Why the north outside EU changes everything for the island

Folkstonian

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh the Irony, when Irish republicans talk about independence as if they are the only people on the planet that crave it, while decrying others that have similar aspirations.

This republican wants independence from the UK. This republican understands how the world works.
There is no such thing as the 'independence' Brexiteers prattle on about. The era they relish and lament was not an era of UK independence, they were in hock during most of it.
Now they ride shotgun for the nation that saved them from de Germans.

What are they gonna do with the gleaming new aircraft carriers when they become 'independent'? Re-colonise the world?

The English Channel and the RAF saved Britain from the Nazis, not the Americans. Do you have a poor grasp of European history or were you being deliberately offensive and demeaning? I’m not sure what the relevance is, other than seeing an opportunity to put the boot in.

On the point of independence, on the whole I’d agree that the world is a far more interconnected place and absolute sovereignty of any and all countries, even the US, is a thing of the past.

But like Scotland, like Brexit, it all comes down to what people want for their future. The thing that frustrates me about Brexit is the people who want a greater degree of autonomy whilst remaining inside the single market certain agencies.

The people who are willing to accept that their decision to leave will cause a bit of economic turbulence for a number of years, but see it as a worthwhile sacrifice to be able to limit immigration, or leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ, I don’t have a problem with.

As stated above, it’s not my position, I don’t agree, but I do see the logic, or the merit, of their argument.

Peregrinus

Folkstonian wrote: »

On the point of a potential second Scottish referendum on independence after Brexit, it would strike me that putting a barrier between themselve and England (with whom Scotland do 65% of their trade) would be a destructive and slightly illogical and response to the barriers established between Scotland and the Eu (with whom they do only 15% of their trade - less than a quarter of that they do with England)

Again, like Brexit, Scottish independence seems to me to be a situation where, economically, nobody wins, and I would prefer that neither happened.

But, again like Brexit, it is all about your convictions. And if the Scots believe that true independence from the U.K. is more important than full and frictionless access to that market (I do see the similarities to Brexit) then I might disagree but I won’t be offended by it - I wouldn’t see it as a demonstration of Scottish arrogance or xenophobia vis a vis their relationship with England or anything of that nature

The implications of Brexit for the Scottish independence movement are quite complex.

On the national pride/sentiment/instinct side, Brexit must fuel the desire for Scottish independence. Scotland has voted to remain in the EU but is being taken out because the English want to go. All models of Brexit are hugely damaging to Scotland. The degree of protection supposedly afforded to Scotland through the Sewell Convention has been shredded by appeals to the Will of the People. although apparently the Will of the Scottish People is an irrelevance. You couldn’t have a more graphic example of Scotland’s subordination to England, and of the complete disregard in England for the notion that they should exercise their power over Scotland in a way which attaches any weight to Scottish views or interests.

On the material/economic side, though, things are more balanced. Yes, Brexit is economically damaging to Scotland, and the harder the Brexit the truer this is. But, of course, the harder the Brexit the more disruptive separation from England is, economically speaking. The 2014 referendum was conducted at a time when both Scotland and England were in the Single Market and the Customs Union, and would aim to continue to be in the event of Scottish independence. Thus Scotland wasn’t required to choose between having an integrated British market and an integrated European market; both were available. But if there’s a hard Brexit that is no longer true; the Scots can choose one or the other, but not both. And, as Folkstonian points out, the economic arguments that make Brexit seem like a monumentally stupid idea, when transposed to the question of Scottish independence, make Scottish independence look like a monumentally stupid idea.

But we can’t ignore the fact that, despite its monumental stupidity in economic terms, the English voted for Brexit. They did this either because they regard the economic cost as a cost worth paying to achieve independence, or because they simply delude themselves into thinking that the economic cost will be nil or negligible, since they wish it to be so.

And, if the English can take that attitude, or a combination of those attitudes to Brexit, why should it be impossible that the Scots should do the same with respect to independence? Scotland as a nation is much more trampled on by the British union than the UK ever has been by the European Union - as the Brexit story itself demonstrates - so they have much more to gain by indepencece and might attach a correspondingly greater value to it. Plus, in the Scottish case the choice is not between economic stablity/progres/growth on the one hand and economic disruption/contraction on the other . Sticking with Brexit Britain will harm Scotland economically; Independence from Brexit Britain will probably harm Scotland more, but the calculation becomes a choice between two economic harms, once of which is associated with independence and one of which is not. That may affect how people think about the choice.

Folkstonian

I do think that the Brexit vote put the government in an impossible situation, of their own making of course, in that a decision to remain on the basis that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain whilst England voted in favour of leaving would probably have signalled a huge surge in English nationalist/ successionist sentiment, and would have been as likely, if not more so, to split the U.K. as a Scottish vote would have.

I do genuinely see where the Scottish anger comes from, but I dont see how, when the referendum was called, it could be done any differently. The U.K. isnt a federation and has never had any ambition to be.

Peregrinus

Folkstonian wrote: »

I do think that the Brexit vote put the government in an impossible situation, of their own making of course, in that a decision to remain on the basis that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain whilst England voted in favour of leaving would probably have signalled a huge surge in English nationalist/ successionist sentiment, and would have been as likely, if not more so, to split the U.K. as a Scottish vote would have.

I do genuinely see where the Scottish anger comes from, but I dont see how, when the referendum was called, it could be done any differently. The U.K. isnt a federation and has never had any ambition to be.

There's a couple of ways you could do it.

First, you could take the view that the Sewell Convention applies to referendums, and build in a "qualified majority" requirement; if a referendum affects devolved matters, then it will not be considered to have passed unless it secures both a UK-wide majority and a majority in the countries with devolved powers.

Or, you could build this into your commitment regarding implementation of the referendum; "we will respect the referendum result, but without violating the Sewell Convention". That in turn could mean either a Greenland-style partial exit from the EU, or negotiating a soft UK-wide Brexit that can secure support from the devolved institutions by taking account of Scottish and Irish concerns, and including measures to address them. You might even take the view that in the worst analysis you would not proceed with Brexit, the balance between the UK and its constituent parts and the autonomy assured by the Sewell Convention being of greater constitutional importance than the outcome of an advisory referendum.

Or no doubt you could think of other permutations. Brexiters are constantly appealing to others to be flexible and creative; here is an area where they might usefully have been flexible and creative themselves.

For the reason you point out, though, this is something you want to raise, address and decide when making the decision to hold the referndum, rather than after you know the referendum result. The anger of Brexiters at not getting the Brexit they wanted would be less, and would be more easily managed, if they had known all along that in order to acheive their objective they needed to secure more than a bare majority on the back of English votes.

From memory, the Scots Nats did in fact raise the issue when the referendum bill was before Parliament, and they proposed an amendment which would have required a qualified majority of this kind - I forget the details of the precise amendment. The government's response was that this wasn't necessary or appopriate, because the referendum was purely advisory and wouldn't bind Parliament to act in any particular way, or at all, and Parliament could deal with the referendum outcome in a way that respected the Sewell Convention, if that situation arose.

That worked well, didn't it?

FrancieBrady

Folkstonian wrote: »

The English Channel and the RAF saved Britain from the Nazis, not the Americans. Do you have a poor grasp of European history or were you being deliberately offensive and demeaning? I’m not sure what the relevance is, other than seeing an opportunity to put the boot in.

.

You cannot fight wars without money. When you are revising your European history (which I advise you to) look to where Blighty got the money.

Thomas_IV

Folkstonian wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh the Irony, when Irish republicans talk about independence as if they are the only people on the planet that crave it, while decrying others that have similar aspirations.

This republican wants independence from the UK. This republican understands how the world works.
There is no such thing as the 'independence' Brexiteers prattle on about. The era they relish and lament was not an era of UK independence, they were in hock during most of it.
Now they ride shotgun for the nation that saved them from de Germans.

What are they gonna do with the gleaming new aircraft carriers when they become 'independent'? Re-colonise the world?

The English Channel and the RAF saved Britain from the Nazis, not the Americans. Do you have a poor grasp of European history or were you being deliberately offensive and demeaning? I’m not sure what the relevance is, other than seeing an opportunity to put the boot in.

On the point of independence, on the whole I’d agree that the world is a far more interconnected place and absolute sovereignty of any and all countries, even the US, is a thing of the past.

But like Scotland, like Brexit, it all comes down to what people want for their future. The thing that frustrates me about Brexit is the people who want a greater degree of autonomy whilst remaining inside the single market certain agencies.

The people who are willing to accept that their decision to leave will cause a bit of economic turbulence for a number of years, but see it as a worthwhile sacrifice to be able to limit immigration, or leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ, I don’t have a problem with.

As stated above, it’s not my position, I don’t agree, but I do see the logic, or the merit, of their argument.

The clock is ticking away in favour of Scotland's IndyRef2 after the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal. Look forward to it, I really do, because it makes no sense to me that other parts of the UK who voted Remain in their majority should suffer the consequences of stupid elitarian English upper class feckers who can't ge enough to feed their greed and can't cease to ly to the people. That's what the Maybot, Farage, BoJo and J R-M do and the stupid tabloid reading English believes every sh1te they tell them.

indioblack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot fight wars without money. When you are revising your European history (which I advise you to) look to where Blighty got the money.

Britain raised money from the US in both world wars - from Wall Street and the US government. Most of this money was repaid. Wars, as you point out, cannot be prosecuted without money and it was fortunate for Britain that the US was there to give financial and material aid.
But you miss the point of the poster's reply to your off topic remark. Your post, as was pointed out, was simply an excuse to "put the boot in".

Thomas_IV

indioblack wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot fight wars without money. When you are revising your European history (which I advise you to) look to where Blighty got the money.

Britain raised money from the US in both world wars - from Wall Street and the US government. Most of this money was repaid. Wars, as you point out, cannot be prosecuted without money and it was fortunate for Britain that the US was there to give financial and material aid.
But you miss the point of the poster's reply to your off topic remark. Your post, as was pointed out, was simply an excuse to "put the boot in".

After WWII, the UK was on the brink of being bancrupt by the lend and lease agreement with the USA. The Attlee govt had to deal with it after the war ended. The Americans were rather tugh insisting on full repayment of the credits given the the UK to keep that lend and lease agreement afloat, even after the USA entered WWII themselves.

FrancieBrady

indioblack wrote: »

Britain raised money from the US in both world wars - from Wall Street and the US government. Most of this money was repaid. Wars, as you point out, cannot be prosecuted without money and it was fortunate for Britain that the US was there to give financial and material aid.
But you miss the point of the poster's reply to your off topic remark. Your post, as was pointed out, was simply an excuse to "put the boot in".

The point was about 'independence', which the UK never really had at any point. At any point in their history they were 'dependent' on somebody or something else for their survival or prosperity.

It wasn't a comparative point either, as I had to point out. Ireland as 26 or 32 counties is not and would not be truly 'independent either. We could however be 'independent' from British rule or interference.

In other words could we have less of the nonsense that Brexiteers spout about 'independence' and 'taking back control'. From this remove we have already seen that is pie in the sky, nostalgic drivel.

indioblack

Thomas_IV wrote: »

After WWII, the UK was on the brink of being bancrupt by the lend and lease agreement with the USA. The Attlee govt had to deal with it after the war ended. The Americans were rather tugh insisting on full repayment of the credits given the the UK to keep that lend and lease agreement afloat, even after the USA entered WWII themselves.

True. Britain had to negotiate another loan at the end of WW2. This was money and the lender expected repayment, plus interest. It was fortunate that Britain had access to resources during the war.

Capt'n Midnight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot fight wars without money. When you are revising your European history (which I advise you to) look to where Blighty got the money.

The Germans had captured the gold of many countries at that stage, but Poland and France got theirs away. Had France and the UK stood up for Austria, or Czechoslovakia or Poland then it could have been very different.

The myth is that the UK wasn't geared up for war and needed time.
But the Germans weren't geared up either. They'd be relying on horses for years. A quarter of the tanks used in the invasion of France came from Czechoslovakia. Had the war started in '38 it could have very different. No Czech gold or tanks and less imports of critical raw materials and fuel from the East and captured territories so the German war machine could have been hamstrung earlier.

A bit like Brexit really. The drop in sterling has made raw materials and energy imports more expensive and there may be worse to come.


The UK may have forgotten WWII , rest assured the continentals haven't. No one wants to go it alone against Russia. No one wants to be dominated by a big neighbour.

For NI the UK is a mixed blessing. Yes they get cold hard cash, but the local economy is falling behind and there's no promise the magic money tree will be there in future. Also consider the Tories will be out for revenge against the DUP. And FF are making noises about campaigning up North and they'd be acceptable to people who think SF are beyond the Pale. And there's demograhics. The DUP can't "protect" or "hold back" , depending on your viewpoint, the North for much longer.



Also a fifth of the pilots in the Battle of Britain weren't British. They had more combat experience and motivation. Even in '39 immigrants were propping up the country. In NI that demographic is changing too.



British National Party chairman Nick Griffin speaks at a fundraiser with the campaign poster featuring the Polish squadron plane in the background

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In other words could we have less of the nonsense that Brexiteers spout about 'independence' and 'taking back control'. From this remove we have already seen that is pie in the sky, nostalgic drivel.

Nice.

What the **** does this have to do with the thread?

indioblack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The point was about 'independence', which the UK never really had at any point. At any point in their history they were 'dependent' on somebody or something else for their survival or prosperity.

It wasn't a comparative point either, as I had to point out. Ireland as 26 or 32 counties is not and would not be truly 'independent either. We could however be 'independent' from British rule or interference.

In other words could we have less of the nonsense that Brexiteers spout about 'independence' and 'taking back control'. From this remove we have already seen that is pie in the sky, nostalgic drivel.

What I get from your post is basically relative independence, [and relative dependence]. If so, that's a broad canvas.

Thomas_IV

FrancieBrady wrote: »

indioblack wrote: »

Britain raised money from the US in both world wars - from Wall Street and the US government. Most of this money was repaid. Wars, as you point out, cannot be prosecuted without money and it was fortunate for Britain that the US was there to give financial and material aid.
But you miss the point of the poster's reply to your off topic remark. Your post, as was pointed out, was simply an excuse to "put the boot in".

The point was about 'independence', which the UK never really had at any point. At any point in their history they were 'dependent' on somebody or something else for their survival or prosperity.

It wasn't a comparative point either, as I had to point out. Ireland as 26 or 32 counties is not and would not be truly 'independent either. We could however be 'independent' from British rule or interference.

In other words could we have less of the nonsense that Brexiteers spout about 'independence' and 'taking back control'. From this remove we have already seen that is pie in the sky, nostalgic drivel.

That was no political dependence, it was economical dependence in regards of the resources and other material supplying the UK with from the colonies. For that reason, the UK was Independent and above all, the colonial master over 2/3 of the globe at the BE's peak time. It is in fact the very matter the Brexiteers dream of in their deluded nostalgia. It is this what they mean by 'independence' and 'taking back control', forgetting that these times are gone for ever.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Nice.

What the **** does this have to do with the thread?

It follows directly from your comment here:

Of course the scouts could continue to use sterling if they wanted to, but they would be subject to English monetary policy which may not be in their best interest and would be an odd sort of independence.

I am contesting the notion of 'independence' that means you completely isolate yourself.

No modern country is isolated completely and is 'dependent' in some way on other countries or other alliances with rule books.

steddyeddy

It's an indication of how much things when the former leader of the DUP says we should prepare for a united Ireland.

https://news.sky.com/story/prepare-for-a-united-ireland-says-ex-dup-leader-peter-robinson-11452266

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It follows directly from your comment here:



I am contesting the notion of 'independence' that means you completely isolate yourself.

No modern country is isolated completely and is 'dependent' in some way on other countries or other alliances with rule books.

Yes, very true. DeVelera tried it and it took the country fifty years to recover.

Now, what was all this **** about Brexiteers you were on about, you are jumping about all over the place.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's an indication of how much things when the former leader of the DUP says we should prepare for a united Ireland.

https://news.sky.com/story/prepare-for-a-united-ireland-says-ex-dup-leader-peter-robinson-11452266

That to me is a rather blunt indication of the divided state of Unionism at the moment.

Robinson is clearly sending a warning to Unionism that he cannot make within it for whatever reason.

Aegir wrote: »

Yes, very true. DeVelera tried it and it took the country fifty years to recover.

Now, what was all this **** about Brexiteers you were on about, you are jumping about all over the place.

I suppose we will have to let you have your little rant about Dev and stuff at this point, carry on there. :rolleyes:

An Claidheamh

Aegir wrote: »

Yes, very true. DeVelera tried it and it took the country fifty years to recover.

Now, what was all this **** about Brexiteers you were on about, you are jumping about all over the place.

Exactly what did DeValera do Aegir that isolated Ireland?

We took part in the League of Nations, supported small countries, set up international charities and opened embassies in countries.

Unless you're referring to his refusal to recognise a dictator/Anglican cleric/head general with a crown on his head or British piracy all over the world, as the premier race, as "isolation"?

If that's the case, it's another instance of Brexiteers failing to understand what things actually mean.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Its still a bit of a back water to be fair. It struggles to run itself responsibly, shows great immaturity in its ability to move beyond parish pump politics, boom and bust cycles, and novelty act joke TDs from backwoods within the backwater, like Kerry.
It certainly lagged embarrassingly, long after Lemass, and right up to the late 90s in income and industrial development. Even now, being propped up by a handful of foreign multinationals to an unhealthy degree, leaves it very vulnerable to a quick downturn. Its a backwater like NI all right.
If the two had any sense, they would join together as part of the UK, giving the island considerably more clout, preserving the unity of the island economically, socially, and day to day practicality, against the Brexit threat.
The republic's willingness to look the other way and let the six jump off a cliff alone while being rogered by Westminster, rather than stand with it and live up to a hundred years rhetoric about unity on the island is staggering hypocrisy.

What do you not understand about the fact that the Irish people do not want to rejoin the UK?

We've been there, done that, didn't like the way we were treated, and are not going back for more.

Rebuilding your empire, with Ireland as a starting point, is not an option.

Thomas_IV wrote: »

That was no political dependence, it was economical dependence in regards of the resources and other material supplying the UK with from the colonies. For that reason, the UK was Independent and above all, the colonial master over 2/3 of the globe at the BE's peak time. It is in fact the very matter the Brexiteers dream of in their deluded nostalgia. It is this what they mean by 'independence' and 'taking back control', forgetting that these times are gone for ever.

Any "Brexiteer" that I've spoken to, ( and I accept that people voted for Brexit for many reasons) invariably quoted Immigration, and the resultant strain on services, as being a major part of the motivation for leaving.
They felt they were paying for services, but were not benefiting from those services, because "others" - not necessarily from the EU, were coming in and freeloading.

Several took issue with ECJ judgements, and the inability of the UK to make its own laws.
Most of those I spoke to didn't understand the financial implications, but were convinced that making their own decisions about their economy was better than "being dictated to by Germany", to use a phrase quoted more than once.

All of those I spoke to resented the fact that David Cameron was unable to obtain any concessions from the EU, prior to the Brexit vote. They felt they were major financial contributors to the EU, but had no control over the rules - and they resented it.

In other words, successive governments managed to blame the EU for unpopular decisions, ( sometimes correctly, sometimes not) - and the end result was a revolt that was not anticipated.

There are plenty of little Englanders making noise about empire - but I suspect the majority of people just want a decent standard of living, and the right to self determination.

It's a reasonable aspiration, tbf.

Thomas_IV

Deleted User wrote: »

Thomas_IV wrote: »

That was no political dependence, it was economical dependence in regards of the resources and other material supplying the UK with from the colonies. For that reason, the UK was Independent and above all, the colonial master over 2/3 of the globe at the BE's peak time. It is in fact the very matter the Brexiteers dream of in their deluded nostalgia. It is this what they mean by 'independence' and 'taking back control', forgetting that these times are gone for ever.

Any "Brexiteer" that I've spoken to, ( and I accept that people voted for Brexit for many reasons) invariably quoted Immigration, and the resultant strain on services, as being a major part of the motivation for leaving.
They felt they were paying for services, but were not benefiting from those services, because "others" - not necessarily from the EU, were coming in and freeloading.

Several took issue with ECJ judgements, and the inability of the UK to make its own laws.
Most of those I spoke to didn't understand the financial implications, but were convinced that making their own decisions about their economy was better than "being dictated to by Germany", to use a phrase quoted more than once.

All of those I spoke to resented the fact that David Cameron was unable to obtain any concessions from the EU, prior to the Brexit vote. They felt they were major financial contributors to the EU, but had no control over the rules - and they resented it.

In other words, successive governments managed to blame the EU for unpopular decisions, ( sometimes correctly, sometimes not) - and the end result was a revolt that was not anticipated.

There are plenty of little Englanders making noise about empire - but I suspect the majority of people just want a decent standard of living, and the right to self determination.

It's a reasonable aspiration, tbf.

Sums it up and matches with what I have read (both articles and comments on UK media). Just the reasonable aspiration for self-determination in this global world is hard to implement when one Country is in fact rather small in compare to the big ones. Just like the UK of today who has no Empire anymore and I think that the sense of self-determination stems from the old times. Just the Brexiteers refuse to accept that those times are gone.

The liberal and (in some ways even exaggerated cos blind) attitude towards humanity as one of the pillars of the EU values as grown that unreasonable that the average population feels to be left behind and that immigrants count more than them. This is one of various reasons for why right-wing and far-right parties across the EU are gaining support. But the liberal minded in the EU won't accept that the mood towards Immigration among the people has changed and changes more towards being anti-Immigration due to a sense of self-preservation and a sense of common justice which means that one can only get benefits when one has paid into that system first. This refusal to change, means to adjust the way of how the EU handles the migration crisis is a folly of the liberals and they still try to ignore the shift of voters to the right because they see it as a matter of giving in to the right.

Thomas_IV

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Sums it up and matches with what I have read (both articles and comments on UK media). Just the reasonable aspiration for self-determination in this global world is hard to implement when one Country is in fact rather small in compare to the big ones. Just like the UK of today who has no Empire anymore and I think that the sense of self-determination stems from the old times. Just the Brexiteers refuse to accept that those times are gone.

The liberal and (in some ways even exaggerated cos blind) attitude towards humanity as one of the pillars of the EU values as grown that unreasonable that the average population feels to be left behind and that immigrants count more than them. This is one of various reasons for why right-wing and far-right parties across the EU are gaining support. But the liberal minded in the EU won't accept that the mood towards Immigration among the people has changed and changes more towards being anti-Immigration due to a sense of self-preservation and a sense of common justice which means that one can only get benefits when one has paid into that system first. This refusal to change, means to adjust the way of how the EU handles the migration crisis is a folly of the liberals and they still try to ignore the shift of voters to the right because they see it as a matter of giving in to the right.

Not really.


I think it's more a case of the bigger Countries economic needs taking precedence, to the detriment of the Democratic wishes of the people in the smaller Countries.


Or, to put it another way, ever closer union may be a bit of a wet dream for the political elites - but the people those elites are meant to serve don't necessarily agree.



Hence, the EU cannot be seen to get anything less than a bad deal for Britain, and a good deal for the EU, in case any other electorates decide to take the plunge.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really.


I think it's more a case of the bigger Countries economic needs taking precedence, to the detriment of the Democratic wishes of the people in the smaller Countries.


Or, to put it another way, ever closer union may be a bit of a wet dream for the political elites - but the people those elites are meant to serve don't necessarily agree.



Hence, the EU cannot be seen to get anything less than a bad deal for Britain, and a good deal for the EU, in case any other electorates decide to take the plunge.

I think you'll find that it's the other way round, the elites put their interests first, second & mostly third, only if there is a real risk of a revolt (that they can't put down) do they put the interests of their "subjects" first.

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

Yes, very true. DeVelera tried it and it took the country fifty years to recover.

Ah, yeah, if all else fails fall back on de Valera, the Great Satan. So you think when de Valera took over in 1932 that he was out on his own in the western world by introducing protectionist policies? Forget that every other state in the western world was also implementing the same, or stronger, "isolationist" economic policy...

And perhaps it might have been better for your beloved British Empire to have been more "isolationist" given its role as chief apologist for, and supporter of, Nazi Germany - in British foreign policy in the 1930s, the Nazis were far more preferable as a bulwark against Communism, although your history books very quickly whitewashed that after WWII to portray you as noble principled opposers of fascism - until it finally got the courage in September 1939 to stand up to Nazi Germany, a full four years after the Nuremberg Laws and numerous Nazi invasions of other countries. You didn't cover yourselves in glory in the Èvian Conferance in July 1938 either with your refusal to take more Jewish refugees.That, too, is whitewashed out of your "We entered WWII to save the Jews" propaganda.

And with that record people like you think you can condemn de Valera for following diplomatic protocol, a man who unlike slaveens like John Redmond in 1914 saved countless Irish lives by keeping us out of the British Empire's latest war of very, very many - 10 years before the supposedly morally superior Brits decided to intern almost a million Kenyans in what they euphemistically termed "enclosed villages" in defence of white British supremacy there. Such principled "saviours" indeed.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah, yeah, if all else fails fall back on de Valera, the Great Satan. So you think when de Valera took over in 1932 that he was out on his own in the western world by introducing protectionist policies? Forget that every other state in the western world was also implementing the same, or stronger, "isolationist" economic policy...

And perhaps it might have been better for your beloved British Empire to have been more "isolationist" given its role as chief apologist for, and supporter of, Nazi Germany - in British foreign policy in the 1930s, the Nazis were far more preferable as a bulwark against Communism, although your history books very quickly whitewashed that after WWII to portray you as noble principled opposers of fascism - until it finally got the courage in September 1939 to stand up to Nazi Germany, a full four years after the Nuremberg Laws and numerous Nazi invasions of other countries. You didn't cover yourselves in glory in the Èvian Conferance in July 1938 either with your refusal to take more Jewish refugees.That, too, is whitewashed out of your "We entered WWII to save the Jews" propaganda.

And with that record people like you think you can condemn de Valera for following diplomatic protocol, a man who unlike slaveens like John Redmond in 1914 saved countless Irish lives by keeping us out of the British Empire's latest war of very, very many - 10 years before the supposedly morally superior Brits decided to intern almost a million Kenyans in what they euphemastically termed "enclosed villages" in defence of white British supremacy there. Such principled "saviours" indeed.

Shut up you fool.

You have to be the biggest embarrassment on boards.

Banned.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hehe. Triggered once again. It's too easy.

It is easy for you, you can have a bigoted rant about the the British but the Brits on here ( or more specifically the English) won’t have a rant about the Irish, because we don’t have any grudges.

The only response is to call you out as the bigot that you are.

Let’s face it, everyone on here knows it. You are the boards equivalent of Tommy Robinson.

You are a fool and an embarrassment to your country.

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

It is easy for you, you can have a bigoted rant about the the British but the Brits on here ( or more specifically the English) won’t have a rant about the Irish, because we don’t have any grudges.

The only response is to call you out as the bigot that you are.

Let’s face it, everyone on here knows it. You are the boards equivalent of Tommy Robinson.

You are a fool and an embarrassment to your country.

You could, alternatively, stop falling into your anti-Dev rants and all their historical illiteracy. Or indeed be able to counter facts when challenged. But no, your head only has the ability to explode into intemperate, ad hominem attacks when challenged. As for being a "bigot" you seem to have a tic for calling everybody who doesn't share your Brexit-loving, Empire-loving views that.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You could, alternatively, stop falling into your anti-Dev rants and all their historical illiteracy. Or indeed be able to counter facts when challenged. But no, your head only has the ability to explode into intemperate, ad hominem attacks when challenged. As for being a "bigot" you seem to have a tic for calling everybody who doesn't share your Brexit-loving, Empire-loving views that.

Calling Dev’s policies of political and isolationism exactly hat they were ain’t a rant, it is stating a well known and often expressed opinion.

Your response is the very epitome of ad hominem, in that you attack a poster’s nationality rather than try and address anything relevant to the thread. When someone attacks someone based on their nationality, calling them a bigot is a reasonable thing to do.

Like I said, you are an embarrassment to boards and to your country.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you'll find that it's the other way round, the elites put their interests first, second & mostly third, only if there is a real risk of a revolt (that they can't put down) do they put the interests of their "subjects" first.

I'm not sure whether I phrased that badly, or you read it wrongly - but I meant that the people don't all want ever closer union.


I agree that the political elite put their own interests first, second, third - (and probably several more steps for good measure), while ignoring the people.


I believe Brexit was largely caused by that - and I suspect that the good citizens of more than one EU Country are watching the results carefully, to see how it works out.


The politicians in quite a few Countries have a tiger by the tail.(ie. An increasingly resentful electorate!).

It will be interesting to see how it all works out.

Junkyard Tom

Uncomfortable truths make Aegir very angry. Aegir SMASH Ireland.

indioblack

Deleted User wrote: »

Hehe. Triggered once again. It's too easy.

I was taken in as well. I find your manic rants entertaining and I've obviously made the mistake of taking them seriously. I should have known better when you mentioned DeValera and the fetish of observing protocol.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not sure whether I phrased that badly, or you read it wrongly - but I meant that the people don't all want ever closer union.


I agree that the political elite put their own interests first, second, third - (and probably several more steps for good measure), while ignoring the people.


I believe Brexit was largely caused by that - and I suspect that the good citizens of more than one EU Country are watching the results carefully, to see how it works out.


The politicians in quite a few Countries have a tiger by the tail.(ie. An increasingly resentful electorate!).

It will be interesting to see how it all works out.

Brexit was caused by that ?

Brexit is that.

The elites caused brexit because they are the ones paying for the lies. This wasn't people standing up against a delusion of rich people getting everything this was very rich people paying for lies to be told to a people under the impression immigrants were causing all their woes.


The EU countries are looking on alright in a sense that they will concede nothing to the UK because the type of infantile nonsense that's come from this whole independent spiel doesn't deserve any rewards.

They were never not independent that's one of the lies propagated in this very thread even by some poster who claims to have voted remain.

More of the lies that was told so a slim amount of already wealthy individuals can make more money and not be impacted by the EUs off shore tax directives coming in next year.

That's what it's all about ultimately.

And yes the north is going to get hammered economically and yes Scotland will exit the union in a few years. This is the result of lies. Well done all round to a small community of rich individuals protecting their off shore money and the assistance of a large eastern power set on Dismantling the largest longest peaceful trade block the world as seen .


Long may the EU continue

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And perhaps it might have been better for your beloved British Empire to have been more "isolationist" given its role as chief apologist for, and supporter of, Nazi Germany - in British foreign policy in the 1930s, the Nazis were far more preferable as a bulwark against Communism, although your history books very quickly whitewashed that after WWII to portray you as noble principled opposers of fascism - until it finally got the courage in September 1939 to stand up to Nazi Germany, a full four years after the Nuremberg Laws and numerous Nazi invasions of other countries. You didn't cover yourselves in glory in the Èvian Conferance in July 1938 either with your refusal to take more Jewish refugees.That, too, is whitewashed out of your "We entered WWII to save the Jews" propaganda.

If anyone was a Nazi sympathizer it was good ole' Dev.
Anyone who was an enemy of the hated Brits was good enough for him.
Ireland harboured Nazi refugees during and after WWII, but refused to take Jewish refugees and need I mention Dev sending his warmest and most heartfelt condolences following Hitler's death?
The Brits where fighting the Nazis while Ireland hid behind neutrality.
If it wasn't for those pesky Brits you would be speaking German today. Instead you speak, well, ahem, how shall I say this...the Queen's English.
Einen schönen Tag wünsche ich ihnen noch, der Herr.

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

Calling Dev’s policies of political and isolationism exactly hat they were ain’t a rant, it is stating a well known and often expressed opinion.

Three people have now asked you to defend that "opinion" with historical facts. Alas, all you seem to be capable of doing is repeating the claim and exploding at anybody who challenges it. That is strange behaviour, in fairness.

Aegir wrote: »

Your response is the very epitome of ad hominem, in that you attack a poster’s nationality rather than try and address anything relevant to the thread. When someone attacks someone based on their nationality, calling them a bigot is a reasonable thing to do.

Like I said, you are an embarrassment to boards and to your country.

Ah, I see; you read things in posts that aren't actually there and then go nuts because, for instance, you deem an attack on the views of Brexit-loving, Empire defenders such as yourself to be an attack on the English/British. Newsflash: there are millions of British people who are not supporting Brexit or any of the other jingoistic stuff that you get so decidedly tetchy about when it's challenged. Ken Clarke and similarly intelligent, open-minded and decent English people must throw you completely over the edge with rage.

As insults go "an embarrassment to your country and to Boards" is genuinely funny so well done for that.

indioblack

indioblack wrote: »

I find your manic rants entertaining and I've obviously made the mistake of taking them seriously. I should have known better when you mentioned DeValera and the fetish of observing protocol.

I recall an elderly man once summarising an unsurprising view from his political opponent with the remark 'What can one expect from a pig but a grunt.'. It seems apposite now.

The Rape of Lucretia

Many people in Eire have become comfortable for a long time with NI being a foreign country. Getting the 6 back with the 26 just isnt an issue for them. Particularly since the peace, and effectively its free and peaceful travel to have the north as part of their daily activities whether business, family, friends, shopping, tourism, sporting etc.

But for any in the south for whom a restored 32 is still a goal and matters to them, they are faced with two choices now :

1) Play the waiting game. Let the north move further adrift in Brexit, economically, with travel restrictions or controls, be outside the EU and the loss of all the integration and commonality that that brings, and be a backward step. But hope that in the longer term, the 6 decide that joining the 26 is the best option to restore EU membership, leave a downward spiral post-Brexit UK, with a sufficient number of protestants deciding giving up the Union Jack is then a price worth paying.

or

2) Moving that the 26 join the UK. ie. that southerners make the hard step and decide that sticking with the 6, whatever downside Brexit may bring, and join the UK. Reckoning that rejoining the UK is a price worth paying to keep the island as integrated as possible.


Its a tough choice. But one exercising the minds of all people for whom a unified 32 county Ireland is still important.

indioblack

Deleted User wrote: »

I recall an elderly man once summarising an unsurprising view from his political opponent with the remark 'What can one expect from a pig but a grunt.'. It seems apposite now.

Intelligent creatures, pigs.
"Pigs treat us as equals".

Capt'n Midnight

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

2) Moving that the 26 join the UK. ie. that southerners make the hard step and decide that sticking with the 6, whatever downside Brexit may bring, and join the UK. Reckoning that rejoining the UK is a price worth paying to keep the island as integrated as possible.


Its a tough choice. But one exercising the minds of all people for whom a unified 32 county Ireland is still important.

It's not a tough choice.

The Rape of Lucretia

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's not a tough choice.

To some it is. And rejoining the UK is, understandably, difficult for many in the south to stomach given the mythology that has been built up about those responsible a hundred years ago for leaving it in the first place. While the wait and hope option has its merits too, it is too a great extent, out of our hands. The only one southerners can truly act on, is to go for the reunification option. But leadership of all political parties seem very reticent on it so far. With Westminster so confused on Brexit anyway, let alone a coherent policy for a deal, it probably wouldbe jumping the gun to be openly advocating for it. But it is worth opening the conversation in the south at least, and when the Brexit outcome (if not called off) is clearer, it can be brought more to the foreground.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Brexit was caused by that ?

Brexit is that.

The elites caused brexit because they are the ones paying for the lies. This wasn't people standing up against a delusion of rich people getting everything this was very rich people paying for lies to be told to a people under the impression immigrants were causing all their woes.


The EU countries are looking on alright in a sense that they will concede nothing to the UK because the type of infantile nonsense that's come from this whole independent spiel doesn't deserve any rewards.

They were never not independent that's one of the lies propagated in this very thread even by some poster who claims to have voted remain.

More of the lies that was told so a slim amount of already wealthy individuals can make more money and not be impacted by the EUs off shore tax directives coming in next year.

That's what it's all about ultimately.

And yes the north is going to get hammered economically and yes Scotland will exit the union in a few years. This is the result of lies. Well done all round to a small community of rich individuals protecting their off shore money and the assistance of a large eastern power set on Dismantling the largest longest peaceful trade block the world as seen .


Long may the EU continue

Who on earth claimed Brexit was "people standing up against a delusion of rich people getting everything"?
I certainly didn't!
The reality is, people were told lies by the political elite - on both sides.
Brexiteers promised Utopia, Remainers spent years blaming the EU for every unpopular decision, whether deservedly, or not.


Your definition of "Independent" must be different to mine, because when the laws of a Sovereign Country can be dictated by foreign Governments, they are not Independent.
Whether they signed an accord, or not - the minute any other Country can dictate policy, be that on Immigration, Legislation, or pretty much anything else - that Country is no longer Independent.


The British people rejected the EU. They were fully entitled to make that decision.
I hope it works out for them, though I have little doubt that the EU will make it as difficult as possible, because a successful Brexit might encourage other Countries to leave.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Many people in Eire have become comfortable for a long time with NI being a foreign country. Getting the 6 back with the 26 just isnt an issue for them. Particularly since the peace, and effectively its free and peaceful travel to have the north as part of their daily activities whether business, family, friends, shopping, tourism, sporting etc.

But for any in the south for whom a restored 32 is still a goal and matters to them, they are faced with two choices now :

1) Play the waiting game. Let the north move further adrift in Brexit, economically, with travel restrictions or controls, be outside the EU and the loss of all the integration and commonality that that brings, and be a backward step. But hope that in the longer term, the 6 decide that joining the 26 is the best option to restore EU membership, leave a downward spiral post-Brexit UK, with a sufficient number of protestants deciding giving up the Union Jack is then a price worth paying.

or

2) Moving that the 26 join the UK. ie. that southerners make the hard step and decide that sticking with the 6, whatever downside Brexit may bring, and join the UK. Reckoning that rejoining the UK is a price worth paying to keep the island as integrated as possible.


Its a tough choice. But one exercising the minds of all people for whom a unified 32 county Ireland is still important.

There's nothing remotely difficult about that decision.
The UK hasn't shown any great interest in the North, or how Brexit will destroy it economically. They have shown no interest in the wishes of the Scots, or N. Irish, wish to remain part of the EU.



They'd be even less likely to care about how Ireland fared, and, as I've already said, we've been there, done that - and we've no desire to go back for more.

zapitastas

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

To some it is. And rejoining the UK is, understandably, difficult for many in the south to stomach given the mythology that has been built up about those responsible a hundred years ago for leaving it in the first place. While the wait and hope option has its merits too, it is too a great extent, out of our hands. The only one southerners can truly act on, is to go for the reunification option. But leadership of all political parties seem very reticent on it so far. With Westminster so confused on Brexit anyway, let alone a coherent policy for a deal, it probably wouldbe jumping the gun to be openly advocating for it. But it is worth opening the conversation in the south at least, and when the Brexit outcome (if not called off) is clearer, it can be brought more to the foreground.

The only ones that would advocate for that would be you and an insane homeless fella called mad Mickey that lives down on the boardwalk

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who on earth claimed Brexit was "people standing up against a delusion of rich people getting everything"?
I certainly didn't!
The reality is, people were told lies by the political elite - on both sides.
Brexiteers promised Utopia, Remainers spent years blaming the EU for every unpopular decision, whether deservedly, or not.


Your definition of "Independent" must be different to mine, because when the laws of a Sovereign Country can be dictated by foreign Governments, they are not Independent.
Whether they signed an accord, or not - the minute any other Country can dictate policy, be that on Immigration, Legislation, or pretty much anything else - that Country is no longer Independent.


The British people rejected the EU. They were fully entitled to make that decision.
I hope it works out for them, though I have little doubt that the EU will make it as difficult as possible, because a successful Brexit might encourage other Countries to leave.







There's nothing remotely difficult about that decision.
The UK hasn't shown any great interest in the North, or how Brexit will destroy it economically. They have shown no interest in the wishes of the Scots, or N. Irish, wish to remain part of the EU.



They'd be even less likely to care about how Ireland fared, and, as I've already said, we've been there, done that - and we've no desire to go back for more.

Laughable stance amongst other laughable stances.

The UK represents itself in drawing up directives .

This utter crap about having no sovereignty is more of the inane waffle that Facebook plebs spout around the place.

This country amongst others in the EU would be nothing without it.

I'd say it annoys the ****e out of you that Irish people continually reject the notion of irexit.

Sent farage packing last year too.


The polls don't lie. Only idiots or agenda morons call for the break up of the EU.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

There's nothing remotely difficult about that decision.
The UK hasn't shown any great interest in the North, or how Brexit will destroy it economically. They have shown no interest in the wishes of the Scots, or N. Irish, wish to remain part of the EU.

They'd be even less likely to care about how Ireland fared, and, as I've already said, we've been there, done that - and we've no desire to go back for more.

This.

We tried being part of the UK. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way.

Then we tried an interesting experiment where part of the country stayed within the UK, and the other part became independent. We've been running that experiment for nearly a hundred years now, and the results are pretty well unarguable.

And, if that wasn't enough, we look at how Scotland and Wales get treated in a union with England and think, "yeah, no thanks".

Duckworth_Luas

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

... need I mention Dev sending his warmest and most heartfelt condolences following Hitler's death?

No matter how often this is shown to be bull$hit it keeps getting posted on Boards.

The way the story goes is that Dev, upon hearing of Hitler's suicide, put on his top hat and tails, jumped in the state car which, flanked by the Blue Hussars, drove to the German embassy. There, after giving the Nazi salute, de Valera signed a book of condolence for his fallen facist comrade.

Guess what? Complete bullsh1t!

De Valera's government had expressly stated that they would only accept an ambassador from Germany who was not a Nazi party member. Given that two of Dev's closest friend were Jews this was not out of character, nor was the fact he wrote a European constitution that recognised the Jewish faith, in the bloody 1930s.

The Nazis acquiesced to de Valera's demands and appointed non party member Eduard Hempel to the role. However, one year later the Nazi's forced Hempel to join their party or else leave the German diplomatic corps.

During the war Hempel acted impeccably, accepting Ireland's neutrality. This was in sharp contrast to the USA ambassador of the time, David Gray.

While Dev had a fractious relationship with Gray, his assocciations with Hempel were amicable. The Americans and British demanded the German delegation be removed from Ireland, even though the state was neutral. This is something which worried the German ambassador as the war drew to a close.

With Germany's complete defeat now imminent, de Valera paid a visit to Hempel's residence, not the embassy. He never signed a book of condolence as one never existed.

Instead, Dev informed Hempel that he need not worry about being handed over to the Allies. In the end the Allies never accused Hempel of anything and eventually he returned to West Germany.

Years later, Hempel's now widow, was paid a visit by an Irish journalist, who asked her about the book of condolences de Valera signed at the German embassy. Her reply was basically, "what the fcuk are you talking about?".

In 1966 the Eamon de Valera Forest was planted in Nazareth as a mark of respect to a European politician who specifically protected Jews in his personally drafted constitution.

Thomas_IV

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

... need I mention Dev sending his warmest and most heartfelt condolences following Hitler's death?

No matter how often this is shown to be bull$hit it keeps getting posted on Boards.

The way the story goes is that Dev, upon hearing of Hitler's suicide, put on his top hat and tails, jumped in the state car which, flanked by the Blue Hussars, drove to the German embassy. There, after giving the Nazi salute, de Valera signed a book of condolence for his fallen facist comrade.

Guess what? Complete bullsh1t!

De Valera's government had expressly stated that they would only accept an ambassador from Germany who was not a Nazi party member. Given that two of Dev's closest friend were Jews this was not out of character, nor was the fact he wrote a European constitution that recognised the Jewish faith, in the bloody 1930s.

The Nazis acquiesced to de Valera's demands and appointed non party member Eduard Hempel to the role. However, one year later the Nazi's forced Hempel to join their party or else leave the German diplomatic corps.

During the war Hempel acted impeccably, accepting Ireland's neutrality. This was in sharp contrast to the USA ambassador of the time, David Gray.

While Dev had a fractious relationship with Gray, his assocciations with Hempel were amicable. The Americans and British demanded the German delegation be removed from Ireland, even though the state was neutral. This is something which worried the German ambassador as the war drew to a close.

With Germany's complete defeat now imminent, de Valera paid a visit to Hempel's residence, not the embassy. He never signed a book of condolence as one never existed.

Instead, Dev informed Hempel that he need not worry about being handed over to the Allies. In the end the Allies never accused Hempel of anything and eventually he returned to West Germany.

Years later, Hempel's now widow, was paid a visit by an Irish journalist, who asked her about the book of condolences de Valera signed at the German embassy. Her reply was basically, "what the fcuk are you talking about?".

In 1966 the Eamon de Valera Forest was planted in Nazareth as a mark of respect to a European politician who specifically protected Jews in his personally drafted constitution.

That is an interesting version to this controversial story. It is as controversial like the very character of Dev himself and the way he run things. On the one hand, Ireland was maintaining her neutrality and German military personnel were kept in PoW camps til the end of the war. On the other hand British military personnel were turned a blind eye if they tried to escape such camps to cross the border to NI and thus rejoining the British Forces. Some were even not brought to camps but directly brought to the border. Whether this was done on 'request' of the Western Allies is some matter to itself. Fact is, that Irelands neutrality policy had its special dealings. I don't blame Dev for that as I think that every effort to help the Western Allies against Nazi Germany was the right Thing to do.

Mr Hempel was told by the German govt to accept Irelands neutrality and imo there is no personal credit to him that acted accordingly, being told to do so. Whether there really was a book of condolence at the German Mission in Dublin at the end of the war I am not sure about it. Anyway, there wouldn't have been too many from other missions who would bother to condole on the death of Hitler. Your post depicts Dev going to the German Mission to convey his condolence on Hitler's death as a more private matter by himself. The media at that time made a big deal of that and the Americans were as much outraged by that story like the British as well. Dev claimed that he was merely following diplomatic protocoll which makes your as private matter depicted visit to Mr Hempel an official one and this was the way the issue was dealt with.

The interview of Hempels widow who knew nothing about that condolence book proves nothing to me. She might not have know about this at all, given that she really was present there at the time. From what I recall about this matter, Dev didn't went to the German Mission a few days after Hitler's death hit the Headlines on international newspapers, he went there a couple of days afterwards, if I am not wrong shortly after Germany had surrendered unconditionally. This was the point which caused much irritation among many people. More so after the horrors committed by the Nazis and their collaborators across German occupied countries emerged in due course of the Allies advance into those countries and Germany itself. To even consider to condole on the death of a mass murderer is really beyond any reasonable conduct.

blinding

There is absolutely no chance of the 26 Counties rejoining Britain .

And there is no chance of Britain staying in the Eu . If Democracy were to fall in Britain and the Country was kept in the Eu against the Democratic will of the people there would a Violent Uprising to Protect Democracy .

Democracy is far more important than the Eu .

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

There is absolutely no chance of the 26 Counties rejoining Britain .

And there is no chance of Britain staying in the Eu . If Democracy were to fall in Britain and the Country was kept in the Eu against the Democratic will of the people there would a Violent Uprising to Protect Democracy .

Democracy is far more important than the Eu .

If democracy were to fall in Britain there might well be a violent uprising. (Or even a Violent Uprising.)

However, if the British were to take a democratic decision to remain in the EU, and did remain, that wouldn't be democracy falling. It would be the opposite, in fact. In that scenario the British could certainly remain in the EU without a violent uprising.

If the British are not allowed to take a democratic decision to remain in the EU after all then, obviously democracy has already fallen. In that event there may well be a violent uprising, and I confidently expect that blinding will join it.

blinding

Peregrinus wrote: »

If democracy were to fall in Britain there might well be a violent uprising. (Or even a Violent Uprising.)

However, if the British were to take a democratic decision to remain in the EU, and did remain, that wouldn't be democracy falling. It would be the opposite, in fact. In that scenario the British could certainly remain in the EU without a violent uprising.

If the British are not allowed to take a democratic decision to remain in the EU after all then, obviously democracy has already fallen. In that event there may well be a violent uprising, and I confidently expect that blinding will join it.

There has been a democratic decision to leave ; 17.4 million Voters followed by a general election where parties that promised to respect the referendum got 84% of the Vote .

Thomas_IV

Peregrinus wrote: »

blinding wrote: »

There is absolutely no chance of the 26 Counties rejoining Britain .

And there is no chance of Britain staying in the Eu . If Democracy were to fall in Britain and the Country was kept in the Eu against the Democratic will of the people there would  a Violent Uprising to Protect Democracy .

Democracy is far more important than the Eu .

If democracy were to fall in Britain there might well be a violent uprising.  (Or even a Violent Uprising.)

However, if the British were to take a democratic decision to remain in the EU, and did remain, that wouldn't be democracy falling.  It would be the opposite, in fact.  In that scenario the British could certainly remain in the EU without a violent uprising.

If the British are not allowed to take a democratic decision to remain in the EU after all then, obviously democracy has already fallen.  In that event there may well be a violent uprising, and I confidently expect that blinding will join it.

That is all well put and I can only add that the tensions in the UK for which the growing polarisation in their Society due to this Brexit idiocy is responsible makes it more likely that either way, there will be years of discontent which can easily lead to violent erruptions across the country. That goes for Brexit itself and it goes for the aftermath when the UK has exited the EU and Scotland is pressing for IndyRef2. If the result of IndyRef2 is a majority in favour of Scotland's Independence, the Unionists in Scotland will get furious, such as they are already whenever an independent Scotland is the topic of discussions. UK unionists in Scotland are often as fierce in their convictions like the Brexiteers are in theirs. That means that no reasonable and rational Argument can convince them of being wrong in clinging on to a Union past Brexit which will drag the whole of the UK into the economical and financial decline because of the no deal Brexit which will eventually be the result of this hazardous folly.

I am always for non-violence but I cannot dismiss the real possibility that frustration and anger that comes from that and with that will plunge the UK into domestic unrest and violence on the streets.

Thomas_IV

blinding wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

If democracy were to fall in Britain there might well be a violent uprising.  (Or even a Violent Uprising.)

However, if the British were to take a democratic decision to remain in the EU, and did remain, that wouldn't be democracy falling.  It would be the opposite, in fact.  In that scenario the British could certainly remain in the EU without a violent uprising.

If the British are not allowed to take a democratic decision to remain in the EU after all then, obviously democracy has already fallen.  In that event there may well be a violent uprising, and I confidently expect that blinding will join it.

There has been a democratic decision to leave ; 17.4 million Voters followed by a general election where parties that promised to respect the referendum got 84% of the Vote .

How surprising is that considering that the Maybot has lost her secure majority in the Commons which Cameron provided for her in his last GE which he won but the Maybot was gambling and greedy to even top that but lost in the end and is now depending on the backing of her tiny majority by the nasty DUP. Your stance is as dogmatic like that of any other Brexiter.