Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Despite an overwhelming majority of voters thinking Brexit is
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Despite an overwhelming majority of voters thinking Brexit is going badly, a similar overwhelming majority still expect Britain to leave the EU
Whether or not you support it, do you think Britain will or will not go ahead with leaving the European Union:All Brits: 70% leave, 15% stayLeave: 77% leave, 13% stayRemain: 69% leave, 18% stay https://t.co/rHXCuZ3WKm pic.twitter.com/jHGXlT8zoB
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Also I might be tempted to be a bit more pro EU if it wasn't used as a constant weapon against Corbyn.
Are you thinking of 1940-41, which really was a bit shit - so much so that in summer 1940 the Foreign Secretary led a group urging a negotiated peace?
Let’s await the wording.
- It doesn't really say anything important;
- One side is dictating terms;
- One side isn't paying attention;
- It was all agreed beforehand
Guesses?
And the other is Chairman of the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea.
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1006401320713183232?s=21
Isn't it a good job Halifax talked him out of it? If the British had voted overwhelmingly for peace in 1938, that would have been awkward a year later.
After all, for all the Allied potential, had the Soviet Union collapsed politically, socially or economically - and that was certainly possible - the future for the Western Allies would have looked extremely bleak with 100+ German divisions freed up to attack into the Middle East, India or Britain directly, and unlimited raw materials supplied to Germany for next to nothing with which to do so. Sure, in the end, the atom bomb would have been decisive, even if Britain had to ask for terms, but no-one - not even Roosevelt or Churchill - knew that in 1942.
”In hindsight, do you think the UK was right or wrong to declare war on Germany in September 1930?”
If I were Churchill (at the time) I would have been pleased the Americans had declared war but very nervous about just how seriously they’d get involved, and whether they’d look for retribution against Japan above all else.
Embarrassing though the loss of Singapore was for the British, it wasn't fatal. Australia was the more important prize and the Japanese were never strong enough to attack it. By summer 1943 things looked distinctly better.
If you'll tell me that Brexit is now at its Singapore phase and will soon move on to Alamein, I'll be delighted, but colour me sceptical.
Germany declared war on America, not the other way around. I'm not sure whether Congress ever actually voted on war with Germany. In practical terms since Roosevelt had been more and more openly keeping Britain afloat with Lend Lease anyway the difference wasn't as great as it might have been.
Ironic that the final impact of a failure of the EU/UK to understand one another could be the absence of any deal at all.
After all Leavers think Brexit is going badly as with her transition period, exit bill and regulatory alignment May is not being pro Brexit enough
Not sure if the book is still in print but www.abebooks.co.uk is a great resource for old out of print and second hand books..
I agree re Singapore. All the same, it was a disastrous loss.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/image/SJRes119_WWII_Germany.htm
The difference was great: it meant that the US could send troops and air crew to the European theatre, as well as money and material.
Today and tomorrow are going to be important. At the moment it looks like May is going to get her way on all the votes. The only one thought to be at risk is the "meaningful vote" one. If May gets a clean sweep it is just possible that views on how well Brexit is going will start to change although the Summit later this month is more important still.
And yet that is exactly what CNN seeks to do.
so technically we did
Despite all the media meltdown, that remains true for the UK. The EU referendum was a binary decision, and a few of the Remainers regard themselves as unusually prescient and superior to the hoi polloi. The other lot were inherently inferior, hence the outraged reaction.
They are the wise ones and this shouldn't happen. They're even surprised that most people accept the decision.
With regard to the Soviet troops, Nazi atrocities against Slavs were enormously helpful in that regard. As I have said, initially many Soviet citizens were very pleased to see them, especially in those areas the Soviets had conquered and held by force - the Ukraine and the Baltic states. That didn't last. The irony of course is that under Order no. 227 the NKVD were themselves responsible for a vast number of deaths among Soviet soldiers.
What I meant was that the USSR was too big to be overcome as long as it kept fighting. When you look at his tactics with a cold eye, all Hitler's successes were due to the surrender of confused and demoralised opponents who found the Germans were unexpectedly quick and aggressive. That succeeded in France by the push through Ardennes, and failed in Britain where the natural defences were more formidable and the leader of the government point blank refused to even consider settlement. In Russia, the tactics nearly captured Moscow, but once that had failed there was no real hope of overcoming the Soviets.
One statistic to chew in. Behind the Volga there were 300 km of defensive emplacements. That's as long as the M1. Imagine trying to fight through that if there was any resistance. Can't be done quickly. And as long as there was no sudden collapse, the sheer size of the USSR was always bound to tell sooner rather than later, especially when coupled to the US and UK.
But, the truly remarkable thing is that these people simultaneously assert that they are the sole enlightened liberals in the country.
bowler hats all round
Because of the faulty intelligence the Germans were not adequately prepared for a winter campaign. Because Hitler had stupidly not focussed on the middle east there were shortages of oil. Because of the Battle of Britain there was insufficient air support. But their military was formidable. Thankfully they were led by an idiot.
I am bewildered that Grieve, who is a very able lawyer and vastly experienced Parliamentarian doesn't grasp this simple fact. Adonis, who is a stupider and more ignorant version of Michael Gove, it's less surprising.
https://twitter.com/jeffzeleny/status/1006425201607782400?s=21
https://twitter.com/jeffzeleny/status/1006427078865006593?s=21
EDIT: From the WSJ:
https://twitter.com/jchengwsj/status/1006423146549800960?s=21
We can withdraw Article 50.
(Yes, I know, that's not a fact. It's an untested legal hypothesis, but it's more factual than "German car makers will beg us for a deal")
I purposefully used the phrase following on from your oft-posted claims regarding the newspapers (Mail & Express).
PB has its unfair share of both and the country would be better served by all putting the national interest first rather than what they wanted yesterday.
Hitler had entered an unwinnable war against two opponents, America and the Soviet Union, whose sheer size and resources meant Germany was bound to lose. Perhaps if Hitler had stopped after the Battle of Britain, with the Soviet Union still an ally and an isolationist United States, things might look different now. Even then, as with the First World War, historians might have been left wondering what was the point.
There would still have been a vast chunk of land, larger than Germany albeit not necessarily with a larger population, left to the Soviets, and they would have kept fighting.
It is impossible to imagine under those circumstances the Germans would have held the area conquered for long.
And the national interest is best served by cancelling Brexit, right?
The reference to 1917 was that the governments (you rightly include the provisional govt too) wanted the war to go on but were incapable of enforcing that policy. That could have been an outcome in 1942 too had Stalin pushed either too hard or too soft.
She had to write an essay for Hitler for her history class. She put it off safe in knowledge she could just copy out her fathers copy of the Encylopaedia Britannica and no one would ever know.
The night before it was due she crept into his office and took down the right volume. She opened the entry to read “Hitler, Adolf : Recently elected Chancellor of Germany”
In practice I imagine the EU probably would play ball, with a huge sigh of relief, but if Spain had a hissy fit or Italy was without a government, what then?
No I didn’t start that part of the conversation!
I don't accept it is in the National interest, and it never will be
if you chose national meltdown ( in your eyes ) over the inconvenience of managing a few fruitcakes then you had your priorities wrong.
Anyway, I'm off. Have a good morning.
This is great news, apparently. So say the Brexiteers...