This is not a remain or leave question but more one of process. If Parliament in Oct 2018 when the deal is known decides to hold a referendum how can the EU position be ascertained as to the terms of staying. If they are similar to today OK but if the EU takes away the rebate, Schengen and requires ever closer union then the decision may be very different. I just do not see the EU providing certainty for a decision to be made
As I understand it, there is no provision for a public vote within the A50 process (which speaks volumes). The choice, in any case, would not be between accepting the deal and staying in the EU (the Farron position) or even between accepting the deal and going back to further negotiations but between accepting the deal and leaving the EU without a deal.
Crashing out of the EU and moving to WTO rules would be the consequence if either no deal can be agreed or anyone from within the EU or the UK Parliament.
There is no provision for remaining in the EU once the A50 notice is triggered and while that doesn't rule out a future re-joining, whether that would be on any kind of terms acceptable to the UK electorate remains to be seen.
The question then becomes if the rules can or will be bent by both sides. Realpolitik dictates that if both sides decide the rules can be bent they will. Transitional periods, extensions and other flexibility might suddenly be conjured and no doubt would be changed in courts many and various.
'I can't hear any whistling just a clock clicking '
Why are European politicians so much cooler than ours and why are ours so leaden-footed?
" You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one "
Reference: UK can stay in the EU.
To say they're running rings around us doesn't tell the full story. We are the Accrington Stanley of diplomacy. Not great when you're playing Real Madrid
There are many cup shocks you know Roger - but really who does know how this sorry saga will end
A second referendum isn't happening. The Tories are led by a born-again Brexiteer and are largely made up of long-time/born-again Brexiteers. Labour is led by a long-time Brexiteer. The Lib Dems are irrelevant.
On the EU side, revocation of Article 50 would have to be agreed unanimously. This won't happen without us accepting terms like euro membership, pushing former Remain voters into the Leave column.
TWBABAIWBFF
Corbyn is NOT a hardline Brexiter. Corbyn is interested in workers rights. Common sense says it is guaranteed in the EU. Any Tory government could easily dilute those rights.
Couldn't the EU likewise do the same?
Not really. Whether by QMV or unanimity, the chances are very slim. With Tories, the chances are very real.
That only makes sense if you think that Labour can't win.
I would add, that here in Luton, Kelvin Hopkins and Labour Leave, were firmly of the view that the EU were driving down workers' rights.
If the EU had any sense and really wanted to stop brexit they would be offering a possibility of a new deal within the eu, with a reformed eu, ways to bend the rules on things like freedom of movement etc.
If Cameron and the eu had agrees a sensible package of reforms / uk opt-outs pre-vote remain would have won easily.
a) That's not possible with a multilateral body. The British never were interested in understanding the EU and why it is the way it is. They still aren't, which is one reason why the negotiations are going to be such a car crash for us.
'I can't hear any whistling just a clock clicking '
Why are European politicians so much cooler than ours and why are ours so leaden-footed?
" You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one "
Reference: UK can stay in the EU.
To say they're running rings around us doesn't tell the full story. We are the Accrington Stanley of diplomacy. Not great when you're playing Real Madrid
Let's face it, Art.50 was written in such a way that more people looked into it, the less they liked it.
Tusk and Macron are both on record saying that before the two years are out, Art.50 can be revoked or whatever you call it.
There will be a clamour for UK to stay in by the autumn of 2018. Who wants to swallow a suicide pill, once you know what it will do ?
A second referendum isn't happening. The Tories are led by a born-again Brexiteer and are largely made up of long-time/born-again Brexiteers. Labour is led by a long-time Brexiteer. The Lib Dems are irrelevant.
On the EU side, revocation of Article 50 would have to be agreed unanimously. This won't happen without us accepting terms like euro membership, pushing former Remain voters into the Leave column.
TWBABAIWBFF
Corbyn is NOT a hardline Brexiter. Corbyn is interested in workers rights. Common sense says it is guaranteed in the EU. Any Tory government could easily dilute those rights.
Couldn't the EU likewise do the same?
Not really. Whether by QMV or unanimity, the chances are very slim. With Tories, the chances are very real.
That only makes sense if you think that Labour can't win.
I would add, that here in Luton, Kelvin Hopkins and Labour Leave, were firmly of the view that the EU were driving down workers' rights.
Yes, Labour can win and restore those lost rights. But a subsequent Tory government could change them again. But a Tory government couldn't change European law.
'I can't hear any whistling just a clock clicking '
Why are European politicians so much cooler than ours and why are ours so leaden-footed?
" You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one "
Reference: UK can stay in the EU.
To say they're running rings around us doesn't tell the full story. We are the Accrington Stanley of diplomacy. Not great when you're playing Real Madrid
Let's face it, Art.50 was written in such a way that more people looked into it, the less they liked it.
Tusk and Macron are both on record saying that before the two years are out, Art.50 can be revoked or whatever you call it.
There will be a clamour for UK to stay in by the autumn of 2018. Who wants to swallow a suicide pill, once you know what it will do ?
My view, the sooner we leave the EU, the sooner we rejoin.
Perhaps but on what terms could we rejoin ? Would the EU offer us the terms (including the opt-outs) on which we left in 2016 ?
Until we know what the terms for re-accession would be, it's going to be difficult for any political party to adopt an overtly pro-rejoin position. There would still, I think, be enormous resistance to the imposition of the Euro and Schengen and probably Freedom of Movement even if other former EU conditions of membership became more palatable.
So we would be back to the kind of semi-detached "membership" we enjoyed or endured up to 2016.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
If the EU had any sense and really wanted to stop brexit they would be offering a possibility of a new deal within the eu, with a reformed eu, ways to bend the rules on things like freedom of movement etc.
If Cameron and the eu had agrees a sensible package of reforms / uk opt-outs pre-vote remain would have won easily.
a) That's not possible with a multilateral body. The British never were interested in understanding the EU and why it is the way it is. They still aren't, which is one reason why the negotiations are going to be such a car crash for us.
b) They don't care any more. That ship's sailed.
Our world outlooks are just so different. We've not been ruled by fascists or Communists, so we don't see the EU as the guarantor of our liberties; we don't want a world without borders; we don't see supranational institutions as a good thing. We see the EU as about trade, rather than political union. As Robert Smithson has repeatedly pointed out, we're a bad fit.
My view, the sooner we leave the EU, the sooner we rejoin.
Perhaps but on what terms could we rejoin ? Would the EU offer us the terms (including the opt-outs) on which we left in 2016 ?
Until we know what the terms for re-accession would be, it's going to be difficult for any political party to adopt an overtly pro-rejoin position. There would still, I think, be enormous resistance to the imposition of the Euro and Schengen and probably Freedom of Movement even if other former EU conditions of membership became more palatable.
So we would be back to the kind of semi-detached "membership" we enjoyed or endured up to 2016.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
If Brexit turns into a basketcase like the 1970s when we were "The sick man of Europe" and they are doing so much better than us and we are falling further and further behind, then probably any conditions to rejoin would be acceptable.
If OTOH Brexit is a roaring success then there would be huge resistance to rejoining.
It seems that we in the UK are Kinesthetic Learners - we have to experience the good or the bad before we can decide.
If the EU had any sense and really wanted to stop brexit they would be offering a possibility of a new deal within the eu, with a reformed eu, ways to bend the rules on things like freedom of movement etc.
If Cameron and the eu had agrees a sensible package of reforms / uk opt-outs pre-vote remain would have won easily.
a) That's not possible with a multilateral body. The British never were interested in understanding the EU and why it is the way it is. They still aren't, which is one reason why the negotiations are going to be such a car crash for us.
b) They don't care any more. That ship's sailed.
Our world outlooks are just so different. We've not been ruled by fascists or Communists, so we don't see the EU as the guarantor of our liberties; we don't want a world without borders; we don't see supranational institutions as a good thing. We see the EU as about trade, rather than political union. As Robert Smithson has repeatedly pointed out, we're a bad fit.
True. However the EU is the only show in town in Europe. Deal with it we must, and on their terms. We made life a lot more difficult for ourselves. People haven't cottoned on yet just how difficult. That includes the man supposedly leading the negotiations for us.
A second referendum isn't happening. The Tories are led by a born-again Brexiteer and are largely made up of long-time/born-again Brexiteers. Labour is led by a long-time Brexiteer. The Lib Dems are irrelevant.
On the EU side, revocation of Article 50 would have to be agreed unanimously. This won't happen without us accepting terms like euro membership, pushing former Remain voters into the Leave column.
TWBABAIWBFF
Corbyn is NOT a hardline Brexiter. Corbyn is interested in workers rights. Common sense says it is guaranteed in the EU. Any Tory government could easily dilute those rights.
Couldn't the EU likewise do the same?
Not really. Whether by QMV or unanimity, the chances are very slim. With Tories, the chances are very real.
That only makes sense if you think that Labour can't win.
I would add, that here in Luton, Kelvin Hopkins and Labour Leave, were firmly of the view that the EU were driving down workers' rights.
Yes, Labour can win and restore those lost rights. But a subsequent Tory government could change them again. But a Tory government couldn't change European law.
Hence 4- 5 weeks paid holiday,paternity and maternity rights,protections for agency workers to name but a few are all at risk through Brexit.The Tories have been obsessed with getting rid of the WTD completely.It's all for their ideological bid to turn the UK into a small state tax haven without public services.
Our world outlooks are just so different. We've not been ruled by fascists or Communists, so we don't see the EU as the guarantor of our liberties; we don't want a world without borders; we don't see supranational institutions as a good thing. We see the EU as about trade, rather than political union. As Robert Smithson has repeatedly pointed out, we're a bad fit.
From 1945 to 1956 we carried on pretending we were a Great Power long after the money was gone and our true existence as a junior to the two new superpowers was obvious.
Because of that world view, we never engaged with the Messina talks and all the other negotiations which led ultimately to the foundation of the EEC.
After Suez, MacMillan believed our destiny lay with Europe not only militarily through the anti-Soviet alliance called NATO but economically as the Commonwealth was not strong enough and parts were moving closer to Washington.
That policy left us behind and at the mercy of the De Gaulle veto but from 1957 to 2016 successive British Governments followed the fundamental belief that our economic future was inexorably intertwined with Europe and our prosperity and Europe's prosperity were as one and we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
I see its time for our monthly reminder of the economic thoughts of Stephen Crabb.
April 2016:
' The threat of a potential vote to leave the EU in June could be partly to blame for the first rise in unemployment in seven months, the work and pensions secretary has warned.
Stephen Crabb said the latest labour report, which showed the unemployment total rose by 21,000 in the three months to February to 1.7 million, was a signal that the looming EU referendum vote was hitting the jobs market. '
But wasn't Stephen Crabb an acolyte of George Osborne ?
The same George Osborne who as Shadow Chancellor failed to predict a recession which happened and as Chancellor predicted a recession which didn't happen.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
O/T, how the hell did the Tories lose Peterborough?
It was 61% Leave, no big student vote, not a liberal constituency, socially similar to places like Stevenage and Harlow. It should have been a slam dunk.
Because a lot of the 61% had more to do with punishing the Tories than with Brexit.
There was probably a significant personal vote against Stewart Jackson.
Remember when he used to post on here? He couldn't hack it for long.
Thanks to the EU, same sex partners had their pension rights compulsorily backdated for all pension attributable to service before 2005 by the Supreme Court today. Its healthy progressive influence will be sorely missed after Britain has left it.
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
Our world outlooks are just so different. We've not been ruled by fascists or Communists, so we don't see the EU as the guarantor of our liberties; we don't want a world without borders; we don't see supranational institutions as a good thing. We see the EU as about trade, rather than political union. As Robert Smithson has repeatedly pointed out, we're a bad fit.
From 1945 to 1956 we carried on pretending we were a Great Power long after the money was gone and our true existence as a junior to the two new superpowers was obvious.
Because of that world view, we never engaged with the Messina talks and all the other negotiations which led ultimately to the foundation of the EEC.
After Suez, MacMillan believed our destiny lay with Europe not only militarily through the anti-Soviet alliance called NATO but economically as the Commonwealth was not strong enough and parts were moving closer to Washington.
That policy left us behind and at the mercy of the De Gaulle veto but from 1957 to 2016 successive British Governments followed the fundamental belief that our economic future was inexorably intertwined with Europe and our prosperity and Europe's prosperity were as one and we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
Our politicians are STILL pretending we are a Great Power.
Aside from the posturing about the world and Middle Eastern warmongering a justification of the increase in overseas aid was that it would make Britain an 'Aid Superpwer'.
If the EU had any sense and really wanted to stop brexit they would be offering a possibility of a new deal within the eu, with a reformed eu, ways to bend the rules on things like freedom of movement etc.
If Cameron and the eu had agrees a sensible package of reforms / uk opt-outs pre-vote remain would have won easily.
a) That's not possible with a multilateral body. The British never were interested in understanding the EU and why it is the way it is. They still aren't, which is one reason why the negotiations are going to be such a car crash for us.
b) They don't care any more. That ship's sailed.
Our world outlooks are just so different. We've not been ruled by fascists or Communists, so we don't see the EU as the guarantor of our liberties; we don't want a world without borders; we don't see supranational institutions as a good thing. We see the EU as about trade, rather than political union. As Robert Smithson has repeatedly pointed out, we're a bad fit.
True. However the EU is the only show in town in Europe. Deal with it we must, and on their terms. We made life a lot more difficult for ourselves. People haven't cottoned on yet just how difficult. That includes the man supposedly leading the negotiations for us.
You make it sound like The Borg. Join it, because resistance is futile.
A second referendum isn't happening. The Tories are led by a born-again Brexiteer and are largely made up of long-time/born-again Brexiteers. Labour is led by a long-time Brexiteer. The Lib Dems are irrelevant.
On the EU side, revocation of Article 50 would have to be agreed unanimously. This won't happen without us accepting terms like euro membership, pushing former Remain voters into the Leave column.
TWBABAIWBFF
It will happen when a clear majority of the population wants it to happen. In politics, momentum is everything. Just watch the way things are already going.
'I can't hear any whistling just a clock clicking '
Why are European politicians so much cooler than ours and why are ours so leaden-footed?
" You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one "
Reference: UK can stay in the EU.
To say they're running rings around us doesn't tell the full story. We are the Accrington Stanley of diplomacy. Not great when you're playing Real Madrid
Let's face it, Art.50 was written in such a way that more people looked into it, the less they liked it.
Tusk and Macron are both on record saying that before the two years are out, Art.50 can be revoked or whatever you call it.
There will be a clamour for UK to stay in by the autumn of 2018. Who wants to swallow a suicide pill, once you know what it will do ?
TWBNB.
If it was revoked the most relieved person would be Theresa May. She must be terrified. She is watching an almighty car crash just around the corner and she is solely responsible for giving the three incompetents the keys to the car
It all looked so devilishly ingenious a year ago choosing three Brexiteers to negotiate Brexit. Even if it went wrong it wouldn't be her fault it would be theirs.....
She never really got the hang of this leadership lark
O/T, how the hell did the Tories lose Peterborough?
It was 61% Leave, no big student vote, not a liberal constituency, socially similar to places like Stevenage and Harlow. It should have been a slam dunk.
Because a lot of the 61% had more to do with punishing the Tories than with Brexit.
There was probably a significant personal vote against Stewart Jackson.
That, I suspect, was already built in to the 2015 result.
Stewart Jackson actually substantially increased his vote but lost because there was a huge increase for Labour:
I really think there needs to be more of an look as to where all the extra Labour votes came from, often in much more unlikely places than Peterborough, which even the Labour party itself wasn't expecting.
There was a lot more to the general election result than the crapness of the Conservative campaign.
If the EU had any sense and really wanted to stop brexit they would be offering a possibility of a new deal within the eu, with a reformed eu, ways to bend the rules on things like freedom of movement etc.
If Cameron and the eu had agrees a sensible package of reforms / uk opt-outs pre-vote remain would have won easily.
a) That's not possible with a multilateral body. The British never were interested in understanding the EU and why it is the way it is. They still aren't, which is one reason why the negotiations are going to be such a car crash for us.
b) They don't care any more. That ship's sailed.
Our world outlooks are just so different. We've not been ruled by fascists or Communists, so we don't see the EU as the guarantor of our liberties; we don't want a world without borders; we don't see supranational institutions as a good thing. We see the EU as about trade, rather than political union. As Robert Smithson has repeatedly pointed out, we're a bad fit.
I'm interested that the EU positions seem to show no flexibility. This is a characteristic of the organisation that it can admit no wrongs nor offer its southern members any way out of the constraints placed upon them. I believe this was part of the cause of our Brexit vote.
The EU expects its members to stay loyal to the club even when the pain ratchets up. The richer countries don't support the poor ones enough (Rich->Poor EU member transfer payments are approx. 1.5% of EU GDP, compared with Rich->Poor internal region transfers of about 8% of national GDP) and the northern countries' taxpayers wouldn't want their payments to increase 5x to help Greece, Portugal and Spain. Combined with the effects of the Euro, we see the EU institutions having to fudge their own rules to maintain Italian banks, etc. In the end economics will trump politics and the EU mechanisms will collapse under their own inconsistencies.
British foreign policy for centuries was to maintain a balance of power. Offering a flexible mechanism of true free trade without the requirements to cede national sovereignty to a body like the EU could be very attractive to our Northern European friends. If the EU plays hardball, we could offer our friends another tent to share and shelter in when that day comes.
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
The RAF was far more efficient than the Luftwaffe, and the Royal Navy was much more powerful than the Kriegsmarine (which had suffered grievously in Norway). With hindsight, one can see that a German invasion was a pipe dream.
And focusing on German mistakes tends to overlook Allied mistakes.
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
The Royal Navy would still have been a menace to the (proposed) invasion fleet.
BTW Hitler threw away the war when he invaded Soviet Russia.
O/T, how the hell did the Tories lose Peterborough?
It was 61% Leave, no big student vote, not a liberal constituency, socially similar to places like Stevenage and Harlow. It should have been a slam dunk.
Because a lot of the 61% had more to do with punishing the Tories than with Brexit.
There was probably a significant personal vote against Stewart Jackson.
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
Hitler threw it away in Dec 41, when bogged down in Russian snow, he declared war on the USA.
Biggest mistake in his leadership, worse than invading the Soviet Union.
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
The Royal Navy would still have been a menace to the (proposed) invasion fleet.
BTW Hitler threw away the war when he invaded Soviet Russia.
Good to see that Mrs May has a choice of role models when it comes to strategic decision making
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
The Royal Navy would still have been a menace to the (proposed) invasion fleet.
BTW Hitler threw away the war when he invaded Soviet Russia.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
In my view, there were three pivotal moments only one of which was relevant to Britain:
1) The choice of Churchill over Halifax in May 1940 meant a negotiated peace between London and Berlin was impossible and Hitler's only option was the military subjugation of Britain by invasion for which he lacked the means (and to an extent, the will).
2) The Soviet realisation Japan would attack south and east rather than north and west in 1941 - this allowed Zhukov to move the Siberian troops west and halt the German drive on Moscow. This in return meant a swift defeat of the USSR was impossible and the growing power of Russian industry combined with its resources of manpower made a German victory almost inconceivable.
3) Hitler's declaration of war on the United States - the Pearl Harbor attack brought the US into conflict with the Japanese Empire but did not mean a war with Germany and it could have been the German-American relationship might have been akin to the Soviet-Japanese from 1941 to 1945. By declaring war, it empowered Roosevelt to send American troops, aircraft and logistical support to Britain which ensured that country's survival and made the eventual liberation of Europe inevitable.
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
The RAF was far more efficient than the Luftwaffe, and the Royal Navy was much more powerful than the Kriegsmarine (which had suffered grievously in Norway). With hindsight, one can see that a German invasion was a pipe dream.
And focusing on German mistakes tends to overlook Allied mistakes.
The Germans had Fokkers,notably the G1 ,which had the beating of the Spitfire.I was sad to hear KLM -Air France are withdrawing the Fokker in favour of Boeing at my local airport.No doubt in my mind Fokkers make the best planes and give passengers the best ride.It was only through sheer weight of numbers the Fokker fighter was to be defeated.
Thanks to the EU, same sex partners had their pension rights compulsorily backdated for all pension attributable to service before 2005 by the Supreme Court today. Its healthy progressive influence will be sorely missed after Britain has left it.
"Homosexuality is legal in Hungary for both men and women. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is banned in the country. However, households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same legal rights available to opposite-sex married couples."
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
The Royal Navy would still have been a menace to the (proposed) invasion fleet.
BTW Hitler threw away the war when he invaded Soviet Russia.
Good to see that Mrs May has a choice of role models when it comes to strategic decision making
2016 - our declaration of war 2017 - our Dunkirk, on the face of it a complete mess, but we live to fight another day 2020 - D Day!
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
I would say that 'The War' has been detrimental because it has focused the national mentality on the wrong era.
What made Britain great wasn't the 1940s but the industrial revolution of the 18th century.
Likewise when people think of the British Empire it is the 'Jewel in the Crown' era, which was one of decline. Rather than the 18th century Empire when it was created.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
We the people are in charge.
Always remember that.
Anything else is not democracy, and is not free.
This is why the last year has created so much upheaval.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
In my view, there were three pivotal moments only one of which was relevant to Britain:
1) The choice of Churchill over Halifax in May 1940 meant a negotiated peace between London and Berlin was impossible and Hitler's only option was the military subjugation of Britain by invasion for which he lacked the means (and to an extent, the will).
2) The Soviet realisation Japan would attack south and east rather than north and west in 1941 - this allowed Zhukov to move the Siberian troops west and halt the German drive on Moscow. This in return meant a swift defeat of the USSR was impossible and the growing power of Russian industry combined with its resources of manpower made a German victory almost inconceivable.
3) Hitler's declaration of war on the United States - the Pearl Harbor attack brought the US into conflict with the Japanese Empire but did not mean a war with Germany and it could have been the German-American relationship might have been akin to the Soviet-Japanese from 1941 to 1945. By declaring war, it empowered Roosevelt to send American troops, aircraft and logistical support to Britain which ensured that country's survival and made the eventual liberation of Europe inevitable.
That's my fourpenceworth. Any other thoughts ?
My thought is to wonder whether 'pivotal' decisions were more or less important than the fundamentals: balance of resources, technology, popular support? Overy's "Why the Allies won" is the definitive analysis and a very interesting read.
A second referendum isn't happening. The Tories are led by a born-again Brexiteer and are largely made up of long-time/born-again Brexiteers. Labour is led by a long-time Brexiteer. The Lib Dems are irrelevant.
On the EU side, revocation of Article 50 would have to be agreed unanimously. This won't happen without us accepting terms like euro membership, pushing former Remain voters into the Leave column.
TWBABAIWBFF
Corbyn is NOT a hardline Brexiter. Corbyn is interested in workers rights. Common sense says it is guaranteed in the EU. Any Tory government could easily dilute those rights.
Couldn't the EU likewise do the same?
Not really. Whether by QMV or unanimity, the chances are very slim. With Tories, the chances are very real.
That only makes sense if you think that Labour can't win.
I would add, that here in Luton, Kelvin Hopkins and Labour Leave, were firmly of the view that the EU were driving down workers' rights.
Yes, Labour can win and restore those lost rights. But a subsequent Tory government could change them again. But a Tory government couldn't change European law.
Hence 4- 5 weeks paid holiday,paternity and maternity rights,protections for agency workers to name but a few are all at risk through Brexit.The Tories have been obsessed with getting rid of the WTD completely.It's all for their ideological bid to turn the UK into a small state tax haven without public services.
Do you know anyone with a decent job who subscribes to the WTD?
Why should anyone impose their narrow minded 'yeh just work a few hours a day' views on Labour on others. FFS when I was starting my business I was working 19 hour days.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
In my view, there were three pivotal moments only one of which was relevant to Britain:
1) The choice of Churchill over Halifax in May 1940 meant a negotiated peace between London and Berlin was impossible and Hitler's only option was the military subjugation of Britain by invasion for which he lacked the means (and to an extent, the will).
2) The Soviet realisation Japan would attack south and east rather than north and west in 1941 - this allowed Zhukov to move the Siberian troops west and halt the German drive on Moscow. This in return meant a swift defeat of the USSR was impossible and the growing power of Russian industry combined with its resources of manpower made a German victory almost inconceivable.
3) Hitler's declaration of war on the United States - the Pearl Harbor attack brought the US into conflict with the Japanese Empire but did not mean a war with Germany and it could have been the German-American relationship might have been akin to the Soviet-Japanese from 1941 to 1945. By declaring war, it empowered Roosevelt to send American troops, aircraft and logistical support to Britain which ensured that country's survival and made the eventual liberation of Europe inevitable.
That's my fourpenceworth. Any other thoughts ?
The Soviets made a deal with the Japanese as early as September 1939, explains why they waited till the 17th of September to invade Poland from the east, 16 days after Germany invaded from the west.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
We the people are in charge.
Always remember that.
Anything else is not democracy, and is not free.
This is why the last year has created so much upheaval.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
In my view, there were three pivotal moments only one of which was relevant to Britain:
1) The choice of Churchill over Halifax in May 1940 meant a negotiated peace between London and Berlin was impossible and Hitler's only option was the military subjugation of Britain by invasion for which he lacked the means (and to an extent, the will).
2) The Soviet realisation Japan would attack south and east rather than north and west in 1941 - this allowed Zhukov to move the Siberian troops west and halt the German drive on Moscow. This in return meant a swift defeat of the USSR was impossible and the growing power of Russian industry combined with its resources of manpower made a German victory almost inconceivable.
3) Hitler's declaration of war on the United States - the Pearl Harbor attack brought the US into conflict with the Japanese Empire but did not mean a war with Germany and it could have been the German-American relationship might have been akin to the Soviet-Japanese from 1941 to 1945. By declaring war, it empowered Roosevelt to send American troops, aircraft and logistical support to Britain which ensured that country's survival and made the eventual liberation of Europe inevitable.
That's my fourpenceworth. Any other thoughts ?
Hitler's desire for a war of conquest, slavery and extermination in the Soviet Union rather than posing as a liberator against Stalinism.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
In my view, there were three pivotal moments only one of which was relevant to Britain:
1) The choice of Churchill over Halifax in May 1940 meant a negotiated peace between London and Berlin was impossible and Hitler's only option was the military subjugation of Britain by invasion for which he lacked the means (and to an extent, the will).
2) The Soviet realisation Japan would attack south and east rather than north and west in 1941 - this allowed Zhukov to move the Siberian troops west and halt the German drive on Moscow. This in return meant a swift defeat of the USSR was impossible and the growing power of Russian industry combined with its resources of manpower made a German victory almost inconceivable.
3) Hitler's declaration of war on the United States - the Pearl Harbor attack brought the US into conflict with the Japanese Empire but did not mean a war with Germany and it could have been the German-American relationship might have been akin to the Soviet-Japanese from 1941 to 1945. By declaring war, it empowered Roosevelt to send American troops, aircraft and logistical support to Britain which ensured that country's survival and made the eventual liberation of Europe inevitable.
That's my fourpenceworth. Any other thoughts ?
Very interesting. Out of interest, when Churchill took over from Chamberlain as PM did he also become leader of the Conservative party at the same time?
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
I would say that 'The War' has been detrimental because it has focused the national mentality on the wrong era.
What made Britain great wasn't the 1940s but the industrial revolution of the 18th century.
Likewise when people think of the British Empire it is the 'Jewel in the Crown' era, which was one of decline. Rather than the 18th century Empire when it was created.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
We the people are in charge.
Always remember that.
Anything else is not democracy, and is not free.
This is why the last year has created so much upheaval.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
Thanks to the EU, same sex partners had their pension rights compulsorily backdated for all pension attributable to service before 2005 by the Supreme Court today. Its healthy progressive influence will be sorely missed after Britain has left it.
I thought the UK had been pretty good on issues like these? For instance Germany has only now legalised gay marriage.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
It always strikes me as bizarre that the 'progressive' parties don't trust their own arguments sufficiently to entrust the future to the people.
Perhaps they're just aggressive, and unpopular, after all.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
In my view, there were three pivotal moments only one of which was relevant to Britain:
1) The choice of Churchill over Halifax in May 1940 meant a negotiated peace between London and Berlin was impossible and Hitler's only option was the military subjugation of Britain by invasion for which he lacked the means (and to an extent, the will).
2) The Soviet realisation Japan would attack south and east rather than north and west in 1941 - this allowed Zhukov to move the Siberian troops west and halt the German drive on Moscow. This in return meant a swift defeat of the USSR was impossible and the growing power of Russian industry combined with its resources of manpower made a German victory almost inconceivable.
3) Hitler's declaration of war on the United States - the Pearl Harbor attack brought the US into conflict with the Japanese Empire but did not mean a war with Germany and it could have been the German-American relationship might have been akin to the Soviet-Japanese from 1941 to 1945. By declaring war, it empowered Roosevelt to send American troops, aircraft and logistical support to Britain which ensured that country's survival and made the eventual liberation of Europe inevitable.
That's my fourpenceworth. Any other thoughts ?
Very interesting. Out of interest, when Churchill took over from Chamberlain as PM did he also become leader of the Conservative party at the same time?
Good job a leadership contest wasn't required!
No, Chamberlain remained as Conservative leader until his diagnosis of terminal cancer in October.
There's an interesting 'what if' there - what if Chamberlain dies a year / two years / three years earlier.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
You must be well into retirement, to think like that.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
Had you gone to a decent University you'd see the error you made becoming a fervent remainer. How many PMs have you guys had, again?
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
You must be well into retirement, to think like that.
Au contraire. I'm 30 and run my own business. Entrepreneurship gives you a different mindset. Trust in the future; it'll set you free.
.... we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
I would say that 'The War' has been detrimental because it has focused the national mentality on the wrong era.
What made Britain great wasn't the 1940s but the industrial revolution of the 18th century.
Likewise when people think of the British Empire it is the 'Jewel in the Crown' era, which was one of decline. Rather than the 18th century Empire when it was created.
The Americans left during the 18th century!
They were kicked out like an unruly teenager with a tendency to obesity.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
It always strikes me as bizarre that the 'progressive' parties don't trust their own arguments sufficiently to entrust the future to the people.
Perhaps they're just aggressive, and unpopular, after all.
Yeah, like the EU should be in charge of workers rights because a Tory government may reverse them. Well the EU could do the same, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it due to QMV.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
Had you gone to a decent University you'd see the error you made becoming a fervent remainer. How many PMs have you guys had, again?
We've not had any PMs as crap as the Oxford Librarian.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
Had you gone to a decent University you'd see the error you made becoming a fervent remainer. How many PMs have you guys had, again?
We've not had any PMs as crap as the Oxford Librarian.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
Had you gone to a decent University you'd see the error you made becoming a fervent remainer. How many PMs have you guys had, again?
We've not had any PMs as crap as the Oxford Librarian.
Even your fave went to Oxford....
And he overcame that disadvantage to become the greatest PM of this century.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
Well then, as part of a Federal Europe, restructure to make the EU Parliament the governing body with the appointed bureaucrats doing Parliament's bidding. Just like we do in the UK.
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
Had you gone to a decent University you'd see the error you made becoming a fervent remainer. How many PMs have you guys had, again?
We've not had any PMs as crap as the Oxford Librarian.
Even your fave went to Oxford....
And he overcame that disadvantage to become the greatest PM of this century.
You are williamglenn and I claim my five pounds....
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
Well then, as part of a Federal Europe, restructure to make the EU Parliament the governing body with the appointed bureaucrats doing Parliament's bidding. Just like we do in the UK.
Posts like this make it clear to me that there must be no option to retain some dodgy amorphous concept of 'EU Citizenship' after Brexit.
We make a clean break of it, or the Clarke and Soubry fanbois will be forever scheming....
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
I have to agree. I think we need to develop a vision of a Federal Europe and start pushing for that. I think that the last 5 or 10 years of politics have shown our politicians to be self-obsessed 3rd raters. Some form of external control may be a necessity to curb their worst excesses.
No thanks. The people should be in charge, not some unelected eurocrat.
Well then, as part of a Federal Europe, restructure to make the EU Parliament the governing body with the appointed bureaucrats doing Parliament's bidding. Just like we do in the UK.
Becoming part of a federal Europe? I can see that going down well in the country.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
37% of "The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way". The remaining 63% voted either to remain or could not be bothered to get off their backsides and do something.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
So instead 0% of them should get to choose and the unelected do everything?
I can't WAIT for the first day we're a sovereign nation again. Out of ECJ jurisdiction. Out of the stifling and protectionist single market and the ROW-trade constraining customs union.
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Bless, even David Davis said we were a sovereign nation whilst we were members of the EU.
Had you gone to a decent University you'd see the error you made becoming a fervent remainer. How many PMs have you guys had, again?
We've not had any PMs as crap as the Oxford Librarian.
Even your fave went to Oxford....
And he overcame that disadvantage to become the greatest PM of this century.
"The War" has been this country's biggest hobgoblin for decades. It has held us back because we believed that we were mega-special because "We won the war". The truth is that we formed alliances that helped us win the war. We did not do it ourselves. Alone, we barely held on and even then it was mostly due to Hitler's stupidity. If he had kept bombing airfields instead of switching to cities (as revenge for the mistaken bombing of Berlin) then the RAF would have been wiped from the skies and the outcome would have been very, very different.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
In my view, there were three pivotal moments only one of which was relevant to Britain:
1) The choice of Churchill over Halifax in May 1940 meant a negotiated peace between London and Berlin was impossible and Hitler's only option was the military subjugation of Britain by invasion for which he lacked the means (and to an extent, the will).
2) The Soviet realisation Japan would attack south and east rather than north and west in 1941 - this allowed Zhukov to move the Siberian troops west and halt the German drive on Moscow. This in return meant a swift defeat of the USSR was impossible and the growing power of Russian industry combined with its resources of manpower made a German victory almost inconceivable.
3) Hitler's declaration of war on the United States - the Pearl Harbor attack brought the US into conflict with the Japanese Empire but did not mean a war with Germany and it could have been the German-American relationship might have been akin to the Soviet-Japanese from 1941 to 1945. By declaring war, it empowered Roosevelt to send American troops, aircraft and logistical support to Britain which ensured that country's survival and made the eventual liberation of Europe inevitable.
That's my fourpenceworth. Any other thoughts ?
Very interesting. Out of interest, when Churchill took over from Chamberlain as PM did he also become leader of the Conservative party at the same time?
Good job a leadership contest wasn't required!
No, Chamberlain remained as Conservative leader until his diagnosis of terminal cancer in October.
There's an interesting 'what if' there - what if Chamberlain dies a year / two years / three years earlier.
Thanks.
Of course there are lots of interesting 'what-if' moments in 1940-41. C. J. Samsome's novel Dominion is chillingly enjoyable, splitting from reality at the point that Halifax rather than Churchill becomes PM on 10 May 1940, with dire consequences for Britain and the rest of Europe.
Comments
LEAVERs = RAF
EU = Luftwaffe
TSE = Lord Haw Haw
I would add, that here in Luton, Kelvin Hopkins and Labour Leave, were firmly of the view that the EU were driving down workers' rights.
b) They don't care any more. That ship's sailed.
Tusk and Macron are both on record saying that before the two years are out, Art.50 can be revoked or whatever you call it.
There will be a clamour for UK to stay in by the autumn of 2018. Who wants to swallow a suicide pill, once you know what it will do ?
TWBNB.
No more sophisticated than TSE
Google wins challenge against €1.1bn French tax bill
Until we know what the terms for re-accession would be, it's going to be difficult for any political party to adopt an overtly pro-rejoin position. There would still, I think, be enormous resistance to the imposition of the Euro and Schengen and probably Freedom of Movement even if other former EU conditions of membership became more palatable.
So we would be back to the kind of semi-detached "membership" we enjoyed or endured up to 2016.
To me, we either take the European option in full - surrender Sterling, immigration control and set ourselves on a probably irrevocable path to full political and fiscal union or we remain outside making our own way.
If OTOH Brexit is a roaring success then there would be huge resistance to rejoining.
It seems that we in the UK are Kinesthetic Learners - we have to experience the good or the bad before we can decide.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/885215369996234752
Because of that world view, we never engaged with the Messina talks and all the other negotiations which led ultimately to the foundation of the EEC.
After Suez, MacMillan believed our destiny lay with Europe not only militarily through the anti-Soviet alliance called NATO but economically as the Commonwealth was not strong enough and parts were moving closer to Washington.
That policy left us behind and at the mercy of the De Gaulle veto but from 1957 to 2016 successive British Governments followed the fundamental belief that our economic future was inexorably intertwined with Europe and our prosperity and Europe's prosperity were as one and we looked with envy at the West German economic "miracle" and wondered why we couldn't do the same because we had won the war and they had lost.
April 2016:
' The threat of a potential vote to leave the EU in June could be partly to blame for the first rise in unemployment in seven months, the work and pensions secretary has warned.
Stephen Crabb said the latest labour report, which showed the unemployment total rose by 21,000 in the three months to February to 1.7 million, was a signal that the looming EU referendum vote was hitting the jobs market. '
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/20/uk-unemployment-rises-and-pay-growth-falls
July 2017:
' UK unemployment fell by 64,000 to 1.49 million in the three months to May, official figures show. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40579523
But wasn't Stephen Crabb an acolyte of George Osborne ?
The same George Osborne who as Shadow Chancellor failed to predict a recession which happened and as Chancellor predicted a recession which didn't happen.
One cannot help but wonder if our current government would have deported them instead.
From that perspective, we did not win the war, Hitler threw it away.
Aside from the posturing about the world and Middle Eastern warmongering a justification of the increase in overseas aid was that it would make Britain an 'Aid Superpwer'.
It all looked so devilishly ingenious a year ago choosing three Brexiteers to negotiate Brexit. Even if it went wrong it wouldn't be her fault it would be theirs.....
She never really got the hang of this leadership lark
Stewart Jackson actually substantially increased his vote but lost because there was a huge increase for Labour:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
I really think there needs to be more of an look as to where all the extra Labour votes came from, often in much more unlikely places than Peterborough, which even the Labour party itself wasn't expecting.
There was a lot more to the general election result than the crapness of the Conservative campaign.
The EU expects its members to stay loyal to the club even when the pain ratchets up. The richer countries don't support the poor ones enough (Rich->Poor EU member transfer payments are approx. 1.5% of EU GDP, compared with Rich->Poor internal region transfers of about 8% of national GDP) and the northern countries' taxpayers wouldn't want their payments to increase 5x to help Greece, Portugal and Spain. Combined with the effects of the Euro, we see the EU institutions having to fudge their own rules to maintain Italian banks, etc. In the end economics will trump politics and the EU mechanisms will collapse under their own inconsistencies.
British foreign policy for centuries was to maintain a balance of power. Offering a flexible mechanism of true free trade without the requirements to cede national sovereignty to a body like the EU could be very attractive to our Northern European friends. If the EU plays hardball, we could offer our friends another tent to share and shelter in when that day comes.
And focusing on German mistakes tends to overlook Allied mistakes.
BTW Hitler threw away the war when he invaded Soviet Russia.
Biggest mistake in his leadership, worse than invading the Soviet Union.
1) The choice of Churchill over Halifax in May 1940 meant a negotiated peace between London and Berlin was impossible and Hitler's only option was the military subjugation of Britain by invasion for which he lacked the means (and to an extent, the will).
2) The Soviet realisation Japan would attack south and east rather than north and west in 1941 - this allowed Zhukov to move the Siberian troops west and halt the German drive on Moscow. This in return meant a swift defeat of the USSR was impossible and the growing power of Russian industry combined with its resources of manpower made a German victory almost inconceivable.
3) Hitler's declaration of war on the United States - the Pearl Harbor attack brought the US into conflict with the Japanese Empire but did not mean a war with Germany and it could have been the German-American relationship might have been akin to the Soviet-Japanese from 1941 to 1945. By declaring war, it empowered Roosevelt to send American troops, aircraft and logistical support to Britain which ensured that country's survival and made the eventual liberation of Europe inevitable.
That's my fourpenceworth. Any other thoughts ?
"Homosexuality is legal in Hungary for both men and women. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is banned in the country. However, households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same legal rights available to opposite-sex married couples."
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/885243456620244993
2017 - our Dunkirk, on the face of it a complete mess, but we live to fight another day
2020 - D Day!
What made Britain great wasn't the 1940s but the industrial revolution of the 18th century.
Likewise when people think of the British Empire it is the 'Jewel in the Crown' era, which was one of decline. Rather than the 18th century Empire when it was created.
Always remember that.
Anything else is not democracy, and is not free.
This is why the last year has created so much upheaval.
The wonderful British people, in all their glory, equal at the ballot box, decided that we'll be making our own way, thank you very much.
Why should anyone impose their narrow minded 'yeh just work a few hours a day' views on Labour on others. FFS when I was starting my business I was working 19 hour days.
And they said "fuck that, thank you very much."
Good job a leadership contest wasn't required!
They gave 12 seats to the party that wanted to reverse Brexit.
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/885248635478450176
Not just because of the manifold benefits it will present for the medium and long term future of this independent nation, but because it will finally wipe the smile off the 'Remain will win, oh we'll have a second referendum, nah we'll have to remain in-in-all-but-name, yeh we'll HAVE to be in Euratom' refuseniks.
Perhaps they're just aggressive, and unpopular, after all.
There's an interesting 'what if' there - what if Chamberlain dies a year / two years / three years earlier.
So Tories can scream about Labour opposing EU withdrawal.
And clean up at the subsequent election.
We make a clean break of it, or the Clarke and Soubry fanbois will be forever scheming....
It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esKnWAIgpLY
Riiiiight.
Of course there are lots of interesting 'what-if' moments in 1940-41. C. J. Samsome's novel Dominion is chillingly enjoyable, splitting from reality at the point that Halifax rather than Churchill becomes PM on 10 May 1940, with dire consequences for Britain and the rest of Europe.