even if we wanted to), the question is surely, from his viewpoint, is it "wise"? I'm guessing Dave thinks it will all add to the background noise of EU leaders/IMF etc expressing the hope that we stay in, and will nudge a few more votes to Remain. The danger is it backfires if people object to being told what they should think and do by foreigners (even a perfectly nice one like Pres Obama). 4th July 1776 cuts both ways after all in the independence stakes.
Obama is entitled to say what he likes, and we are entitled to ignore him.
But it's surely far more than just a case of ignoring Obama. It's actually strong resentment at being told how to vote by a foreigner, looking after that foreigner's best interests.
I sense huge potential damage to the REMAIN cause here.
Liam Fox once asked if he would entertain a court above the US Supreme court.
I'd pay good coin to watch Liam Fox tap dancing in the Court of Public Opinion.
"I am not saying for one moment that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union. Of course we could. We are a great country. The fifth largest economy in the world. The fastest growing economy in the G7 last year. The biggest destination for foreign direct investment in the EU..... Whether we could be successful outside the European Union – that’s not the question." David Cameron November 2015.
As ever, the question is not whether, but how.
Brexit is like a forest fire.
There is no question creative destruction can be healthy, sometimes even necessary. New forests can eventually rise from the ashes.
The issue of course is how much damage is done in the interim, what survives, and what is lost forever.
But that doesn't matter to the arsonists...
Sounds like you approve of sclerosis and atrophy. There isn't any other way to leave, Dave tried the nice guy approach and got nothing. Besides, the way to make a forest fire is to repeat the European Communities Act.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
The USA has only ever and will only ever act in what they perceive as their best interests, and quite right too. The idea that this somehow gives them some sort of moral superiority, let alone a right to intervene politically in Europe, is, in my view bizarre.
What I would like to know is what happened to the real Mr. Eagles. There seems to be a Conservative Party drone posting under his name these days.
Having been to the American war cemeteries in Normandy, it has always had a profound impact on me.
I have done the same. I know what you mean.
However, by the same token, Americans saying they "saved our ass" in WWII and we're doing nothing until they showed up, and little after, is plain annoying, and untrue.
We could hold our own without the Americans, just not beat Nazi Germany.
That's a somewhat debatable assertion.
.
Germany couldn't have overcome the Royal Navy. Of course, we could not have driven Germany out of occupied Europe.
Not with the Kreigsmarine but it could with the Luftwaffe. The Channel is narrow and Pearl Harbor and Taranto showed what could be done with carrier-based aircraft, never mind squadron upon squadron of dive-bombers. The RNs cruisers and battleships could only have wreaked havoc with the invasion force if they could have reached it. And the cross-channel attack would have been supported and slightly preceded by a paratroop assault, bypassing the ships altogether.
They would have had to have had permanent command of the sea to land troops in any number, and to continue to supply them. A seaborne invasion is probably the hardest military activity to pull off successfully.
@DH - Wargame after war-game and study after study has convinced me the Germans could not have been successful in Sealion even if they'd won the Battle of Britain.
They simply didn't have the shipping or protection to escort a large landing force and, even if heavy losses occurred, the intervention of the Royal Navy amongst the rickety invasion fleet would have been decisive
Is it true that Cameron's £9.3m Why We Love The EU leaflet was printed in Germany?
No idea alhough I noticed when I fancied a quick blast of Roxy Music's Ladytron on You Tube I was faced with the same Government propaganda leaflet online delaying the start of the video. Not sure if this advertising is factored into the 9.3 million bargain.
HL..By strange coincidence I have managed to visit most of the American and Allies war cemeteries around the world..including the massive ones in the USA..
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
I don't know any Leaver who wants the UK to be the 51st State. Why should one assume that a nation of 64 million people can only survive as part of some bigger political entity?
There have been a number of Leavers who have suggested just that in the past on here, probably just in jest. There have been a number also interested in reviving the Old Commonwealth.
A United States of the Commonwealth was seriously mooted as an option by many euro-sceptics thirty years ago. Of course, back then India was a basket case, Australia hadn't looked towards Asia and we'd be running the show. Now, with India poised to overtake us in power and wealth, I suspect the idea would have less appeal.
The US and India are now independent republics, but the Queen is still head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK and the majority of the population of those three nations is of British origin which is not the case in the US or India
And this is where the Brexiteers lose all credibility. They promise the finest of omelettes, while denying the breaking of a single egg...
We are still waiting for that broken egg free vision of the next 10 years remaining in the EU. But the Remain camp is remarkable coy about that. Full of piss and wind about how dreadful Leave is going to be, despite the PM saying different not six month ago, but terribly terribly quite of what will happen if we remain, except for lots of falsehoods about the status quo, which is an odd one to chose, because it's the only choice not to the table.
What do people think of the idea that being out of the EU might benefit the NHS? It puts Remain on the back foot in one of the key areas of policy concern. Leave have migration and security sown up I would say. So there's just the economy as a major issue, and that's likely to be a score draw between the two sides.
What do people think of the idea that being out of the EU might benefit the NHS? It puts Remain on the back foot in one of the key areas of policy concern. Leave have migration and security sown up I would say. So there's just the economy as a major issue, and that's likely to be a score draw between the two sides.
It's a good line, and my sources do say it is working for Leave. However Remain do have a good counter to it.
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
I don't know any Leaver who wants the UK to be the 51st State. Why should one assume that a nation of 64 million people can only survive as part of some bigger political entity?
There have been a number of Leavers who have suggested just that in the past on here, probably just in jest. There have been a number also interested in reviving the Old Commonwealth.
Whether we vote to Remain or Leave, we should use and enhance our Old Commonwealth links.
you mean like Dave should have been doing for the last 6 years and hasn't ?
Or perhaps Dave can't enhance our relationship.
Britain seems to be forgetting its history with New Zealand, Prime Minister John Key says he told his UK counterpart, David Cameron, at a meeting in Washington yesterday...
"I said to him I thought no one individual action of itself is so incredibly significant but the combination of them is adding up to a picture which looks as if they are forgetting the history between our two countries....
Asked if he had reminded Mr Cameron that New Zealand had voted to keep the Union Jack on its flag, he said: "Good grace stopped me pointing that out."
Britain's big issue was that it had a huge amount of migration, from Europe, that it could not control.
"But we are migrants who have always pulled our weight in the UK and why should we be penalised for the migration policies of being part of Europe?"
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Given there has never been a single serious suggestion by a single serious Eurosceptic politician that we should become a 51st state, I would suggest you are talking rubbish again. Yet another Eurofanatical strawman.
"I am not saying for one moment that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union. Of course we could. We are a great country. The fifth largest economy in the world. The fastest growing economy in the G7 last year. The biggest destination for foreign direct investment in the EU..... Whether we could be successful outside the European Union – that’s not the question." David Cameron November 2015.
As ever, the question is not whether, but how. Brexit is like a forest fire. There is no question creative destruction can be healthy, sometimes even necessary. New forests can eventually rise from the ashes. The issue of course is how much damage is done in the interim, what survives, and what is lost forever. But that doesn't matter to the arsonists...
Cameron said that we could be successful outside the EU. 5 months later we have "the End of Days" forecasts from him...
Is it true that Cameron's £9.3m Why We Love The EU leaflet was printed in Germany?
No idea alhough I noticed when I fancied a quick blast of Roxy Music's Ladytron on You Tube I was faced with the same Government propaganda leaflet online delaying the start of the video. Not sure if this advertising is factored into the 9.3 million bargain.
I had read that the £9m included online advertising.
I'll give you Bernie Sanders, but Corbyn? We don't even know who he'll fighting against, let along the issues that'll be driving an election four years away. I'd give him good odds against the charisma black hole that is the current Tory front bench.
So that German comedian is going to end up in jail. How unsurprising that Merkel isn't going to stand up against this disgusting little dictator Erdogan. Instead she is funnelling billions in his direction as a bribe for Turkey to uphold the law.
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Given there has never been a single serious suggestion by a single serious Eurosceptic politician that we should become a 51st state, I would suggest you are talking rubbish again. Yet another Eurofanatical strawman.
Yes. Stark Dawning please name the eurosceptics or provide links to this. Are any of these advocates still posting on here?
Not with the Kreigsmarine but it could with the Luftwaffe. The Channel is narrow and Pearl Harbor and Taranto showed what could be done with carrier-based aircraft, never mind squadron upon squadron of dive-bombers. The RNs cruisers and battleships could only have wreaked havoc with the invasion force if they could have reached it. And the cross-channel attack would have been supported and slightly preceded by a paratroop assault, bypassing the ships altogether.
Not really Mr. Herdson. Germany could not have invaded the UK in 1940 even if the Luftwaffe had achieved air superiority.
The squadron upon squadron of dive bombers, in as much as they existed, couldn't stop the evacuation from Dunkirk when only a small force of destroyers were involved. They would have had no chance of stopping the RN who would have been running against barges and tug boats designed for the Rivers of Europe trying to cross the choppy waters of the English Channel.
The issue of paratroops never really came into German planning for the invasion of England. After the Belgian and Dutch attacks the german paras were a spent force. They had neither the aircraft nor the men left to make a serious contribution. As a comparator, the Anglo-American parachute drops in Normandy in 1944 needed more transport aircraft for one night than were available to to the entire Luftwaffe in 1940.
Actually, up until about 1940 (particularly in 1938, and this does assume France had a moral backbone, and weren't the bunch of jessies they turned out to be) I think the UK/France combined *could* have faced down Nazi Germany, without the US, had they truly had the will to do so.
France had the largest army, the UK the largest fleet, and a decent modern air force. Germany's production was still very poor at that point. We should have attacked in 1939 when they were assaulting Poland.
However, France had the lost the battle before it even started and once they were defeated, and the Germans dominated the whole continent and its resources, there was no easy way back.
They would have had to have had permanent command of the sea to land troops in any number, and to continue to supply them. A seaborne invasion is probably the hardest military activity to pull off successfully.
And, of course, they came off worse in the air.
Waves of Stukas against capital ships might have been a better use of them than their actual role in the Battle of Britain with its shocking attrition rate. Ironically the aircrew of the Ju 87s were seen as the elite of the Luftwaffe at that point with competition to qualify as such.
I'll give you Bernie Sanders, but Corbyn? We don't even know who he'll fighting against, let along the issues that'll be driving an election four years away. I'd give him good odds against the charisma black hole that is the current Tory front bench.
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Given there has never been a single serious suggestion by a single serious Eurosceptic politician that we should become a 51st state, I would suggest you are talking rubbish again. Yet another Eurofanatical strawman.
And the remain side like to say it's leave supporters that have "taken leave of their senses". Absolutely ridiculous suggestion that we are advocating becoming the 51st state or anything like that. I think only Socrates used to promote NAFTA as a potential partnership, but that's a pretty long shot.
What do people think of the idea that being out of the EU might benefit the NHS? It puts Remain on the back foot in one of the key areas of policy concern. Leave have migration and security sown up I would say. So there's just the economy as a major issue, and that's likely to be a score draw between the two sides.
It has some resonance with the public, as would the idea that housing market would improve.
One noticeable swing in the YG was around the risk of terrorism. Sizeable jump in the numbers believing terrorism would be a lower risk outside the EU.
The one area where the public overwhelmingly accepts that things would change is migration.
If there is a perception that migration places pressure on services, wages and housing prices then that has to favour Leave.
There is little sign that leaving the EU is deemed to be economically adverse by the majority of the public, either personally or for the UK as a whole.
The Leave demographic tends to be a bit older, and a little less wet behind the ears.
@DH - Wargame after war-game and study after study has convinced me the Germans could not have been successful in Sealion even if they'd won the Battle of Britain.
They simply didn't have the shipping or protection to escort a large landing force and, even if heavy losses occurred, the intervention of the Royal Navy amongst the rickety invasion fleet would have been decisive
What it comes down to is air power. The Normandy landings were possible because the Allies had effective air supremacy. For Germany to have mounted a successful invasion in 1941 would have meant keeping the Battle of Britain going throughout the winter of 1940/1 to drive the RAF from the skies. Had they done that - and it's possible - then I think a successful German invasion could have been mounted.
However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material - virtually every capital ship would have been needed in the North Sea, for example, and might well have been lost - and probably delayed the Soviet invasion by at least two years because different hardware investment decisions would have been needed. As the Soviet invasion was always Hitler's endgame, it didn't make much sense to concentrate on Britain so heavily.
I'll give you Bernie Sanders, but Corbyn? We don't even know who he'll fighting against, let along the issues that'll be driving an election four years away. I'd give him good odds against the charisma black hole that is the current Tory front bench.
Welcome to PB.com -
Please read the thread headers properly though...
" Cameron has to not step down before the election (generously: 20%, bearing in mind both the EU referendum but also the eclipse of his preferred successor) "
His opponent can only be Cameron to win in this market.
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Obama is notoriously anglophobic. You're welcome to him. Counting the days.
"I am not saying for one moment that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union. Of course we could. We are a great country. The fifth largest economy in the world. The fastest growing economy in the G7 last year. The biggest destination for foreign direct investment in the EU..... Whether we could be successful outside the European Union – that’s not the question." David Cameron November 2015.
As ever, the question is not whether, but how. Brexit is like a forest fire. There is no question creative destruction can be healthy, sometimes even necessary. New forests can eventually rise from the ashes. The issue of course is how much damage is done in the interim, what survives, and what is lost forever. But that doesn't matter to the arsonists...
Cameron said that we could be successful outside the EU. 5 months later we have "the End of Days" forecasts from him...
Project Chicken Licken "Oh, Votey-wotey, don't go Leave, for I was going and met Chicken-Dave, and Chicken-Dave had been at the wood, and the sky had fallen on his smug pate, and we are going to tell the king."
I am still deeply embarrassed by the Fall of Singapore.
No matter how many times I read that story, it's just one incompetent blunder after another combined with supreme arrogance.
Probably we never could have 'held' there for good, particularly with resources stretched elsewhere and such a limited airforce, but was a terrible disgrace to British arms.
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
I don't know any Leaver who wants the UK to be the 51st State. Why should one assume that a nation of 64 million people can only survive as part of some bigger political entity?
There have been a number of Leavers who have suggested just that in the past on here, probably just in jest. There have been a number also interested in reviving the Old Commonwealth.
Whether we vote to Remain or Leave, we should use and enhance our Old Commonwealth links.
you mean like Dave should have been doing for the last 6 years and hasn't ?
Or perhaps Dave can't enhance our relationship.
Britain seems to be forgetting its history with New Zealand, Prime Minister John Key says he told his UK counterpart, David Cameron, at a meeting in Washington yesterday...
"I said to him I thought no one individual action of itself is so incredibly significant but the combination of them is adding up to a picture which looks as if they are forgetting the history between our two countries....
Asked if he had reminded Mr Cameron that New Zealand had voted to keep the Union Jack on its flag, he said: "Good grace stopped me pointing that out."
Britain's big issue was that it had a huge amount of migration, from Europe, that it could not control.
"But we are migrants who have always pulled our weight in the UK and why should we be penalised for the migration policies of being part of Europe?"
New Zealand is being unfairly punished because the government doesn't want to make it obvious as to what sort of immigration from outside the EU it doesn't want. Introducing a 'cultural affinity' test might provoke awkward letters in the Guardian.
I'll give you Bernie Sanders, but Corbyn? We don't even know who he'll fighting against, let along the issues that'll be driving an election four years away. I'd give him good odds against the charisma black hole that is the current Tory front bench.
Given a shock victory in the New York primary even Sanders could win
So that German comedian is going to end up in jail. How unsurprising that Merkel isn't going to stand up against this disgusting little dictator Erdogan. Instead she is funnelling billions in his direction as a bribe for Turkey to uphold the law.
Fuck Turkey, fuck Erdogan, fuck Germany, fuck Europe, fuck the EU. Fuck them all. Let's LEAVE.
I'll give you Bernie Sanders, but Corbyn? We don't even know who he'll fighting against, let along the issues that'll be driving an election four years away. I'd give him good odds against the charisma black hole that is the current Tory front bench.
Given a shock victory in the New York primary even Sanders could win
Would you like to list the things that might be lost forever that we would mourn?
We could start with unfettered access to the single market...
you mean like services - which after 26 years still aren't unfettered ?
Will the unfettering continue if we Remain? Probably, after all that is what a lot of EU regulation is for. Will the unfetterring continue if we Leave, almost certainly it will stop or reverse.
I am still deeply embarrassed by the Fall of Singapore.
No matter how many times I read that story, it's just one incompetent blunder after another combined with supreme arrogance.
Probably we never could have 'held' there for good, particularly with resources stretched elsewhere and such a limited airforce, but was a terrible disgrace to British arms.
I've often said The Fall of Singapore is the UK's second most shameful episode in British Military History.
We effectively sent troops over there, just so they could surrender and be captured by the Japanese.
On the BBC today, a spokesman for the WWF spoke at length about the benefits (to the tiger) of their plan to increase the tiger numbers. Not one word about the risks. That's because to the middle class people who support this group aren't affected by the downside. Classic BBC.
From Wiki .."
"Tiger attacks are an extreme form of human–wildlife conflict which occur for various reasons and have claimed more human lives than attacks by any of the other big cats. The most comprehensive study of deaths due to tiger attacks estimates that at least 373,000 people died due to tiger attacks between 1800 and 2009, the majority of these attacks occurring in South and Southeast Asia.[1] In Southeast Asia, attacks gradually declined after peaking in the nineteenth century, but attacks in South Asia have remained high, particularly in the Sundarbans."
I understand that the little brown babies won't eat themselves but why not introduce tigers to Islington? Or would that be too close to home?
New Zealand is being unfairly punished because the government doesn't want to make it obvious as to what sort of immigration from outside the EU it doesn't want. Introducing a 'cultural affinity' test might provoke awkward letters in the Guardian.
He won't even consider a "might get a job and be useful to the country" test and certainly not a "is likely to run off to Syria and commit acts of terrorism" test, or a "intends to practise FGM" test or a "approves of honor killings" test, so there is no chance of him going near a "cultural affinity" test. As usual to worried about not being invited to the right Islington dinner parties.
There are pretty half hearted about a "applied for a legal vista" test, they much prefer the "arrived unlawfully in a truck and we cant be bothered to send them back" test.
Is it true that Cameron's £9.3m Why We Love The EU leaflet was printed in Germany?
No idea alhough I noticed when I fancied a quick blast of Roxy Music's Ladytron on You Tube I was faced with the same Government propaganda leaflet online delaying the start of the video. Not sure if this advertising is factored into the 9.3 million bargain.
I had read that the £9m included online advertising.
Remarkable what'sd been packed into that £9m. I assume it's mates rates all round.
I am still deeply embarrassed by the Fall of Singapore.
No matter how many times I read that story, it's just one incompetent blunder after another combined with supreme arrogance.
Probably we never could have 'held' there for good, particularly with resources stretched elsewhere and such a limited airforce, but was a terrible disgrace to British arms.
If you haven't read it J. G. Farrell's 'The Singapore Grip' is an excellent entertaining novel set around the fall. Farrell specialised in the British Empire in extremis.....
Ron Paul is well liked amongst those most likely to become activists and delegates to the GOP convention. This carries more weight than it may appear I think.
I also have £2 on his son becoming GOP nominee. I think it's a worthwhile small punt at 950-1.
@DH - Wargame after war-game and study after study has convinced me the Germans could not have been successful in Sealion even if they'd won the Battle of Britain.
They simply didn't have the shipping or protection to escort a large landing force and, even if heavy losses occurred, the intervention of the Royal Navy amongst the rickety invasion fleet would have been decisive
...However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material ...
..an interesting (at least to me) factoid is that Sealion was by a wide margin the largest operation Nazi Germany ever mounted - in terms of preparation (men, materials, money, manhours, etc). Significantly larger than even Barbarossa. They just never lit the touchpaper!
I am still deeply embarrassed by the Fall of Singapore.
No matter how many times I read that story, it's just one incompetent blunder after another combined with supreme arrogance.
Probably we never could have 'held' there for good, particularly with resources stretched elsewhere and such a limited airforce, but was a terrible disgrace to British arms.
I've often said The Fall of Singapore is the UK's second most shameful episode in British Military History.
Is it true that Cameron's £9.3m Why We Love The EU leaflet was printed in Germany?
No idea alhough I noticed when I fancied a quick blast of Roxy Music's Ladytron on You Tube I was faced with the same Government propaganda leaflet online delaying the start of the video. Not sure if this advertising is factored into the 9.3 million bargain.
I had read that the £9m included online advertising.
Remarkable what'sd been packed into that £9m. I assume it's mates rates all round.
I am still deeply embarrassed by the Fall of Singapore.
No matter how many times I read that story, it's just one incompetent blunder after another combined with supreme arrogance.
Probably we never could have 'held' there for good, particularly with resources stretched elsewhere and such a limited airforce, but was a terrible disgrace to British arms.
I've often said The Fall of Singapore is the UK's second most shameful episode in British Military History.
We effectively sent troops over there, just so they could surrender and be captured by the Japanese.
The most shameful was of course some sailors getting their ipods confiscated.
I am still deeply embarrassed by the Fall of Singapore.
No matter how many times I read that story, it's just one incompetent blunder after another combined with supreme arrogance.
Probably we never could have 'held' there for good, particularly with resources stretched elsewhere and such a limited airforce, but was a terrible disgrace to British arms.
I've often said The Fall of Singapore is the UK's second most shameful episode in British Military History.
I am profoundly irritated by foreigners lecturing me on what I should think is best for me by way of my constitutional arrangements. However a work colleague mentioned Obama to me and seemed to place weight on his view. I committed an entire commute journey to trying to talk her round.
The latest yougov suggests slightly more are certain to vote in EU ref than the next general election. 61% are 10/10 certain to vote in EU ref, 56% 10/10 certain to vote in the general election. 8% are 9/10 certain to vote in EU ref, 9% at the general election.
@DH - Wargame after war-game and study after study has convinced me the Germans could not have been successful in Sealion even if they'd won the Battle of Britain.
They simply didn't have the shipping or protection to escort a large landing force and, even if heavy losses occurred, the intervention of the Royal Navy amongst the rickety invasion fleet would have been decisive
What it comes down to is air power. The Normandy landings were possible because the Allies had effective air supremacy. For Germany to have mounted a successful invasion in 1941 would have meant keeping the Battle of Britain going throughout the winter of 1940/1 to drive the RAF from the skies. Had they done that - and it's possible - then I think a successful German invasion could have been mounted.
However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material - virtually every capital ship would have been needed in the North Sea, for example, and might well have been lost - and probably delayed the Soviet invasion by at least two years because different hardware investment decisions would have been needed. As the Soviet invasion was always Hitler's endgame, it didn't make much sense to concentrate on Britain so heavily.
Personally, I don't think so. The German Navy was down to 10-11 capital ships after the Battle of Norway against a huge RN surface fleet. Plus they hadn't the transports to carry the heavy kit to overwhelm the British Army.
And the weather in the Channel is bloody awful. Two to three days of cloud cover and the Luftwaffe would have been almost ineffective.
I don't say they couldn't have done it but only IMHO had they focussed on the defeat of Britain throughout 1941 and 1942 in building up the resources to do it, and not invaded the Soviet Union. Or at least not with quite the same ambitions.
Of course, by 1941, the army had largely recovered from its serious reverse of 1940 and the Home Islands were heavily reinforced.
I am still deeply embarrassed by the Fall of Singapore.
No matter how many times I read that story, it's just one incompetent blunder after another combined with supreme arrogance.
Probably we never could have 'held' there for good, particularly with resources stretched elsewhere and such a limited airforce, but was a terrible disgrace to British arms.
I've often said The Fall of Singapore is the UK's second most shameful episode in British Military History.
I am still deeply embarrassed by the Fall of Singapore.
No matter how many times I read that story, it's just one incompetent blunder after another combined with supreme arrogance.
Probably we never could have 'held' there for good, particularly with resources stretched elsewhere and such a limited airforce, but was a terrible disgrace to British arms.
If you haven't read it J. G. Farrell's 'The Singapore Grip' is an excellent entertaining novel set around the fall. Farrell specialised in the British Empire in extremis.....
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Not really.
Yesterday's president and Billary back remain, meanwhile Trump, Cruz, Jebb Bush, John Bolton and most republicans back leave. Corporatists and Statists support staying in isn't exactly a shocker.
Hmm; while I'd welcome Jeb Bush to the cause, I'm not particularly sure I want to stand side-by-side with Putin, Cruz and Trump.
Judging by Twitter this has kicked off a total firestorm in Germany. Absolute hatred and contempt being spat at Merkel, by Germans.
Just as I thought AfD were losing momentum something like this happens.
I seriously wonder if Merkel's career could end right here.
It isn't going to be quite that bad, but I don't think she will be chancellor after the election in October. The next grand coalition is going to get around 50% of the votes in Germany, which will give them around 55% of seats in the Bundestag which means the CSU will demand Merkel stand aside for a proper conservative.
I am still deeply embarrassed by the Fall of Singapore.
No matter how many times I read that story, it's just one incompetent blunder after another combined with supreme arrogance.
Probably we never could have 'held' there for good, particularly with resources stretched elsewhere and such a limited airforce, but was a terrible disgrace to British arms.
I've often said The Fall of Singapore is the UK's second most shameful episode in British Military History.
Which episode wins the gold medal of shame?
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre
The Fall of Tobruk was pretty shameful.
We can blame that on having the Free French on our side.
Plus the whole Western Desert Campaign ended well for us.
I am still deeply embarrassed by the Fall of Singapore.
No matter how many times I read that story, it's just one incompetent blunder after another combined with supreme arrogance.
Probably we never could have 'held' there for good, particularly with resources stretched elsewhere and such a limited airforce, but was a terrible disgrace to British arms.
I've often said The Fall of Singapore is the UK's second most shameful episode in British Military History.
We effectively sent troops over there, just so they could surrender and be captured by the Japanese.
And what tragedies befell them subsequently and the whole of south-east Asia?
Honestly, they were still holding cocktail parties and dinner dances in Raffles as the Japs stormed ashore FFS.
And Percival refused to build defences because he thought it bad for civilian morale.
Comments
There's a striking passage in Hastings' Nemesis where the traders on Wall Street started booing when the end of the war with Japan was announced.
I've binged S1-2 and love it - S3-4 next. Great Western drama with trains
Of European countries involved with the war, perhaps the Czechs did best. They had very little war damage.
He can voice his opinion, like everyone else.
We have the right to ignore it
I suspect it will be ignored.
REMAIN supporters needs to stop calling for a ref that isn't there. Cone across a bit like a teenager.
Yesterday's president and Billary back remain, meanwhile Trump, Cruz, Jebb Bush, John Bolton and most republicans back leave. Corporatists and Statists support staying in isn't exactly a shocker.
Our navy and the RAF were capable of defending the home islands, we just couldn't do much to project power until they arrived. We did real damage to the Luftwaffe and the Germans surface fleet prior to the US becoming involved.
And we could have thumped the Italians (if the Germans hadn't intervened) fairly easily.
Now try a real one.
They were printed in the UK by Williams Lea, whose parent is Deutsche Post
Just been on Sky. I can't recall what he said, too distracted by other factors.
And, of course, they came off worse in the air.
Wargame after war-game and study after study has convinced me the Germans could not have been successful in Sealion even if they'd won the Battle of Britain.
They simply didn't have the shipping or protection to escort a large landing force and, even if heavy losses occurred, the intervention of the Royal Navy amongst the rickety invasion fleet would have been decisive
The squadron upon squadron of dive bombers, in as much as they existed, couldn't stop the evacuation from Dunkirk when only a small force of destroyers were involved. They would have had no chance of stopping the RN who would have been running against barges and tug boats designed for the Rivers of Europe trying to cross the choppy waters of the English Channel.
The issue of paratroops never really came into German planning for the invasion of England. After the Belgian and Dutch attacks the german paras were a spent force. They had neither the aircraft nor the men left to make a serious contribution. As a comparator, the Anglo-American parachute drops in Normandy in 1944 needed more transport aircraft for one night than were available to to the entire Luftwaffe in 1940.
Gobble Gobble ... or should that be Goebbels Goebbels ....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36055488
France had the largest army, the UK the largest fleet, and a decent modern air force. Germany's production was still very poor at that point. We should have attacked in 1939 when they were assaulting Poland.
However, France had the lost the battle before it even started and once they were defeated, and the Germans dominated the whole continent and its resources, there was no easy way back.
One noticeable swing in the YG was around the risk of terrorism. Sizeable jump in the numbers believing terrorism would be a lower risk outside the EU.
The one area where the public overwhelmingly accepts that things would change is migration.
If there is a perception that migration places pressure on services, wages and housing prices then that has to favour Leave.
There is little sign that leaving the EU is deemed to be economically adverse by the majority of the public, either personally or for the UK as a whole.
The Leave demographic tends to be a bit older, and a little less wet behind the ears.
However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material - virtually every capital ship would have been needed in the North Sea, for example, and might well have been lost - and probably delayed the Soviet invasion by at least two years because different hardware investment decisions would have been needed. As the Soviet invasion was always Hitler's endgame, it didn't make much sense to concentrate on Britain so heavily.
Please read the thread headers properly though...
" Cameron has to not step down before the election (generously: 20%, bearing in mind both the EU referendum but also the eclipse of his preferred successor) "
His opponent can only be Cameron to win in this market.
"Oh, Votey-wotey, don't go Leave, for I was going and met Chicken-Dave, and Chicken-Dave had been at the wood, and the sky had fallen on his smug pate, and we are going to tell the king."
The politics of that leaflet have been atrocious for Remain.
No matter how many times I read that story, it's just one incompetent blunder after another combined with supreme arrogance.
Probably we never could have 'held' there for good, particularly with resources stretched elsewhere and such a limited airforce, but was a terrible disgrace to British arms.
New Zealand is being unfairly punished because the government doesn't want to make it obvious as to what sort of immigration from outside the EU it doesn't want. Introducing a 'cultural affinity' test might provoke awkward letters in the Guardian.
We effectively sent troops over there, just so they could surrender and be captured by the Japanese.
From Wiki .."
"Tiger attacks are an extreme form of human–wildlife conflict which occur for various reasons and have claimed more human lives than attacks by any of the other big cats. The most comprehensive study of deaths due to tiger attacks estimates that at least 373,000 people died due to tiger attacks between 1800 and 2009, the majority of these attacks occurring in South and Southeast Asia.[1] In Southeast Asia, attacks gradually declined after peaking in the nineteenth century, but attacks in South Asia have remained high, particularly in the Sundarbans."
I understand that the little brown babies won't eat themselves but why not introduce tigers to Islington? Or would that be too close to home?
There are pretty half hearted about a "applied for a legal vista" test, they much prefer the "arrived unlawfully in a truck and we cant be bothered to send them back" test.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/05/ron-paul-warns-republicans-not-to-vote-for-ted-cruz/
Ron Paul is well liked amongst those most likely to become activists and delegates to the GOP convention. This carries more weight than it may appear I think.
I also have £2 on his son becoming GOP nominee. I think it's a worthwhile small punt at 950-1.
German leader says you can't poke fun at other world leaders. Well that one is going to play well......
(Actually they're pretty good for a metropolitan gaylord poncy boots but I promised myself I wouldn't tell you .... Oh bugger)
£2.9 million on website and advertising
£450k went on producing the leaflet
Really doesn't look good where a German leader abandons one of her citizens because of fear of what another leader might do.
The combined 9/10 figure gives a total of 65% for the general election, almost exactly the same as the 66% turnout figure at the 2015 general election. Therefore the combined 9/10 figure for EU ref suggests a turnout of 69% for the referendum
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/k0c0qjfg6w/TimesResults_160412_VI&EURef_W.pdf
And the weather in the Channel is bloody awful. Two to three days of cloud cover and the Luftwaffe would have been almost ineffective.
I don't say they couldn't have done it but only IMHO had they focussed on the defeat of Britain throughout 1941 and 1942 in building up the resources to do it, and not invaded the Soviet Union. Or at least not with quite the same ambitions.
Of course, by 1941, the army had largely recovered from its serious reverse of 1940 and the Home Islands were heavily reinforced.
Merkel's having some kind of breakdown. Or she's suffering from a degenerative disease.
Plus the whole Western Desert Campaign ended well for us.
Honestly, they were still holding cocktail parties and dinner dances in Raffles as the Japs stormed ashore FFS.
And Percival refused to build defences because he thought it bad for civilian morale.
Idiot doesn't come close.